Mr. Speaker, on October 3, on pay equity, I asked the President of the Treasury Board if he intended to return to the bargaining table with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The question arose from a response the minister had made several days previously, one of the clearest ones he has made on the subject of the decision by the tribunal of the human rights commission in the matter before us.
The minister responded, and I quote “We stand ready to apply the various judgments once they are made final”.
The minister has just now told us that he will abide by the tribunal's decision. I must confess I had doubts about the seriousness of the minister's word. In fact, following this surprising response, I wondered whether, with this statement, the President of the Treasury Board was announcing his withdrawal from the bargaining table. And I hastened to ask him if this were the case. His response, let me tell you, left me somewhat stunned.
While we all know that it was the employer who broke off negotiations, the minister told me that he was quietly waiting for the union to come back to the bargaining table, and went on about his $1.3 billion offer. The employees are not stupid. They know very well that the minister is trying to get them to settle for less.
I know that my hon. colleague will soon rise in the House to tell us proudly that bargaining resumed on October 30. I wonder whether my colleague will be honest enough, however, to admit that he is not even in a position to offer a settlement larger than $1.3 billion, when he knows full well that the Public Service Alliance is demanding close to $2 billion. I look forward to hearing him boast about his wonderfully charitable offer.
Let it be known that, with Christmas around the corner, what the government owes its employees is not charity, but simple and fair justice. And this justice presumes the payment of the money to which they are entitled. Instead of asking me to use my influence with the unions to get them to accept this second-rate offer, I suggest that the minister should instead use his influence with the Minister of Finance to obtain the necessary room to manoeuvre and finally respect public servants.
In the second half of my question of October 3, I also asked the minister if he intended to use all the legal stalling tactics at his disposal to delay a settlement in this matter. I imagine he will tell us that he certainly does not, that he would never wish to delay a settlement.
If my hon. colleague replies in this vein, I will believe him. Better yet, I will say that he wants such a rapid settlement that he is using all the stalling tactics at his disposal.
If I may, I would like to give you some examples of what seem to some to be bargaining tactics, and to others, simple bad faith. Given that the tribunal's decision will not be handed down until the spring of 1998 and that this issue has been dragging on for 10 years, it is clear that everything is in place to rush employees into accepting a second-rate offer. Let us also remember that there is still the threat of special legislation.
We honestly believed in the government's good faith when we learned of the return to the bargaining table, but the tactics being used to influence employees are shocking.
When I read an information bulletin issued to employees, which points out how the settlement process will drag on if the employer's offer is rejected, I cannot help thinking that this is a tactic intended to influence their decision.
In conclusion, I understand that bargaining must include a minimum of strategy, but the government must also understand that its employees are not its enemies. They too are taking part in the public effort. The government must work with, not against, its employees. I have only this to add: do the fair thing.