Yves Rocheleau

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

No. He is one of those who do not listen.

He distinguished himself when he was in opposition, much more so than as a government member for that matter. He distinguished himself as a member of the so-called rat pack. He was very aggressive then. So aggressive, so compassionate that a few years ago he was on the picket lines with the Public Service Alliance members to condemn the conservative government.

And today? He is now one of the main participants in this debate to oppose the same Public Service Alliance of Canada, which he supposedly supported only a few years ago.

This is typical of this government: a bunch of hypocrites.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

The way this government has dealt with labour relations has resulted in a negation of the Public Service Alliance members' right to negotiate freely during eight of the last fifteen years. During eight of the last fifteen years, we have been forced to adopt legislation and our working conditions were legislated on.

In the case of the hospital services and ships' crews groups, salaries and working conditions have been legislated on during eleven of the last fifteen years. This is totally unacceptable. It is a shame. It proves the carelessness and the incompetence of this Liberal government.

This rather bizarre behaviour is once again illustrated by the government House leader. The hon. leader, who represents Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, is a great parliamentarian.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1989, we had Bill C-49, a second special bill, the Government Services Resumption Act, which provided for the return to work of a particular group of employees, who were as much a problem for the government then as they are today and who have been the victims of government policy, namely hospital workers and ship crews. That was in 1989.

In 1991, two years later, the Public Sector Compensation Act imposed all conditions of employment, leaving no room for negotiation, mediation and arbitration.

In 1992, the next year, Bill C-113, the Government Expenditures Restraint Act, provided for a two year extension of the salary freeze and the term of the collective agreement.

In 1993, Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, gave the government the right to impose a vote on its final offers in the course of any negotiations within the public service.

In 1994, Bill C-17, the Budget Implementation Act of 1994, extended the collective agreement and the wage freeze for another two years, for a total of six years of wage freezes. The government pushed back the collective agreements already signed, arbitrarily using and abusing its legislative powers when it was in fact acting as an employer in this context.

The same thing happened in 1995. As members can see, almost every year, some special legislation was passed. Bill C-76, the Budget Implementation Act of 1995, provided for the elimination of 45,000 positions in the civil service. In fact, it was more like 55,000 jobs that were abolished.

This was direct interference in the collective bargaining process and had devastating effects on some classes of employees, including the general services group represented at table 2 who saw the number of positions reduced by 41% between 1995 and 1998. In the general labour and trades group, the number of positions dropped by 33%. For a government that brags about creating jobs, it introduced bills that had a devastating impact on the labour movement and on the job situation.

The last of this series of legislation, except for the bill before the House tonight, was Bill C-31, the Budget Implementation Act of 1996, which truly undermined the financial security and job security of employees. This bill provided for contracting-out and also suspended—and we are still reeling from that initiative—for three years the right to go to arbitration as a way to settle disputes.

There is one point to be made on this issue. It is a little easy in the government's situation. Besides, it does not matter whether it is Conservative or Liberal, this proves our point that it is all the same. In that regard, it always boils down to the same thing, more or less, with respect to the Constitution. As for labour relations, it is more or less the same people who think the same way.

It is a little too easy, when we see how the government can restrict the recourse to arbitration and, at the same time, refuse to limit and suspend its power to designate employees who, as we know, have different prerogatives and powers since they are designated.

In 1999, we have this Bill C-76, which is a back to work legislation.

This legislation can legitimately be referred to in terms of a bludgeon or big stick legislation. It suits this government's culture, because when talking about big stick we can think of baseball bat, and when talking about baseball bat we can think of cayenne pepper. When we think of the very modern means this government used in its response to demonstrators who came legitimately to show their discontent, we know that dogs were used. We have seen it here in Ottawa. Some people have been bitten. In the history of that culture, when talking about demonstrators, we know that police grab people by the throat in order to intimidate ordinary citizens.

This illustrates very well the culture of this government, which is going nowhere and has in fact been the object of the interest of not only Canadian organizations but also international organizations.

The Canada Labour Relations Board, in its wisdom, blamed the government at least twice for its actions as a legislating employer. The International Labour Organization also blamed the Canadian federal government four times. The “most beautiful and best country in the world” was blamed four times by the International Labour Organization, which represents not only governments but also unions and employers.

On four occasions since 1982, this government has been blamed internationally in its management. We know what it means to belong to the ILO, the International Labour Organization. The ILO's statement of principle provides—and the Government of Canada has made a commitment to it, as member—that:

In freely joining the ILO, all Members have endorsed the principles and rights set out in its Constitution and in the Declaration of Philadelphia, and have undertaken to work towards attaining the overall objectives of the Organization—

All Members, even if they have not ratified the Conventions in question, have an obligation arising from the very fact of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and to realize, in good faith—

—the principles concerning the fundamental rights which are the subject of those Conventions.

These principles include, the freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the eradication of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Unless it can be proven otherwise, Canada is still a member of the ILO. That means that it is violating both the spirit and the letter of the convention it signed.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

—for the government House leader, it was a sad day, yesterday. Today is a very sad day too.

We are witnesses to the tragicomic behaviour of the government, which is showing the world, on television, how arrogant it can be, of what disdain it is capable. There is a sort of deception in its behaviour, given what it hid from us earlier.

This confirms completely all the claims, all the frustrations that the union movement and the public service unions have criticized for a long time, whether we are talking about the Public Service Alliance or the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who complained of this government's day to day operations. We have a perfect and glaring illustration of that this evening.

We will get back to the basic issue. We will get back to the substance as if nothing had been said, because there is not much there. It is all right not to bother about what the President of the Treasury Board said earlier, because it is not worth it.

Let us get back to the context of the legislation used by the government to force back to work employees who belong to the general labour, ships' crews and trades groups, that is table 2, and the correctional officers, or table 4. As members know, the bargaining process was divided in seven tables.

This is what the minister should talk about, instead of rambling like he did earlier.

Incidentally, workers in the general labour group earn an average of $31,000 per year. A salary increase is, therefore, definitely in order. There is nothing outrageous about such a measure, on the contrary. This would show some openness, particularly considering that the salaries of these workers have been frozen for six years and that they are now paid an average of $6 less per hour than blue collar workers in the private sector or at the municipal level. These Canadian public servants are earning an average of $6 less per hour than workers who hold similar jobs.

Before the minister's rambling, the state of negotiations was that a conciliation report had been submitted by a third party, the conciliator, and that report had been accepted by the union.

Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board should begin by listening and by taking a closer look at the conciliator's opinions and the results of his research, which was endorsed by the union. Perhaps it would be easy for the government, the employer, to take this route.

I think this is already expecting too much. The President of the Treasury Board prefers talking with another distinguished colleague, who likes to dip into workers' pockets, much like he does. They make a fine pair during this debate about the future of public sector workers and of workers in general, nattering on when it would be more in the public's interest if they were to listen.

We can see that Quebec is very well represented in this cabinet, the people with the real power.

So, for table 4 there is a conciliator's report that has been approved by the union, while for table 2 it is high time the parties, particularly the government, agreed to binding arbitration to try to resolve the situation.

It must never be forgotten that this is a legal strike, where in fact a strike is going on, by a legally recognized union that is part of our institutions and that has the right to strike when it feels that the offers being made are not acceptable. It is therefore based on a balance of power which is also inherent to our labour relations and should include bargaining in good faith and in a civilized manner. This is precisely what the employer, the government, has not demonstrated, in our opinion.

We want the government to negotiate. The government is in a period of negotiation, but it seems to be more inclined to legislate than to negotiate.

Instead of saying that the government is more inclined to legislate than to negotiate, we should rather say that, in the recent past, since 1982 actually, bona fide bargaining has been the exception. The government would rather legislate.

Since 1982, it has obviously given the preference to its role as a legislator, and it has outrageously neglected its role as an employer who should be bargaining in good faith, like any employer, and taking legislative action only when public interest is at stake—which is not the case now.

Historically, legislative action in labour relations have been a constant occurrence since 1982. Let me give a list.

I did not pick year 1982 out of the blue. We should remember the context. The neoliberal philosophy was all the rage then, and the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were in full flight and having an influence on all governments in the western countries. Canada has been part and parcel of the devastation that spelled setbacks in existing social benefits, and in collective agreements, including working conditions and the union movement itself. The Liberal government gleefully entered the fray with Bill C-124, an act concerning compensation that affected everybody. Its purpose was to control the compensation of 500,000 workers in sectors directly or indirectly under the Canadian government. That was in 1982.

In 1989, we had Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services. That title is almost identical to that of the bill now before the House. It was back to work legislation for workers in hospitals and for ship crews, and these groups are again today the target of a special treatment.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying—

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the government House leader said yesterday, in his presentation, that it was a sad day.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this late hour in a context that was not necessarily planned, but very revealing.

When the government House leader introduced the bill yesterday, he spoke of a sad day.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago, the President of Treasury Board told us that he would look into the physical possibility of tabling the document on which there was an agreement.

Could the President of Treasury Board tell us what progress he has made in his search?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when the government leader says that it saddens him to have to act as he is acting today, I believe that there is also an element of shame involved.

I would like to know what my NDP colleague thinks of the attitude of the government leader in this respect. How does he feel about the introduction of this bill?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

It certainly shows us one thing about this government. It is very authoritarian when it comes to labour relations and anything related.

This is the same government that is refusing to recognize the court decision on pay equity. This is the government that uses discriminatory orphan clauses, as it did with Canada Post. This is the government that last year refused to bring in clear antiscab legislation, when such legislation already exists and has been very useful in Quebec. Here we have an example. All it had to do was follow Quebec's lead, which, more often than not, is very good. Last year, the government was not interested.

When it does intervene in the labour market, as it did with employment insurance, this is the kind of government that discriminates shamefully against new arrivals by requiring them to have twice as many hours the first time or on coming back after x number of years.

This is more of the same. It is part of this government's philosophy to be very arbitrary and authoritarian. I hope that the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam will listen carefully and be more polite as the debate goes on.