Jim Gouk

[Petitions, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents who add their signatures to the thousands, if not tens or even hundreds of thousands who have already written in concerned about their lack of access, or their potential lack of access to natural health products. They wish to have that freedom of choice.

They call on the government to not only support the German delegation and the World Health Organization Codex delegation, but any other move by a government that would take away their right of free choice to make decisions on health products for their own health care.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I would not like to leave on record two inaccuracies that were mentioned tonight. The first was when the President of Treasury Board said that they took arbitration away this time because of a whole series of new classifications. I want the record to show that the right to arbitration has been taken away for two successive years at budget time, not just for this set of negotiations.

It was also stated that the conciliation recommendation covered four areas when it covered two. It covered pay and it covered training. The training clause was watered down so much that even I do not accept it. Yet they were prepared to accept it.

The President of the Treasury Board specifically said that by comparison wage parity with the RCMP was included. Wage parity with the RCMP would require about a 38% increase. The conciliation report ranged between 12.5% and 14.2%. Let the record show accurately what happened and not what has been stated by the President of the Treasury Board.

The question I would like to ask goes back to what I asked three times now and did not get an answer to except under the most insulting terms CX workers could possibly imagine. I asked how they could possibly negotiate in good faith with the government in the future, given that the government had taken away arbitration and given that the government had essentially rejected conciliation, had taken away their right to strike and had said it would designate them.

His response the third time I asked the question was that if they did not like it they could quit because there were lots of people who would work for less. Prisoners work for $5.65 a day. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will get the prisoners to look after themselves, or maybe the CX employees could lock themselves up because it seems they would have more rights that way.

I would like to ask this question for the fourth time to see if I can get a logical and acceptable answer. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how employees like the CX group will be able to negotiate in good faith with the government in the future when they have lost the right of binding arbitration, when the government rejects their conciliation, rules them back to work instead of allowing strikes and goes to full designation? How will they negotiate in the future?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I still have not received an answer to a question twice asked. How are the CXs supposed to negotiate in good faith with the government in the future when they are being told they are designated, they cannot go on strike? They have had the right to binding arbitration taken away from them and the government has now proved that unless the conciliation report says what the government wants, it will not accept that either.

How in the future are they supposed to bargain in good faith in light of what the government has done to them this time?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I want to finish off with the answer I did not get from the President of the Treasury Board.

I specifically asked how unions and more specifically the CX employees are supposed to bargain in good faith if the government takes away every single tool that they have. He said that the arbitration has not been used, yet the government saw fit to take it away from them.

Now we have a situation where they are designated. The government is saying it still left them with the right to conciliate and strike. If the government does not like the report of the conciliator, it will take that right away from them too, but the government will keep rights on its side. We have an incredible imbalance.

One of two items that is in this proposal of the conciliation board, and there are only two, deals with pay and training. I am a member of the subcommittee studying the CCRA. I have been in the Pacific region and I have been in Atlantic Canada. Training is non-existent. Guards are being asked to do a job which they do not know the details of or what the rules are because there is no training. That was one of the two items.

If this is such an unacceptable conciliation report, is the government saying it does not care what they make, it does not care if they are trained and it does not care if they have any rights any more? How is the CX employee supposed to bargain in good faith when the two things the government said that were their tools in the event of a failure to settle a dispute are taken away? How are they supposed to negotiate in the future if they are told no arbitration, no strike and it will not accept conciliation unless it says exactly what the government wants it to say?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, before I start, is this the supplemental I did not get or is this a new one which will give me a supplemental?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Could I ask why it seems that almost everybody is getting supplementaries but I did not?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I ask a question specifically relating to the solicitor general group, group four. Some time ago that bargaining group had two options other than negotiations when there was a problem. They could either have conciliation and the right to strike or they could have binding arbitration.

This government has taken away their right for binding arbitration and has left them only with conciliation and strike. So they went for conciliation, and the conciliation panel, never mind that there was a dissenting report, there was a majority report. They are prepared to accept that. The only thing that the government has left them is conciliation and the government is rejecting that.

It was only through a slip-up on the part of the government. In actual fact it was a big slip-up, mainly because there were unfilled positions that did not get designated and the government could not designate something it said was not important enough to fill, then it turned around and filled them. That is why it has the problem.

The position now is that the only thing left for these people is conciliation. They went that route and accepted it. The government is saying, “We are going to designate you so you cannot go on strike. We have taken away arbitration and now we will not accept conciliation”.

How does the President of the Treasury Board justify the fact that the government has taken away the two options they had? It has taken away strike and it is going to designate them. How are they ever in good faith supposed to negotiate with this government when the government has totally emasculated them and taken away every opportunity for action against the government? They rely only on the goodwill of government and that is not very strong these days.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member totally, non-stop, throughout the speech of my colleague who spoke before me kept saying “Let's have the solution”. “Let's have the solution”.

Now I stand poised to try to give that to him, but his mouth is going so fast that he cannot get his ears into gear. That is probably why they cannot get these solutions.

There is only one justification for any government. That justification is to do for people those things that they cannot or will not do for themselves. That is the fundamental purpose of government.

If we go with that premise, then we start at the federal level and say that some things can best be done and need to be done at the federal level. There are also a lot of things that are currently being done at the federal level, sometimes exclusive of provincial government, but sometimes inclusive of provincial governments where there are overlaps. All governments need to reduce themselves to doing only those things which the people cannot or will not do for themselves. Then those items need to be brought back as close to the people they serve as possible, because after all we keep suggesting we live in a democracy. If we do live in a democracy, then we should also recognize that we as elected officials are not the rulers of people, we are the representatives of people. We are supposed to represent the will of those people.

How better to do that than make sure the services we provide them are provided at the closest level of representation possible so that people have the most input into that process. If the federal government would do that, reduce to doing about 20 things and make sure that it does them well and gets out of all the other things, it could reduce the size of federal government, transferring those responsibilities and duties to closer levels of government to the people. If it did that successfully then we could reach a point where we could return to the way this country used to be run where there was no federal taxation whatsoever. Taxation was at the provincial level.

That is the way this country started out. We had provincial taxation. The federal government of the day back during a world war said we need taxation to pay for the war effort. The government does not seem to realize the war is long over. Even with all that taxation revenue coming in and the war over, it has run up this incredible debt.

Governments are starting to recognize the folly of deficit finance. Governments at the provincial and federal levels are starting to recognize that. Let us keep it going. Let us get back to the point where we say that there are only certain things the federal government should be doing. Stop doing all the other things and give the responsibility back where it belongs to the provinces and possibly even closer.

If the government does that successfully then we can have taxation at the provincial level alone. Where then does the federal government get its money? It gets its money by billing the provinces a fee for services rendered. It bills them on the basis of the provincial GDP. There is the equalization, notwithstanding the truthful comments that my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap made about what a disastrous job the current government in British Columbia is doing.

British Columbia is still potentially a very wealthy province. I suspect there will soon be a change of government in British Columbia. We can get ourselves back on our feet again. That means British Columbia, my province, will pay a little more for those services than some other provinces that do not have as high a GDP. As a B.C. taxpayer, I do not have a problem with that.

We are looking in the wrong direction in terms of these equalization payments of taking money away from everybody and divvying it up. Look at the taxation system. An individual making $8,000 or $9,000 a year pays income tax. They cannot live on the gross amount but they still pay income tax. The government says it recognizes that they cannot live on that. That is why we have different types of support type payments to help these people out. Then on what little money they have left the government charges them GST. Again it says that it recognizes that people with that low an income cannot afford to pay GST, so it created a GST rebate program.

Can people not see the folly of creating a bureaucracy that takes people's money away on one hand and then creating another bureaucracy to give them some of that money back, using most of it up in the collection and distribution process? It obviously makes much more sense to stop taking it in the first place if we know we will have to give it back. We can do that and solve the equalization problem, solve a lot of the taxation problems and solve a lot of the overlap problems by reducing federal government to only those things that need to be done that can best be done at the federal government.

Bill the provincial governments a fee for services rendered on a provincial GDP basis. That will be the equalization. We will have a lot more control in our province. In the province of Alberta, it would give a lot more control. Alberta is another very responsible province that seems to be running well.

Others can take a page from that. If they cannot run well in the province, the people have the closest access to do something about it. It seems when people come to Ottawa they forget they are here to represent people and take on a life of their own.

That is not official Reform policy but it is an idea that I have been talking about with people for a long time. I hope the few Liberals present will give that some serious thought as a possible alternative to maybe a kernel of a new idea. I know they will not change their entire line of thinking now on the basis of this but I hope it does plant a seed in the minds of some of those people and maybe in the minds of people who are watching this today to think there are alternatives.

We do not need to keep tinkering trying to make little tiny fixes on a system that clearly is not working. What we need is a new look at a new system. I believe if the Liberals honestly take a look at this and evaluate it properly they will find they have something they can better work with that is fairer for all Canadians.

I hope the Liberals are listening. They have certainly quieted down since I started talking. Let us hope that in addition to their mouths not working their ears have started.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap was speaking I heard voices opposite saying “Where is the solution?”

I will give those members some solutions which are a little different. I have to speak slowly because, first, I certainly do not want them to miss this. Second, it will be short and succinct. It is a new idea. It is my idea. This is not the party speaking, this is me as an individual.

First, staying with party general philosophy, we believe, as many Canadians do, that the federal government has its nose in so many things that it cannot do any of them, not even one of them, well.

The government interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It gets involved in the daily lives of people from one end of this country to the other in an obtrusive manner. What is the solution to that?

First, it is to recognize that government only functions for one reason.

[Petitions, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was paraphrasing what is in the actual petition.

The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal an act respecting firearms and other weapons and replace it with legislation that deals with the criminal misuse of firearms and a more effective expenditure of taxpayers' bucks.