Peter Stoffer

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board has not answered the question.

The question is quite simple. His department knew months ago that these workers had a legal date to strike. Why did he make it a perception in the House that it is a surprise to him? Why is he including it in this massive 534 page document and calling it back to work legislation when in essence what he should be doing is introducing special legislation specifically for those workers?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to have a legislative collective agreement. What we have is a legislated forced settlement. There is nothing collective about it.

The minister and his department knew years ago that a day was coming up when 600 or 800 so-called CX workers, prison guard workers, would have a legal right to strike. He gives the perception to the House that it was a surprise and they were caught off guard that they would have this legal right to strike.

Why did they not bring in special legislation strictly for that purpose instead of trying to hide it through the back door and call it legislation as he is trying to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the point, but the question that needs to be asked is quite simple. Were the Liberal members, especially the backbenchers in this House of Commons, given access to that information at 10.10 p.m., long before the opposition members were? That is the question. Were the Liberal members given access to that information an hour before the members on this side of the House?

The whip of the official opposition is absolutely correct. It is quite probable in all circumstance that the Liberal members were given information long before the members of this House. If that is the case, the minister is in contempt.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank all members of the House and of the Senate for the opportunity to change the name of our beautiful riding from Sackville—Eastern Shore to Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. On behalf of the 83,000 we thank the House and the other place very much for that.

It is interesting that we are debating today the concern of my question on February 16 about the blue collars workers of the PSAC union. It is unfortunate that in 1993 this Liberal government broke its promise to end regional rates of pay which in my riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore are a very major bone of contention for these hardworking Atlantic Canadians who are not paid equitably for the work they do compared to other workers with the same union across the country.

Today in the House we saw crocodile tears from the House leader of the Liberal Party who said how upset and how ashamed he was that these workers can actually hold hostage the people of Canada or the farmers of Canada. In all my years of labour negotiations and all my years in the union never once have I ever met a picketer who loved to be on a picket line. Never once have I met a family that wanted its main earner to go on the picket line and lose income so it could end up losing the house, having to go further into debt, having to lose the car and so on. No one likes a picket line, especially farmers. No one likes a picket line, especially the workers who are on that picket line.

What they do want and what they have asked for time and time again is fair collective bargaining. In the event that bargaining process breaks down it is up to the two parties, in this case the government and PSAC, to bring in an arbitrator to make a ruling which is binding on both parties in this case. That arbitration was legislated out so the workers do not even have that opportunity.

I also wish to name two people, Mr. Howie West and Ms. Cathy Murphy, in Nova Scotia with the PSAC union who have done yeoman's work for their membership and for the citizens of Nova Scotia by bringing these issues to the forefront and displaying a very positive attitude as to how they can reach a settlement in this case.

The government refused to negotiate pay equity and now it is before the courts and they are appealing it one more time. Then it was regional rates of pay it refused to discuss. Now the government will go after its own workers' pension plan.

Three strikes and this government will be out. As my colleague for Winnipeg Centre said, the government is waking a sleeping giant it does not want to wake up. I can assure the House that from coast to coast to coast retired PSAC workers and current PSAC workers from all stripes will rise up in anger over the fact that this government is refusing to listen and has brought the morale of these workers to an all time low.

I have letter addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. It basically states if this government thinks it can legislate these workers back to work and replace the picket line outside and move the picket line inside, it is sadly mistaken because it is in for a lot of trouble it does not wish to have.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. The member is correct that this government has faltered quite seriously in its negotiation processes with the unions. However, I should remind the hon. member that it is more than just 70 members on the west coast who are on strike. Blue collar workers on the Atlantic coast are also staging rotating strikes.

The member made mention of these 70 people having a stranglehold on the Canadian economy. He makes it sound as if that is what these 70 members want to do. They want to go out on strike. They want to lose pay. They want to suffer through possible mortgage loss or possible car payment loss. Do people go through school, get educated and get a job so they can go on strike and put a stranglehold on the country?

I should remind the hon. member that this is not what they want to do. What they want to do, and I am sure the hon. member knows this, is to bargain in a fair collective bargaining process. If that fails, then a third party should become involved, an arbitrator, whose ruling would constitute binding arbitration, which would be the law.

This government has legislated away binding arbitration. This government also has not, even with the adjustment of the ten down to seven zones, gotten away with regional rates of pay. The personal love of the President of the Treasury Board is to have different pay scales across the country for the same work.

I hope the hon. member from the Reform Party does not believe that these 70 members on the west coast and the strikers on the east coast love to go on strike. I can assure the member that they do not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with intent to my colleague from the Conservative Party. It almost sounds like he wants to have it both ways. However, I do agree with him on the fact that the government of the day is responsible for the current impasse. He is absolutely correct when he says that.

The only reason we are having this debate today is that when the back to work legislation was presented by the minister the NDP and the Bloc stood to force it. The Conservatives, Reform members and the Liberals all sat down. That is the reason we are having this debate. But that is another story and in my speech I will talk about it.

My question for the member from Manitoba is this. I am sure the hon. member is fully aware of the Liberal broken promise on regional rates of pay. He is sitting next to the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who has briefed him on the regional rates of pay issue and the fact that the Liberals broke their promise on it. If they broke the promise they made in 1993, what makes him or his party think that this government has any credibility when it comes to fair bargaining with PSAC workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for my respected colleague from the Bloc Party is quite simple. The Liberal Party in 1993 promised in the red book that it would eliminate regional rates of pay for blue collar workers of the PSAC union. To date it has not done that. It has in fact reneged on that promise.

Would the member comment on what he thinks of a government that breaks many of its promises, especially this very critical one to 14,000 workers across the country.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard is a change of policy from the Conservative caucus.

I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of quick questions, but I will make a brief statement beforehand.

In 1993 the Liberals were responding to what the Tories were doing to social housing policy and what they were going to do to social housing in this country. Is this a change in the Conservative position with regard to social housing? Does he not believe that all the Liberals have really done is reformed Tory policies?

I do not want to pick on the hon. member that much because he is a decent fellow from New Brunswick.

He is absolutely right that this bill needs a lot of work. I wish him and his party, along with our party and other parties, the best of luck in committee in putting amendments in place. He is absolutely right when he says that all Canadians deserve affordable housing no matter where they live in this country. I wish him and his party the best of luck when they go on their cross-country tour to discuss homelessness and poverty issues.

Would the member not agree that with CMHC becoming more privatized that would in effect set up a privatized for-profit social housing policy in this country?

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague is absolutely right. It is something we have been saying time and time again: Liberal, Tory, same old story. The Liberals have reformed Tory policies. That is exactly what they have done.

My hon. colleague is absolutely right. The Liberal government has abandoned its heart when it comes to policies on medicare, EI and especially social housing. It is a national disgrace. In the next election the Liberals will be paying for it.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from my hon. colleague for whom I have great respect. He basically premised his question in a very answerable way.

Housing is a federal responsibility. To try to manoeuvre the provinces to say it is their responsibility is absolutely false. Social or co-operative housing should always be a federal responsibility, not a provincial responsibility.