Jim Gouk

[Points Of Order, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not have Beauchesne with me but I understand that once a minister quotes from a specific government document the document should then be tabled in the House. I call on the minister to table the document with the House.

[Pearson International Airport, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the document which contradicts what the minister says.

My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Allegations of a Liberal cover-up in the Pearson deal are being made in the nation's media as well as in the House. At the same time, more and more documentation supporting these accusations keeps surfacing.

When is the Prime Minister going to hold an inquiry into the whole sordid affair, not an inquiry by a Liberal dominated Standing Committee on Transport or a Senate inquiry by the Tory dominated other place but a real, impartial public judicial inquiry, the kind the Minister of Transport threatened the Senate with in October?

[Pearson International Airport, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Immediately after the last election he stated that getting to the bottom of the Pearson deal was his government's top priority.

Would the Prime Minister inform this House if he was aware of the internal analysis which suggested the Pearson deal was a good economic deal for Canadians, that the selection process was fair and transparent, and that cancellation of the deal could cost the taxpayers between $500 million and $2 billion?

[Pearson International Airport, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister previously suggested there is no conflict of interest with him on Pearson because he is the one who cancelled the deal.

Given that Matthews refused to donate to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign and donated instead to that of his principal competitor, will the Prime Minister submit himself to a full review by the ethics counsellor and then table that report in the House?

[Pearson International Airport, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Serious allegations are being made about the Prime Minister's role in the Pearson privatization contract.

Not only has he met on numerous occasions with parties in the Claridge group but there are now questions on whether he advised the Matthews Group in its contract bid on Pearson airport.

Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House the nature of the advice as a lawyer or otherwise given to Jack Matthews specifically or the Matthews Group generally with respect to the privatization of Pearson airport?

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are sitting here today on a Sunday, I am told, for the first time in the history of Parliament at a cost of $25,000 an hour.

Why are we here? We are here because of very vindictive, narrow minded, malicious partisan politics brought on us by members of the Bloc Quebecois. They have done it for two reasons.

They have done it, and it seems appropriate, to try to get their separatist movement back on the tracks. It seems they do not care what else they derail in the process of doing it. Also they have done it to hit the Liberal Minister of Labour in her home area of the Montreal docks. This is the kind of vindictive partisan politics that makes this place something less than the public has a right to expect. That is the reason we are here this weekend.

The reason we are here at all, however, is that the Liberal government did not act as quickly on the matter as it could and did not act long before it happened to prevent it from happening in the first place.

The reason that we come to Parliament is twofold. First, it is to bring solutions for new problems such as the drunk defence. It was something that was not anticipated but it came about and requires legislation to repair it. Second, we come here to provide solutions to all problems brought forward by the parties and people of the past, problems such as the budget.

We try to find permanent solutions to different problems, not stop gap ones. It does little good to sit in Parliament and come up with a solution that will have to be repeated year after year. The solution to the transportation problem has to be a permanent one. The Liberals have failed to do it in the past and their current legislation fails to address the permanent need for a solution as well.

Transportation strikes are not new. Turning to recent history the Vancouver port was out in 1994 and back to work legislation was brought in. What was wrong with the legislation? There were two things wrong. First, as in this case it took too long to come forward. There was a lot of economic pain and suffering by people far beyond the port of Vancouver. We will never recover from some of that damage. Second, the Liberals brought in something relatively new by way of settlement, final settlement offer legislation.

That is something I favour but it was wrong in the way they did it in that specific case, the reason being that the two parties had bargained on the basis of an old system. When they were given the new system they were not given the opportunity to go back to the table to try to resolve the problem using the benefits of the new type of settlement. The concept was good but the method in which it was done was not as good as it could have been.

Then there was another Vancouver strike in 1995. That time it took only two days for the Liberals to act to get the port, which is very crucial to the entire Canadian transportation structure, back to work.

What is interesting is that we have the Bloc Quebecois sitting down the way, these brand new saviours of the labour movement in Canada. These were identical situations. In neither case did we hear a single word from the Bloc Quebecois. I reject its rationale for being the great voice of labour this time. It is nothing but petty partisan politics.

Now we have a rail strike affecting all of Canada. The Liberal legislation that is coming forward does not resolve the short term wrong because of the method of arbitration. The Liberals have gone back on the solution they used in Vancouver in 1994 and have gone to straight binding arbitration. Hopefully the two parties will be able to get together during the mediation period and resolve some of the differences. However the most outstanding issue, that of job security, is unlikely to be resolved through regular bargaining across the table.

When it comes time to move to the arbitration settlement we have an arbitration council set up with one representative of the union, one representative of the company which is owned by the government, and one representative selected by the government. Is there anyone in the House who has any doubt about how the arbitration will come out?

The whole way in which labour negotiations are carried out is unbalanced and unfair in our modern society. If the employees of a whole chain of grocery stores in the Ottawa area including all the surrounding communities went out on strike or were locked out for some reason, it would be primarily between the employees and the owners of the store. People would be inconvenienced but they have alternatives. Life would go on. The general economy would not be hurt.

However it is absolutely unthinkable that we would have the police standing by watching someone being mugged or raped because the police were out on strike. It is equally unthinkable that we would have a fireman standing by on a sidewalk

watching a house burn, perhaps with a small child inside, because the firemen were out on strike.

For 22 years I was an air traffic controller. During that time there were two strikes, both of very short duration. In both cases the controllers were legislated back to work. In both cases when the controllers were on strike they did not picket because they recognized that a relative handful of people had too catastrophic an effect on the entire air transportation industry and it would be unfair and unrealistic to put up a picket line.

It ended up that air traffic controllers to this day retain the right to strike but each and every controller is designated in the event of a strike to provide minimum safety services. It has been decreed and declared in court that those minimum services are everything they do. The reality is that they can go on strike but they still report to work, the only difference being that their contract is null and void. They are in great jeopardy of having something legislated that bears no resemblance to their old contract.

We penalize certain groups of people in society because they are important. We have to come up with some kind of alternative so that we can fairly deal with people who are important. If we can come up with something that is fair and equitable, why should we not look at broadening the type of system it replaces?

Long ago in the history of mankind people lived in caves. They had no fire for a long period of time. They got their food by going out with clubs and hunting down wild animals. We have progressed from that. We progressed into the Middle Ages when there was slavery and continuous ongoing wars. We evolved further and developed North America. Still there were very tough times. There were winters when many peopled starved to death. There were diseases for which there was no treatment. There was a lack of help for people in any situation. The changes that have taken place are evolutionary. This is the way we progressed and evolved into the society we have now.

Unions started in the 19th century because companies were oppressive. The managers and owners of certain big industries were absolutely brutal in their unfair treatment of workers. That was the origin of unions. Then we got into the process we have today, this concept of negotiation and strike when agreements could not be reached.

That started in the 19th century. As we approach the 21st century is it not realistic to think there should be some evolution in the process of trade unionism and in labour/management negotiations? It is time for evolution to take place in that area as well.

Most collective bargaining ends up in a settlement. I have talked to many unions and they believe this happens because they always have a hammer, the option of a strike. We must reinvent the hammer. The new hammer, unless someone has a better idea, which I have not heard anyone bring forward, is final offer settlement arbitration; the very hammer the government used for the legislation to settle the Vancouver port strike in 1994.

When given the proper time to be dealt with, this tends to settle most if not all of the differences between the two parties. It then brings the parties as close as possible on all the remaining issues so that each party can get into the most reasonable position so that position will be selected during the final arbitration.

The government needs to carefully design legislation to deal with a new form of labour settlement. The loss we have experienced in this strike goes beyond the transportation industry and beyond the strike itself. There are many types of transportation that will be set up now that will shortcut our ports. They will get goods as quickly as possible across the border into the United States and be sent from there. There are also many ships that have now found that instead of dealing on the east coast of Canada they can deal more reliably on the east coast of the United States.

Rail unions and their companies, other companies, workers, farmers and Canadians have paid a very heavy price for this strike. Let it not be in vain.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, we just heard the Minister of Labour questioning whether the Bloc was the official opposition. It is the official opposition and the Reform Party is the national opposition.

The Bloc mentioned the noble conception of its role. I disagree with that. I do not find anything about what it is doing with regard to the legislation noble. I find the actions of the Bloc Quebecois selfish and the most unconscionable I have seen in Parliament. It has held up this legislation. It refused to waive the 48 hour notice necessary to get this in and debated quickly. It has used every procedural tactic at its disposal to further delay the passage of this bill.

We have to question what it is trying to accomplish. We know the legislation is going to pass. The Bloc knows the legislation is going to pass. It knows the CP, CN and VIA workers are going to be legislated back to work. The Bloc is costing them extra pay, costing the company extra revenue and costing companies all across Canada a great deal of income.

Why is it doing this? Why is it selfish? The reason is the port of Montreal. That is the sole reason we are all here today on the weekend debating these delaying tactics offered up by the Bloc.

When the port of Montreal went down it happened that the Standing Committee on Transport was in Halifax. Halifax was booming. Everyone was walking around with a great smile on their face because they had a tremendous amount of business coming their way. It was pointed out to the member of the Bloc who sat on that committee: "You had better go back and tell those people in the port they are really making a big mistake because some of the traffic diverting to Halifax is not going to go back when the strike is over. That is the way things operate".

The Bloc took that to heart because we did not see too much of it for a while after that. There were lots of telephone calls back and forth. Then this great saving situation happened, the rail strike. All of a sudden Halifax cannot get a lot of the goods to load on the ships being diverted there. This played right into its hands.

I wonder why there is so much emphasis on the port of Montreal. This is not an action on behalf of Quebec, which the Bloc is really supposed to represent because it is certainly not representing the rest of Canada. This is costing manufacturers, importers, people all across the country huge sums of money. The total loss is expected to run in the range of $3 billion to $5 billion and that does not end when the strike is over.

This is not costing B.C. companies or Saskatchewan companies. It is companies all across Canada, including companies in Quebec. Bloc members are hurting the economy of their own province. They are hurting it at a time when they know full well the legislation is going to be passed in any case. This is nothing more than a simple tactic.

As was mentioned by the Minister of Labour during her speech this morning, there was not a peep out of Bloc members when the same legislation was brought in on dock workers in Vancouver. Why? Because they did not care. It was the very same principle but it did not matter to them then. It was not the port of Montreal.

The Bloc is trying to take every tactic to ensure that the rail stays out until after the port of Montreal goes back to work. That is all they are interested in.

The Liberals are not totally innocent in this either. We brought this up long before the strike ever came in. We brought it up last year when legislation was brought in for the dock workers in Vancouver. Our economy is far too fragile and far too interwoven to allow something this massive to go on. We have to find alternatives and no action has been taken by the government to do so.

During the first week of the strike I attempted to contact the Minister of Labour numerous times. I was promised a return call. My intention was to find ways to work with the government to bring the matter back so that we could get it settled. We were

quite prepared to co-operate. I know the minister was extremely busy at that time, as well being relatively new in the portfolio. I understood that.

Appointments were made for the return of my phone call and they were never kept. The Liberals had the opportunity to use broader legislation at the time they legislated back the Vancouver dock workers. It only took them two days to do that. Why has it taken them so long in the case of the rail strike? The reason probably is that they had to wait to make sure that CN was fully involved in the strike so that they could bring CN into the scope of the legislation as well.

The government's real target is CN. It wants to bring in legislation that includes binding arbitration for CN. That is the only part of all the tactics of the Bloc I have some agreement with.

One problem in the legislation is the arbitration clause. It says with regard to CN that there will be one member from the union; one member from the company, which is the government; and one member appointed by the government. We have a vague idea about how the arbitration will come out.

The only alternative in this case is the Liberal solution used in the case of the dock workers' strike last year. Why did they use it last year and not now? I am talking of final offer selection arbitration which gives the company and the union the chance to get much closer together. It puts a lot more pressure on them to be as close as possible and to take the most reasonable position possible. It will allow them to settle outstanding issues and try to reach a total agreement. In the end it will be one side or the other. Whoever is the more unreasonable of the two will be the loser.

That is a fairer operation than the type of arbitration that has been brought forward. We have to go with the legislation because we have to get the country back to work. That is the bottom line. That is the most important part of the whole legislation.

I ask the Bloc to start acting like a national opposition party, be responsible, put the country back to work and put the economy back on its feet.

[Petitions, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the residents of Kootenay West-Revelstoke. Notwithstanding the presentation of the budget, the problems carry on. They call on Parliament to reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes. This petition is signed by over 2,000 residents of my riding.

[Petitions, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present two petitions today.

The first calls on Parliament to refrain from passing any more firearms related laws which serve to restrict the rights, freedoms and ownership of law-abiding citizens. It further calls on Parliament to substantially strengthen Criminal Code punishment for those who are convicted of unlawful weapons offences.

[Salmo Makes Cents, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that great things come in small packages. That saying is certainly true in my riding.

Salmo, a community of 1,300 enthusiastic people, wants to give Canada a special present on its birthday. Noting that the mint spends over $10 million a year replacing hoarded pennies, Salmo hit on the idea of challenging communities and service clubs across the country to gather in more pounds of pennies on a per capita basis than it does.

Penny drops are now set up throughout the province and will soon be in other provinces as well. It proposes that all pennies collected will then be shipped to Ottawa to be applied against the national debt on Canada Day. This project has caught the interest of people all over B.C. and it is still growing.

Salmo challenges all hon. members to dig into their jars, dressers, drawers and penny banks to collect more pennies on a per capita basis than the residents of Salmo.

This patriotic project will not only reduce the debt by millions of pennies, it will also save a substantial portion of the $10 million the mint spends to replace hoarded pennies.

Salmo, a small town that makes a lot of cents.