Yves Rocheleau

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his question. Indeed, this is more or less what we mean when we say that the government did not demonstrate the validity of its position.

Arbitrariness seems to be the rule and it is being supported through legislative means. This is very annoying.

I should also tell you that the union's arguments in this respect were good ones. If the salaries paid to members of parliament were based, as is proposed for union workers, on the differences that exist between regions of Canada, people here would be very upset.

Perhaps the government's position is defensible, but we would greatly appreciate it if the government showed more conviction than it has so far.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Liberal member correctly, there is, in my opinion, some ambiguity in the Reform Party's position. Reformers have, at the very least, dramatized the situation, thus making life very easy for the government in this debate. Their position in this debate is very ambiguous to say the least.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, and as its labour critic, on this special debate, but I share the government leader's distress in doing so. There is good reason to be sad when we are required as legislators to introduce such a bill in the House, since it constitutes admission of a failure in the way our organizations and institutions operate.

All of our labour relations are based on a relationship of power that is meant to be a fair one. When we are forced to take steps such as those being taken today, it means something has gone wrong with that relationship.

What we are dealing with is a legal strike, a strike by a legally recognized and constituted union. It is part of the rules for the labour relations process that, when the workers' side considers that what has been offered is inadequate, they may strike. This is what we are dealing with at this time: a union that is legally using its right to strike and, by the very fact that it operates within the governmental system—because the government wears two different hats in a context such as this one, as employer and as legislator—is having forced upon it special legislation.

The government, acting as both employer and legislator in this case as I said, wakes up one morning, supposedly exasperated after a few days of strike—at least as far as the people at Vancouver are concerned—and decides to take action, arguing that the services involved affect public health and safety, thus qualifying as essential services. Measures are in place since public health and safety is an integral part of essential public services, and that was the rationale for taking this line of action.

Right now, the government is going overboard and is failing to demonstrate—and this is where it is not following procedure—the urgency of the situation, but one does sense a kind of exasperation.

The government has, moreover, had its task made easier for it. I personally have a hard time figuring out the workings of the Reform Party, which set the table last Thursday by so eloquently dramatizing the situation in the port of Vancouver. In my opinion, it considerably facilitated the government's action and this is why Friday and today we see the government acting entirely exceptionally by taking measures to impose special legislation.

I think we ought to deal with matters one at a time.

The exceptional measure used here is the suspension of the debates on the order paper. It is called a special debate. We are talking about the motion that will enable the government to introduce special legislation, perhaps tomorrow. That is what we must be discussing. We will talk as eloquently as possible, except that the time frame as you know is very short.

It cannot be said often enough. It is an illegal strike. It is a process recognized by the parties and by society. We support bargaining and civilized balance. This has been upset today. It is excessive on the part of the government, which happens to be the employer, to try to impose its own rules, its own way of seeing things, its own working conditions.

We will discuss this into further detail later on, but we are convinced that it is still possible to negotiate in good faith, to restore a normal balance of power between the parties. Look at what happened at the two bargaining tables where there are now problems, that is table 2 and table 4.

For the benefit of members of parliament and those listening to us, table 2 deals with labour relations between the government and general labour, ships' crews and trades represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, while table 4 is for Canada's correctional services employees, who are also members of the PSAC.

Some progress had been made, albeit slowly at times, but at least to the point where, in the case of correctional services employees, an agreement had been proposed by a conciliator. That agreement was accepted by the union, but rejected by the employer. The parties could find a solution, provided they negotiate in good faith. This is where the attitude of the employer, the government, becomes a concern because, given that the conciliator's report had been approved by the union, there is already the basis for an agreement.

It may be premature and inappropriate for the government to take this kind of action today. It should have been a little more patient, a little more conciliatory. It should have tried to find a compromise, given that the union had committed itself, making it unnecessary to this kind of measure, which is always exceptional and sad. Only the government can get away with taking the sort of action it has taken today as an employer. From the smallest company to the largest multinational, no organization except the government has the power to take the action being taken today of legislating heavy fines to force people back to work under conditions set by the employer, in this case the government.

As for table 2 on general labour, ships' crews and so forth, the workers represented by this union are prepared to go the alternative route of arbitration, so desperate are they. It is good for the government to see how its offers are perceived, if they are seen as being as reasonable as it claims.

In our opinion, and this is why we are opposed, all efforts have not been made to reach a negotiated settlement. This is a serious matter. Time is running out, and let us not forget that these people's salaries have been frozen for six years. They have every reason to make demands, to make strong demands, given the rise in the cost of living, inflation, and so on.

The government has taken a very firm stand, and resorted to legislation to get its way. That is how we see it.

We think it is a matter of principle, that this is an illegal strike and that the government should honour the mechanisms currently being used. Neither the negotiations nor this House should be upset with strategies built on the other side.

I will summarize our position, which is clear. We believe the freedom to unionize exists in Canada for employees and employers. This freedom exists for the parties, and the option of calling a strike exists from the moment there are good reasons for doing so, and this is the case here. It is part of a fair balance of power, except when the employer is also the government and is abusing its legislative power. Special legislation must be used only as a last resort.

This has not been shown to be the case here in our opinion. In the meantime, we want the government to return to the bargaining table with an offer acceptable to the workers and to resolve the problem democratically and in a civilized manner through negotiation.

[Devco, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada must have been joking when he recently told world leaders gathered in Davos that the Canadian economy is no longer dependent on the country's natural resources.

Indeed, at the same time, his government was announcing that a large part of Devco's mining operations, on Cape Breton Island, would stop for good.

The reality is as follows: raw materials and their by-products still account for 35% of Canadian exports, which is more than for any other G-7 country. The transition from a resource based economy to a knowledge based economy has begun, but it is obviously not completed.

Devco is a perfect illustration of the Canadian government's inability to manage this industrial change. No economic diversification programs were implemented to provide alternatives for those who suddenly find themselves out of work.

The Canadian government must take responsibility for this failed economic transition. In the case of Devco, Ottawa must treat the communities affected with the dignity to which they are entitled.

[Movement Of Grain, March 18th, 1999]

—the right to bargain, to have a union. It is a company union we regularly get information from. Arbitrariness reigns in management. That is what is promoted: people are at the mercy of their immediate supervisors.

So, you have understood that the government does not want special legislation in a labour dispute at this point at least. It wants the rules of standard procedure to take the upper hand, bargaining in good faith and agreement by the parties in order to put a quick end to this labour dispute, with its unfortunately rather significant consequences.

[Movement Of Grain, March 18th, 1999]

I like the remark by my colleague. When we speak of bargaining in good faith, there is an element of doubt, because we know whom we are dealing with. This is a nitpicking government, that denies, for example, its employees in the RCMP—

[Movement Of Grain, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and as critic for labour issues, to take part in this emergency debate requested by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

The issue is the current labour conflict in Vancouver, which opposes the Public Service Alliance and 70 of its members who work for the Canadian Wheat Board. These people work in the elevators that handle grain exports.

The employees have been on strike since March 15, which means for the past two or three working days. Based on our information, this work stoppage has a major impact on the region's economy.

Still, we must put the decision of these 70 employees to go on a general strike in its proper context. It seems that, on March 10, a Public Service Alliance official did warn the employer, that is the government and the Canadian Wheat Board, that if there were no progress in negotiations, the union's strategy would be to target wheat to put pressure on the employer. Therefore, the message was rather clear.

On March 14, the union began a rotating strike which had the merit of continuing wheat operations. It was not until the following day that the unions put up a picket line, which was respected by the other unions working near the export elevators. Undoubtedly, therefore, the strike had a considerable impact and achieved its goal, which was to establish a balance of power between the two parties.

We have a strong suspicion that the Reform Party's strategy in pushing for this emergency debate today is to set the stage for the employer—in this case, the government—to introduce special back-to-work legislation.

This is not the position of the Bloc Quebecois. This is not our approach, because we think that, if there is a right to strike, it should be respected. It has to go on for a while at least, there has to be a deadline after which, if negotiations have failed to resolve the situation, public interest must be taken into account and a decision can be made to settle the issue and move to other things.

It is unthinkable that, because negotiations have gone nowhere after three days, drastic action is in order. In the context of the public service, it is too easy for the government, as both employer and lawmaker, to find the situation too complicated and the repercussions too serious and to turn around and use its legislative authority to thwart the effects of the strike and the strike itself. We find this excessive.

While we hope that negotiations will go on, there must be a true power relationship and we must feel that there is no other way to ensure the continuation of operations before bringing in special back to work legislation. It must be a measure of last resort.

We can see here the philosophy of the Reform Party, which does not have much respect for labour legislation and for workers. As the President of the Treasury Board said, it is not fun to suffer the impacts of a strike. But it is not fun either—and we tend to forget that—for those on strike or for their families. It is not fun for those who are on the picket lines. These people go through a period of serious insecurity and discomfort and, may I add, strike action is legal in that industry.

The President of the Treasury Board spoke earlier about security and health, two issues that are being ignored here. There is some sort of an essential service in Canada, which has been provided for in order to protect public health and security. We are talking about economic impacts, which are very difficult to assess. We should be careful not to go too far in that regard.

Instead of hinting at the quick passage of a special act to put an end to that kind of labour dispute, we would prefer to see the parties negotiate in good faith, accept negotiation and reach an agreement that will be well accepted and honoured.

The right to strike, the legal right to strike is a clear sign of civilization. Why should a society invent such means to provide working conditions? The right to strike was not given by the employers, either in the public or private sectors. The right to strike is a hard won right in the history of western societies.

A strike always causes inconvenience. The fate of farmers is of great concern to us. In Quebec also farmers are hurting a lot because of the international economic conditions, globalization and its harmful effects. Institutions and individuals are paying the price. Western farmers are feeling the pinch too, and we sympathize with them.

It would be too easy to say, as soon as we are slightly inconvenienced, that we are going to pass special back-to-work legislation to solve the problem. We are not ready to go along with it.

We want the obviously difficult situation the parties have arrived at to be settled through negotiations, negotiations conducted in good faith recognizing what it means for the regional economy. One should not fall into the trap nor be tricked into using this all too easy approach called back to work legislation.

I will sum up my thoughts and those of the Bloc on the matter: our position is very clear. Freedom of association exists in principle in Canada, and workers, when they have good reason to do so, go on strike.

This is part of a fair balance of power, except when the employer, which happens to be the government, abuses its legislative power. Again, back to work legislation should only be a last resort, until the government gets back to the negotiating table with an offer acceptable to workers and settles the dispute in a democratic and civilized manner through negotiations.

When one speaks of good faith, when one speaks of the federal government as employer, one is entitled to a few concerns. Contrary to rumour, the federal government is a tough employer. We know that it recently rejected a court decision on pay equity. Really now, a judgment is a judgment. In its wisdom, the government in its power and arrogance, has decided to appeal the judgment rather than comply with it.

This is a government that has already obtained orphan clauses, at Canada Post in particular, where working conditions vary greatly depending on seniority. I know some postal workers personally and I know that their conditions are truly precarious.

When a person works a few hours a week, and cannot be guaranteed more than 15 hours of work a month—if memory serves me right—working conditions at Canada Post are far from enviable. In the past, jobs at Canada Post were highly coveted, but now, thanks to the interventionist attitude of this government as employer, this is no longer the case.

This is a government which, in the latest revision of the Canada Labour Code, refused to include an anti-scab provision. In Quebec, this matter was settled a long time ago, to everyone's satisfaction. The use of replacement workers during a strike is forbidden. The Canada Labour Code does not contain any such provision for Canada.

This government has refused to pass Part III of the Canada Labour Code, which would give pregnant women better treatment, through preventive leave to safeguard the health of women who are soon to give birth by allowing them to stop working.

The federal government will not allow it. It is not the highly progressive and generous one people think. For example, we know that it will not allow RCMP employees to unionize.

[Federal Public Service, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

A battle is being waged between the government and its employees on wage parity, pension fund surplus misappropriation, dragging negotiations and regional differences in pay for blue collar workers.

With public servants out of steam and out of patience, is it not time the President of the Treasury Board assumed his responsibilities as employer and negotiated quickly and in good faith a solution to each of these problems?

[Wayagamak Plant In Trois-Rivières, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The management of the Wayagamak plant in Trois-Rivières has indicated that this plant is on life support and its 700 jobs are on the line.

Given that the plant is in the Mauricie, in the region represented by the Prime Minister, could he tell us whether he intends to make every possible effort to save these jobs?

[Petitions, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf on behalf of some 1,500 persons in the region of Mauricie, I have the honour to table a petition calling on the federal government to withdraw its appeal against the public service pay equity decision and to give effect to the court ruling that it ensure pay equity for its employees.

I would draw to the attention of the House that many hundreds of these 1,500 petitioners work daily in the Shawinagan South taxation data centre, located in the riding of Saint-Maurice, which is represented here in the House by the Prime Minister.

I believe that these employees deserve to be congratulated for having the courage to sign this petition.