[SENATE] ILO Compliance Act

[Smyg]

We acceded to Hours of Work Convention of 1919, after some difficulties. Now, please, let us truly join the international community as an equal, and check off all International Labour Organisation treaties which Brazil yet has in its extensive. Let's get this over with, and move on, as a stronger, better country.

For those objecting to this proposal being a "package deal" to cover all current existing ILO conventions, don't worry, the PCB would be very happy to present a parliamentary bill, debate and voting process on every single one of them individually, if required.

ILO Compliance Act

Whereas the International Labour Organisation (ILO) of the League of Nations, to which Brazil belongs and has sworn its adherence to as party of the Treaty of Versailles (Part I. The Covenant of the League of Nations), has signed into effect a large number of regulatory conventions in regards to a large number of trivial issues for example the safe use of lead in paint and the proper repatriation of foreign seamen, all of which have been signed and ratified by a majority or plurality of the League's members,

Whereas Brazil so far has fallen rapidly behind the rest of the world, signing none of these conventions with the recent exception of the Hours of Work Convention of 1919, the passing of which did not impede the Brazilian national economy whatsoever,

Whereas it is imperative that Brazil does not become a second class citizen of the world community, and that the Republic remains respected by and equal to its neighbours and the Great Powers, and thus that Brazil takes its responsibilities seriously,

• Section 1. The Republic of the United States of Brazil shall accede to the following treaties:
  
  • The Unemployment Convention, 1919 (Text)
  • The Maternity Protection Convention, 1919 (Text)
  • The Night Work (Women) Convention, 1919 (Text)
  • The Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) Convention, 1919 (Text)
  • The Minimum Age (Industry) Convention, 1919 (Text)
  • The Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (Text)
  • The Placing of Seamen Convention, 1920 (Text)
  • The Minimum Age (Sea) Convention, 1920 (Text)
  • The Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (Text)
  • The Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (Text)
  • The Workmen's Compensation (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (Text)
  • The White Lead (Painting) Convention, 1921 (Text)
  • The Minimum Age (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (Text)
  • The Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers) Convention, 1921 (Text)
  • The Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea) Convention, 1921 (Text)
  • The Workmen's Compensation (Accidents) Convention, 1925 (Text)
  • The Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention, 1925 (Text)
  • The Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation) Convention, 1925 (Text)
  • The Night Work (Bakeries) Convention, 1925 (Text)
  • The Inspection of Emigrants Convention, 1926 (Text)
  • The Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (Text)
  • The Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (Text)
  • The Sickness Insurance (Industry) Convention, 1927 (Text)
  • The Sickness Insurance (Agriculture) Convention, 1927 (Text)
  • The Marking of Weight (Packages Transported by Vessels) Convention, 1929 (Text)
  • The Protection against Accidents (Dockers) Convention, 1929 (Text)

• Section 2. This assembly calls upon the Most Excellent Mr. President of the Republic and the Honourable Government of the Republic of the United States of Brazil to speedily take measures to ensure that the Republic deposits its instruments of ratification and that the provisions of the aforementioned Conventions enters into national law.

• Section 3. This bill shall go into effect thirty-one (31) days after passage.

[LordMoose]

we feel as if having all of these treaties under one bill is an attempt to blast us with so much information that it becomes extremely hard to debate any one bill.

In this case we call on all parties to support doing each one of these bills ONE AT A TIME

[OCC There is why to much info to go threw, I would rather see all of us go threw each one slowly than just get drowned by this paper]

[Luc]

we feel as if having all of these treaties under one bill is an attempt to blast us with so much information that it becomes extremely hard to debate any one bill.

In this case we call on all parties to support doing each one of these bills ONE AT A TIME

[OCC There is why to much info to go threw, I would rather see all of us go threw each one slowly than just get drowned by this paper]

((Moose does have a point here, maybe not one bill per treaty, bit its a little bit of an exaggeration Smyg. So id suggest you all divide this vote a little better))

[Red John]

We will not support a package bill of this size, and so would recommend that the PCB submit each treaty either individually or in subgroups.

[Smyg]

we feel as if having all of these treaties under one bill is an attempt to blast us with so much information that it becomes extremely hard to debate any one bill.

In this case we call on all parties to support doing each one of these bills ONE AT A TIME

[OCC There is why to much info to go threw, I would rather see all of us go threw each one slowly than just get drowned by this paper]

((Moose does have a point here, maybe not one bill per treaty, bit its a little bit of an exaggeration Smyg. So id suggest you all divide this vote a little better))

((Luc, I thought you knew better than to take everything I say at face value. Goddamn.))

[Smyg]

We will not support a package bill of this size, and so would recommend that the PCB submit each treaty either individually or in subgroups.

Naturally. We are, as noted, extremely open to any form of dialogue, and happily make amendments. The parliamentary session is long, and with three hundred members of the Chamber, there is ample time to focus on all things. We will submit each treaty individually, unless the Integralists or some other faction gets to the bills first.

[Flamelord]

We would continue to insist that we do not need to sign on to every single international treaty regarding labor standards in order to make adjustments that are believed to be fair to the workers and people of Brazil. How far will it o until we have signed over our own sovereignty to the League of Nations under the guise of 'international cooperation'?

But as has been shown there are few who share our viewpoint, so we shall not oppose

[Red John]

We would continue to insist that we do not need to sign on to every single international treaty regarding labor standards in order to make adjustments that are believed to be fair to the workers and people of Brazil. How far will it o until we have signed over our own sovereignty to the League of Nations under the guise of 'international cooperation'?

But as has been shown there are few who share our viewpoint, so we shall not oppose

We have amended our viewpoint and now concur with our esteemed colleague on this matter.

[Smyg]

Am I correct in assuming the honourable Conservatives and Liberals are not opposed to the package deal, then?

We too are worried about leaving too much up to international forces, but, keep in mind that our proposals always have two sides: One, ratifying the treaties, i.e. confirming with the League of Nations that we will join the agrement. Two, asking His Excellency the President and the Honourable Government to ensure that the provisions of the aforementioned Conventions enters into national law. Thus we adapt the conventions into Brazilian law independently, and hand over no sovereignty.

[Smyg]

Perhaps this bill could enter the voting stage, so that we can find out whether it is supported or not? Should it fail, we can always make amendments.

[acecipher]

Am I correct in assuming the honourable Conservatives and Liberals are not opposed to the package deal, then?

We too are worried about leaving too much up to international forces, but, keep in mind that our proposals always have two sides: One, ratifying the treaties, i.e. confirming with the League of Nations that we will join the agrement. Two, asking His Excellency the President and the Honourable Government to ensure that the provisions of the aforementioned Conventions enters into national law. Thus we adapt the conventions into Brazilian law independently, and hand over no sovereignty.

Indeed, we agree greatly with our colleagues in the PCB over the raised concerns on Sovereignty. They are little more than reactionary isolationist sentiment meant to scare this body into decisions against global cooperation and brotherhood.

We, the Congress, and the President, as the Executive, are the sovereign bodies enabled to enact laws as per our Constitutional powers to do so. When we delegate any power, whether between another governmental entity--like the states--or a private entity, like the rapacious Mr. Farquhar, with any blank check requests to keep his own business affairs floating in the troubled markets of this year, or another nation or trans-national entity like the League of Nations and their slate of conventions before us here. It is among the privileges of having true sovereignty to be able to delegate the rights entitled by the position of sovereignty to another party without losing them--so when we entreat with the League of Nations or Mr. Henry Ford, we do not lose our sovereignty, but rather, voluntarily and knowingly suspend it in respect to our agreement with that outside party. This is one of the privileges of sovereignty: To delegate decisions to another.

Of course, if the Conservatives would like to entertain the other possible definition--that when we entreat with a party, we hand over sovereignty--we will happily put together a bill of inquiry into how the government repeatedly has handed over national sovereignty to an American national whose finances we refuse to even assure are not being misused. The sovereignty of the Brazilian people must not be subject to the trifles of a foreign power.


However, this is, after all, a distraction from the urgent and needed security promised by this package of bills. Many of these are urgently needed if we want to avoid the fate of our unprotected, under-insured American cousins, with the long lines of men who have found them both incomeless and jobless. If we prevent the former, we may well be able to stem the growth of the latter. As such, we strongly urge this package forwards; however, given its current opposition, we will be taking several of the key treaties and submitting them as a package of their own.

[Flamelord]

As we have said, we will support this since the current trend in our national politics seems to favor that sort of arrangement, our misgivings about this continuing path aside

[Luc]

Sebastião do Rego Barros, President of the Chamber of Deputies

We will accept the Communist mostion and will now entertain a vote on this bill.

[Snacks]

The Workers and Peasants Bloc(2) enthusiastically votes yes on this bill.We can only hope this marks a watershed moment in the history of the relationship between Brazilian worker and Brazilian government.

[Smyg]

The Communist Party of Brazil (4) naturally votes in favour.