Jim Gouk

[Canadian Airlines, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government has seen fit to end this problem. I hope that in the future, if these kinds of problems come up, that collectively we will act quicker to save that same pain and anguish.

There is still more to this. I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Finance. The package that the federal government has provided to Canadian does help. I am pleased to see that something is there, but it is based on the fuel tax. That fuel tax is twice as high in Canada as it is for the American competitors that all Canadian airlines must compete against under open skies.

Will the government reconsider the method by which it is helping and go instead to a straight reduction of fuel taxes so that it applies to all airlines? In that way we do not solve the problems of Canadian and transfer them on to someone else.

[Canadian Airlines, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the Canadian Airlines crisis, the Reform Party has called on the government to intercede to ensure the democratic rights of the union workers of Canadian Airlines. The government has responded by saying that the rules do not permit it to do that. I would point out that those rules are made here.

My question is for the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of Labour now ready to intercede and set in place rules that would permit those workers to resolve this issue and to ensure that other people caught in this situation in the future do not have to go through the same pain and anguish that Canadian's unionized employees have been going through?

[Canadian Airlines, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if air travellers lose confidence in Canadian Airlines and book with another company perhaps from the U.S., that means lost revenue for Canadian Airlines.

This is not about big corporations. It is about the men and women whose financial security is at stake, people like the single mother of two who wrote: "Mr. Gouk, you must keep trying to help us. I love my job and I need it. Every day that this issue remains unsettled does irreparable damage to my company". To "my company"; that is how Canadian employees feel.

My question is for the Minister of Transport: When is the Liberal Party going to join with Reform in a non-partisan manner and tell that single mother that we are listening, that we care, and that we will act? How much longer can one person be allowed to cause this anguish and threaten the financial security of her airline?

[Canadian Airlines, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Auto Workers are not refusing to vote on the Canadian restructuring plan, quite the contrary. A significant number of the membership have now written to me directly asking for the right to vote, or have sent me copies of petitions to Buzz Hargrove telling him to allow the vote. Industry sources indicate that Hargrove would rather face decertification than face another

wage rollback. One man is not a union, but the government nor the NDP seem able to see this.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. How much longer is the government going to allow one man to block the democratic rights of union employees?

[Petitions, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of my riding draw to the attention of the House that legislation was passed in Canada for equal pay for work of equal value, that the Canadian Human Rights Commission concurred with the findings of an independent inquiry, and that federal government workers have waited for 12 years for this legislation to take effect.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament direct the Government of Canada to hear them and to make their views known to the Government of Canada and that this Government of

Canada act to have the legislation take effect immediately and workers be reimbursed at the rate recommended.

[Canadian Airlines, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with many labour groups in the past to discuss problems with strike lockout settlement mechanisms. They have pointed out it is very rarely used because the threat of using it generally causes settlement.

My question is for the Minister of Labour. Given that the labour code does not permit the government to ensure the democratic rights of Canadian's employees, if the government is not ready to act yet, will it at least amend section 108(1) of the labour code so that it would be in a position to take action when it decides it may be necessary?

[Canadian Airlines, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been very adamant that the changes to the tax regime for Canadian Airlines will help them in the current situation. It is conditional on the employees accepting the restructuring plan.

Earlier in question period the Minister of Transport stated that he is waiting on the response from the sixth union, the CAW. We have heard that response and it is very clear that Mr. Hargrove is equally adamant that his members are not going to be allowed to vote.

All weekend I have been receiving faxes from Canadian Airline employees, some pleading for help, some stating: "Regretfully to Hargrove we did not authorize you to have the final say. We only authorized you to negotiate on our behalf".

Is the Minister of Transport prepared to take some action or is he actually prepared to allow Canadian's restructuring plan to collapse?

[Canadian Airlines, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government's response to a plea by Canadian's employees to be allowed to vote on the company restructuring program has been that it is up to their elected union representatives. Those union officials are supposed to be like MPs, and I say supposed to be; that is representatives, not rulers.

It is both clear and democratic that Canadian's employees whose jobs are on the line should have the right to decide on their own future. It should not be left in the hands of Buzz Hargrove whose job is not at stake, who will still have his job even if Canadian folds.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The choice is democracy or dictatorship. Buzz Hargrove has chosen dictatorship. Is this government willing to choose democracy by protecting the democratic rights of the union workers of Canadian Airlines?

[Canadian Airlines, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting the minister should raise section 108.1. Yesterday the Reform labour critic placed a motion before the human resources committee asking for an immediate review of section 108.1 of the Canadian Labour Code in order to ensure the democratic rights of Canadian Airlines employees. The response to that by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour was: "Giving Canadian employees the right to vote is a waste of time for this committee". The Liberal and Bloc members then proceeded to vote against the motion.

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. In the cold light of day, and after a good night's sleep, is he prepared to withdraw those unacceptable comments and support the democratic rights of Canadian employees who may lose their jobs if this government does not act?

[Canadian Airlines, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I found the Bloc's questions rather curious. It wants only one airline per country but it wants to make this into two countries.

The government has now followed the lead of B.C. and Alberta in offering Canadian Airlines some relief on oppressive fuel taxes, but the offer may be meaningless. It is good only if Canadian's employees vote to accept the restructuring package and the government will not do anything to ensure that those employees get that chance to vote.

My question is for the Minister of Labour. Given that the government's convoluted tax rebate offer is worthless if the employees are not allowed to vote on it, when will the government take action to protect the democratic rights of Canadian's employees?