Bev Desjarlais

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that the hon. member for Halifax West and I will be splitting our time.

Before I begin my discussion on this bill, I want to wish happy birthday to Whitney, the 17 year old daughter of the member for Mississauga South. Hopefully, we can have her father home sometime in the next few days to spend her birthday with her.

The issue we have been discussing is one of extreme importance. Sometimes in this House we tend to take for granted some of the things that greatly affect the lives of individual Canadians. We forget what we are doing to the workers and individual Canadians as people. We forget the effect we have on their lives in some of the actions we take.

That is what is happening today. The government is invoking back to work legislation. Make no bones about it. In essence, we are taking away the democratic right of individual Canadian workers to fair and collective bargaining and the result of collective bargaining.

The government will argue that it was backed into a corner and that Canadians are being held hostage. They would only be held hostage if they were taken somewhere, carted off into a corner and nobody gave them a chance to get out. The bottom line is that the government is not a hostage and Canadians are not hostages. The government willingly created the situation we are dealing with today.

In 1997 the government through legislation removed the possibility of binding arbitration. It vehemently indicated through this measure that the workers had to get back to work. Numerous Reform and Liberal members say that the farmers are suffering because of the workers.

The New Democratic Party and other members, as well as the workers, are made out to be enemies of farmers. What needs to be emphasized is that those workers gladly asked to be under the Canada Labour Code. Canadians need to know that grain weighers wanted to be under the Canada Labour Code and the government refused to let them be. Under the changes that took place to the Canada Labour Code in Bill C-19 they would not have been in this situation. They would have been working. The bottom line is that the Liberal government did not make any effort to allow those workers to be under the Canada Labour Code. That would have ended the whole situation of today. If we want to put blame, let us put the blame where it should be.

Let us talk about the other issues and the other workers that fall into this area. We must understand that when it comes to farmers and grain movement that did not have to happen. Correctional workers and guards, those who are not on strike, are being ordered back to work in the legislation. Where is their right to the free and democratic collective bargaining process? It does not exist with the government.

As each and every Liberal on that side of the House votes in the next few hours, let them remember that every vote they make stomps out the democratic rights of thousands of workers in Canada. That is the picture the government is portraying to all business in Canada and worldwide.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas was very eloquent in his comments that we are looked upon as an example of how labour action should take place, how collective bargaining should happen. Canada sells itself as a great place in that regard. What has been done today sets that back. No longer can we say look at us, we know how to do things. We are not perfect but we have processes in place that are beneficial and right for all Canadians, for workers, and ultimately for the benefit of society.

There is no question that the correctional workers who are not even on strike are being stomped on totally. The collective bargaining process was used with the postal workers and in many other instances. There was back to work legislation but they still had the right to conciliation, to work toward an agreement. That is not the case here. Heavens no. We have gone a step further. It is not just back to work and then a conciliation officer working with them. Even if they have not come up with an agreement yet, the bottom line is that we have allowed the bargaining process to take place, which is not happening here.

The government has gone a decade or two or three back in working relationships and labour relations by not allowing a conciliation process to take place with those workers. It has now imposed the entire contract on them with no conciliation process.

Next I will discuss regional rates of pay. I wonder if any member of the House could justify why it is okay for members of parliament from Sydney, Nova Scotia, Halifax and Charlottetown, or the solicitor general from P.E.I., to feel that they should be making less than the member for Mississauga South simply because of regional rates of pay.

Is that fair? Do they believe that east coast people and people in Saskatchewan should be paid less? If they believe that then each and every one of them should stand and say they should be giving the difference back to the Canadian people. Otherwise they should be opposing regional rates of pay. Each and every member that supports the bill tonight is saying that regional rates of pay are okay. If they really believe that they should put their money where their mouths are.

I would love to have more time to deal with this issue, but since I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague I will allow him to speak.

[World Water Day, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today, March 22, is World Water Day. Countries around the globe will remember that water is a precious resource essential to human life. Without safe drinkable water we cannot survive.

Unlike many countries, Canada is blessed with an abundance of freshwater. As a result we often take clean water for granted but Canada's waters are not endless.

On February 9, a New Democratic Party motion stated that the government should, in co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers. The House agreed to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations. Today we should revisit how we use water in our homes and in our everyday lives. We must value and protect this vital resource.

In my riding communities such as Pukatawagan, God's Lake Narrows and Red Sucker Lake do not have running water in their homes. We must ensure that all Canadians benefit from our resources. Canada's water supply should not be diminished so that a few will profit.

On World Water Day, Canadians have much to be thankful for and to think about.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. We all know conditions are deplorable in first nation communities.

Now we have the Cross Lake First Nation in Manitoba declaring a health care state of emergency. Conditions have reached a critical point. There is a shortage of equipment, too few nurses overworked to the point of burnout and infrequent doctor visits.

The community has called on the World Health Organization to intervene. It is requesting a fully staffed field hospital from the Department of National Defence.

Do aboriginal leaders have to call on the army or will the Minister of Health provide immediate assistance?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are here this afternoon debating amendments put forth by the Reform Party. What we have here and what Canadians had to listen to is somewhat embarrassing.

We have Reformers kowtowing to the U.S., having us run scared from a free trade agreement that they fully supported and continue to support. We have the Liberals dancing around the trade agreement.

Many Canadians, and certainly New Democrats, foresaw our culture being threatened and the bill is proof that our culture is not protected. The bill is not perfect but it is an attempt by the Liberals to at least right some of the wrongs brought about by free trade.

Throughout this debate I have also heard Reform cry “let the market decide”. The situation Canadians have seen themselves in is certainly the marketplace throughout Canada. With the Asian crisis, everybody was saying “Oh, my gosh, we let the market decide”.

Since today is International Women's Day and we know we have to let the market decide and be part of globalization, I want to take this opportunity to let the market decide and to let Canadians decide if they want to be part of that. I watched a news documentary in which a fellow by the name of Robert Ohuras who was representing an American company in Juaréz, Mexico, was commenting on a request that was made to change the hours women and young girls had to work in plants or in factories owned by Canadians and American companies.

The bodies of 200 women have been found outside in the desert Juaréz. There was a request made to change their hours of work so that they would not have to walk home at 1 a.m. Mr. Ohuras' response was “Don't forget why these companies are in Mexico. They must be globally competitive. They need to have flexible hours”.

Do we need to let the market decide? Any time Reformers want to let the market decide, I want them to think of these women. This is all part of it. When the market is the only thing left to be the deciding factor, that is the outcome.

[The Public Service Of Canada, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board president and the Liberal government are unrepentant. They have lost all credibility with public service workers, particularly women.

First the government agreed to a joint pension management and investment board. Now it has flip-flopped and is shutting the workers out of any say in managing their own pension.

The flip-flop smacks of 1950s patriarchy. Most of the workers who rely on this pension fund are women. The Liberal government's attitude seems to be that women cannot or should not manage their own money. This attitude has no place in the 1990s.

Can the President of the Treasury Board explain why he thinks public servants need big brother to manage their pensions?

[The Public Service Of Canada, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is International Women's Day and women are the lowest paid workers in the public service and the Liberal government is trying to keep it that way.

It has denied them pay equity. It froze their wages for six years. This wage freeze created a surplus in the pension fund and now the Liberal government is raiding the surplus. These are not gold plated pensions. The average woman with 20 years of service only gets $9,600 a year from her pension. The government should be a model employer.

Does the Treasury Board president think he is setting a good example for the private sector by stomping on pay equity and raiding the public pension plan surplus?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment.

I have been taken aback at the praising of the budget and the praising of how great it is that this money is going back and everybody is cheering the government. I have sat here and thought that of course everybody is happy because there is money going back into health care. The government has cut $20 billion out of health care. It is finally putting something back in. Of course we are going to be happy.

It is as if there has been a war going on. This is a war. The Liberal government has attacked and waged war on social programs in Canada with all the cuts. We had the Korean war, the first world war and the second world war. The war ends and of course we are all going to cheer and be excited. But that does not mean we are going to sing the praises of Hitler, our enemy, or anybody else who has been attacking those programs. We are going to make darn sure we keep fighting for what is right.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The CAW has come out very vocally that there is no rift—

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have two comments that might lead into questions with regard to co-op housing. The federal government has decided not to shirk responsibility in the province of Ontario. How does the member explain that we got rid of co-op housing for Manitoba and other provinces but what we do in Ontario I guess is a little bit different from what we do anywhere else in Canada. If it was okay in Ontario, why was it not okay somewhere else?

With regard to the singing and praising of the budget and how things are so much better and we do not have a problem with the EI or anything like this, I wonder how the member feels about moneys for employment insurance. People who are working pay money into employment insurance expecting that should they be out of a job that money is going to be there for employment insurance. Then they find out that the government thinks it is a-okay, correcto, to spend it on this, that and something else.

What about the trust the government has broken with the people who have put that money in? Whether it be employers or employees they expect that that money is there for employment insurance. The surplus the government is dealing with is dollars that it took irresponsibly and, for lack of a better word, misrepresented why it was taking that money from Canadians.

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition on behalf of a number of western Canadians who want to voice their dissatisfaction. They desire to see the abolition of the Senate. They consider it an undemocratic institution and it is not doing the job it should be doing for Canadians.