Gary Lunn

[Government Grants, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is remaining quiet in this but let us look at some of the facts.

The ministry of human resources staffer Thériault made it very clear to departmental personnel what they were up against. He said the proposed grants broke the rules, needed to be artificially inflated to meet the dollar amounts promised by the Prime Minister and had to proceed no matter what.

Let me rephrase my question. Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the House leader explain how this is any different from what Brian Mulroney did which drove the Tories to two seats in the House? How is what the Prime Minister is doing any different from what Brian Mulroney did?

[Government Grants, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, how things change. When Brian Mulroney found himself in a scandal Liberal rat packers were all over him. Today they applaud and cheer a Prime Minister who negotiated taxpayer funded grants for criminals and allowed a minister of the crown to break the government's own rules by becoming associated with suspected criminals who got secret commissions from these grants.

Will the government House leader or the minister of heritage stand today to explain how this is any different from what they used to raise hell about in the House?

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions with respect to our taxes.

The petitioners are absolutely sick to death with the billions of dollars the government is collecting in taxes. They are calling for immediate tax relief.

The petitioners are absolutely demanding that the government give them immediate tax relief that they can see. They are tired of the promises that are unclear while their take home pay goes down and their taxes go up.

They are calling on the government to do something immediately.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my next petition is with regard to immigration. I have a number of them which adds to the thousands and thousands of signatures already.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to immediately change the law so that people who are not genuine refugees would be sent home without delay. We saw this last summer with boat people arriving on our shores. This problem continues every single day in our airports.

The petitioners want the Government of Canada to do something immediately.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions, but they are only on three subjects. The first petition contains tens of thousands of signatures with respect to the law on child pornography.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect children and to make this a priority in British Columbia and other parts of the country. It has gone to the court of appeal in British Columbia. There is no valid law for the possession of child pornography. It is legal to use it in British Columbia and the residents of Canada are absolutely appalled.

The petitioners want the Government of Canada to do something about it now.

[Logging, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Helen Point on Mayne Island is a postcard of British Columbia's natural beauty. It is viewed by millions of ferry passengers travelling through Active Pass.

Today Helen Point is being logged. This situation could have been avoided if it were not for the complete inaction of not one, not two, but three federal cabinet ministers.

The Minister of the Environment refuses to intervene. The Minister of Canadian Heritage referred to the Gulf Islands as “the jewel of Canada”. Completely out of character, she then fell silent. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development promised on November 18 that there would be no logging until all requirements had been met, this two weeks after he had already issued the permit.

The local Islands Trust stated that this situation “requires jurisdictional leadership of the Government of Canada”. I could not agree more. There is considerable goodwill on all sides, if only the government would investigate alternatives. Unfortunately the only finger the government lifted for British Columbia was the middle—

[Taxation, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is the furthest thing from the truth.

“So much for hard work” says Jerry, a power line worker from Manitoba. His pay stub shows 64 hours of overtime. He should be rolling in dough. Let me quote Jerry: “Any extra money I earn would be taxed at exorbitant rates. Why bother to work hard when I am working for nothing? It is a pretty sad commentary on a country when I cannot afford to work because of taxes”.

What does the minister have to say to Jerry and the millions of Canadians like him who just want to keep a little of their hard earned money in their own pockets, not the government's?

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

Let me just remind the parliamentary secretary that I am putting a solution forward, unlike the government which waits until the problem is upon it and it has cost the economy of the country a billion dollars. We should be putting up solutions before there is a problem. Here is a solution that would help labour, not just in Quebec but right across the country.

I cannot believe that the government member opposite wants to stand up and raise a point of order that the problem does not exist. Does the government have to wait for the entire country to shut down before it acts? It is incumbent upon us as members of this House to put solutions forward before the problem happens.

I will summarize the final offer arbitration solution in this case. First, it allows a negotiated settlement, the best solution.

Second, it eliminates the possibility of all strikes.

Third, it forces both sides in any dispute to be reasonable. It will not cost the economy any money because there is no possibility of a strike. Again, it would eliminate strikes forever. It supports collective bargaining.

I would only hope that government members opposite would listen to this rather than act as they did a month ago with the port strike and watch the economy collapse. They watched British Columbia and the country lose a billion dollars because of their arrogance.

We hear the Liberals stand up on ridiculous points of order failing to listen to solutions to problems because the solutions did not come from them. They have their heads stuck in the sand and refuse to recognize the problems. I think it is a disgrace that they would even stand up and make such ridiculous points of order.

I would invite them to listen to positive solutions to problems. and act rather than watch something happen and wonder why it happened. They have been sitting on their hands refusing to act on something as crucial as this.

I hope the Liberals will look at a solution like this and be willing to put forward positive solutions rather than sitting in their chairs and doing nothing as they have in the past.

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it says the “jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law”. What did not come under transportation, the labour law and federal jurisdiction when we looked at the ports dispute? I do not know if I could find something that was more pertinent.

What I am offering is a positive solution to a situation, one that may have helped in a situation like this. I am doing this in is a very positive context. This may offer a solution to another situation in the future.

Let me explain the process of the final offer arbitration appeal and apply it to the transportation problem the people in Quebec may be facing. It may help them out. I will use the other one as an example. If both sides come to an impasse at the end of the negotiations that would obviously be the best solution. If they cannot settle the matter, then each side puts its best offer on the table. The employer would give them the package and tell them that it was the very best offer it could make. In this case I suppose it would be the truckers who would put their very best offer on the table and the arbitrator would be forced to pick A or B, nowhere in between. The advantage to that is that both sides would again get to try to negotiate a settlement but they would have to be reasonable in their final offers. If they are too far from the line, too far from where they should be, their offer would not be selected. The arbitrator would not be allowed to cherry-pick those options. In models where this has happened, the offers have crossed over. In fact, where the employer has offered more—

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 130 states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in the province of Quebec.

First I want to start off by saying that at least to my knowledge, this is an area of provincial jurisdiction and I am not sure why we would be discussing it in this House. Second, why would we be bringing a motion into the House that is not for all of Canada?

Every single member in the House has a responsibility to look after the interests of Canada as a whole. We should not be doing it in a vacuum for just one part of the country. If there is a problem, we should be addressing it for all areas. There could be specific areas, but in my view we should not be phrasing something that is specifically targeted to one area.

Since we are on the issue of labour law, there are lots of areas we should be looking at. If there is a problem with transportation in Quebec which comes under federal jurisdiction, then we should be discussing it and I would support that. I have to admit I do not know the details, but I understand this is a provincial issue.

Let me move on to a problem within the labour laws which I think we should be looking at. We just witnessed this on the other side of the country on the British Columbia coast. The ports closed because of a labour dispute which was within the federal jurisdiction. It cost the entire economy of Canada $85 million a day. That strike of two or three weeks in British Columbia cost the economy of this country almost $1 billion. It did not need to happen.

There is a very simple solution and it is called final offer arbitration. It is something the House should look at some time in the near future. Final offer arbitration will allow collective bargaining. It allows both sides to try to resolve the dispute. That is absolutely necessary.

We should do everything we can to reach a negotiated settlement, much like the government has said before. The best option for everybody is a negotiated settlement. Failing that, if the parties are unable to come to a negotiated settlement, it is critical that we do not shut down something as vital as our ports. It is not just the $85 million a day, or the $1 billion it cost Canada's economy in two or three weeks. It also has a long lasting impact on the reputation of Canada and people look to other sources. Instead of the port of Vancouver, the busiest port in Canada—