Madam Speaker, this is not the 1980s. This is not the 1970s. This is not the 1960s. This is the 1990s. In those other decades, it was expected in the labour movement to seek the highest wages possible that the company could afford to pay. Indeed, we saw in those days some very high wages in the industrial sector.
In that same period, the federal government and provincial governments negotiated very high rate with the public service unions. In those days, it was felt that rather than have a confrontation with the union, a government could dig deeply into the pocket of the taxpayer and literally pay off the union to avoid labour strife. This caused a lot of damage in the economy. We know some of the examples.
Ontario Hydro Nuclear is a classic example. Because the Ontario government was so unwilling to negotiate realistic settlements with the union, we got an organization that ultimately came to a point where it could no longer function.
Similarly, VIA Rail had the difficulty that the packages for the employees were so beautiful, so perfect that it became impossible to run passenger trains across the country.
At one time, I had a vision that we could have a cross Canada train like the Orient Express. I was told that it was impossible to do because even though we had the rolling stock, we did not have the ability to deal with a union that had the opportunity to charge double time, triple time and all kinds of things on a train that was going across the country for two or three days. What should have been a wonderful idea was impractical.
Previous governments had given away to public service unions the right to give reasonable wages. Instead, they gave very high wages to avoid labour strife. Those were the times when governments had money to burn it would seem. The previous Tory government ran up a deficit of $42 billion. Times have changed.
In the 1990s in my riding and anywhere in the country where unions are a part of businesses that are in global competition, the unions have had to face the reality that the wages they seek have to be in line with the company's ability to survive competitively.
As an example, in my immediate region there was a very lengthy strike involving meat packers. It was ultimately settled. The situation was very simple. There were changes in the global economy and changes with respect to free trade with the United States. The union could no longer enjoy the very high wages that it had. There was a choice of either taking a rollback or not having a job at all.
We have the same situation now in steel and in every sector of the competitive industry. Things have changed.
In my riding, there is very little sympathy for unions that are in a position to negotiate with a government that has unlimited money behind it, taxpayers' money. People do not have much sympathy any more for governments that would cave in to the unions, rather than stand up to the unions' demands that are no longer reasonable in the context of the 1990s.
We heard the Treasury Board president say that he wants to settle with these unions but they are asking for twice the going rate, twice the reasonable rate. I think I can speak for most people in my riding when I say that those people are behind the President of the Treasury Board. We have passed the time, thank heavens, when governments should just dig deeply in their pockets and give whatever the union demands.
I am entirely in agreement with the President of the Treasury Board. He must hold the line here because we can no longer return to the past as governments and give whatever is demanded of us. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer.
There is the other issue. The other issue is the fact that a very small portion of the Public Service Alliance of Canada union is holding at ransom the lives, the fortunes and the prospects of other Canadians. I refer especially to the grain farmers.
Members will recall two years ago we had before this parliament Bill C-66, which was to amend the Canada Labour Code. There were many provisions in that bill but one key provision was that it attempted to restrict the ability of third party unions to interfere with the transportation of grain in the context of labour strife.
I spoke to that bill way back in 1996, which eventually became law. It was given royal assent just two months ago. I spoke, though, in November 1996. I said:
I would like to add one other remark about a very positive aspect of the legislation. It addresses a past problem involving grain handling at our ports. Situations have arisen in the past where the country was literally held to ransom when our ports were shut down, not by the transportation unions alone, but by affiliated unions, some very small unions on occasion, that have set up picket lines. Of course, other union organizations respect these picket lines and on occasion it led to the paralysis of our ability to move our commodities.
The provision in the bill which limits the right to strike, to paralyze ports, to those unions directly engaged in that form of activity is a very positive one.
That is what I said. I regret those remarks because that provision was only applicable to outside unions, third party unions. We did not make it applicable to small public service unions within the industry. So we have a situation where some 70 employees are holding to ransom tens, hundreds of millions of dollars of the fortune of other Canadians, of their future, their prospects. Seventy public service alliance union members.
Times have very much changed. We have to reconsider as parliamentarians what exactly is the right to strike of union employees who are paid by the taxpayer. What exactly is the right that they have to interfere with the lives of other Canadians when they are paid by the taxpayer? The taxpayer is their employer. They are employed by the people of Canada.
The government should be considering very seriously taking immediate measures to resolve this situation. I am a little bit more direct than some of the Reform speakers are because I think that in the interests of the Canadians who are very adversely affected, we should move very quickly in this case. I see no problem with back to work legislation. But we need to take it one step further. We need to review the Canada Labour Code again and consider whether that code needs another amendment that will close the loophole that enables 70 unionized PSAC employees to hold to ransom an entire nation.
