Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 359

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am told that the cost is something like $5 million out of a total bill of about $500 million. Therefore the difference is about 1%, perhaps 0.9%.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the obvious question that flows from that is why on earth the government put Canadian farmers and Canadian public servants through this agony for $5 million of taxpayers money.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the basic question is that what was asked by the unions and their negotiators was much more than this. The reason we have an agreement is that they have come down to a level that makes sense in terms of the employees in our view and in terms of the employer.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board has partly justified using this special bill to impose working conditions on the basis of the fact that there have been financial losses in a number of areas, including grain handling and transportation.

Could he inform the House of the total amount of the financial losses caused by these work stoppages?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the figures have varied from day to day. I am told that there have been up to 20 ships immobilized in Vancouver's port.

There have been up to 1,300 grain cars immobilized there as well. A $9 million contract has been lost, according to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.

In any event, the farmers themselves have seen their wheat exports drop significantly. I think that in the west it was clear that this was an emergency that was costing them millions.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Chairman, can the President of Treasury Board tell us about what he has criticized as a slow-down in the processing of income tax returns?

Can he give us figures? He made it sound terribly serious, whereas according to our information everything is going fine as far as processing returns is concerned.

Is there not something of a discrepancy between what the President of Treasury Board has announced as a major problem that required him to intervene by means of special legislation, and the reality?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No, Mr. Chairman. I have been kept informed on a daily basis of the output at the Department of National Revenue by its Minister, Mr. Dhaliwal.

In the initial weeks, the backlog in uncompleted or non-processed returns was 900,000. A few days ago the Minister of National Revenue told me that the backlog was 1.2 million returns.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Grain Commission is headed for about a $26 million loss over the next couple of years on its operating deficit because the volume of grain moving is such that it cannot cover its costs.

Is there anything in this agreement that prohibits the Canadian Grain Commission from either eliminating positions or doing what is necessary to create the efficiencies and effectiveness of operations so farmers and others do not have to be charged excessive user fees in order to pay these guys to stay at work doing nothing?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the agreement, I am told, that affects the operations of the Canadian Grain Commission.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like clarification on the facts of the case with regard to market conditions as to zone pays and that sort of thing. The example of the RCMP was used.

It is my understanding that the pay difference for Winnipeg, Vancouver and Peterborough is zero, that the only difference is in the northern living allowance and isolated post regulations. Is it true that, as the minister stated earlier, market conditions dictate the RCMP too?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am told there is a cost of living adjustment in the Vancouver region also because of cost of living conditions.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board said earlier that all issues had been resolved.

He also said earlier that there was no guarantee that strike action would not be taken on the part of the union concerned. Did the government approach the union to secure an agreement not to proceed with any strike action before ratification?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, we asked the union that in the negotiations and it said no. It wants to have the right to strike until ratification.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, on what grounds could the minister say that all the issues have been resolved if the union maintains a potential strike position? How do we know that the tax centres, for instance, are not still vulnerable to strike action under the status quo?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the member is right to say that this is indeed the difficulty. The various questions that have been resolved are the questions that had to do in particular with the various clauses in the collective agreement, but the reason we have to continue with the law and bring forth back to work legislation is that this risk exists. We have been told that there may well be strikes between now and ratification.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, the fact remains though that the CX guards, the table four correction workers, are not on strike.

Here we have back to work legislation that is ordering people back to work who are not on strike. Surely the minister will accept how very odd this looks to the general public.

If the real goal is to take away their right to strike in the future, why is that not coming to us in a bill that actually says that? Why is it tucked into the back to work legislation dealing with table two workers?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

In fact, Mr. Chairman, all the correctional workers should be designated as essential services, which means that there is no right to strike. It is because of a quirk, a loophole that was used, that now 500 to 600 of them have the right to strike.

We believe that they must not have the right to strike because they provide essential services. We are re-establishing the position that should have existed where none of them had the right to strike.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, why is this not coming to us by way of separate legislation dealing with designating these workers essential? Why is it coming to us in back to work legislation which has nothing to do with workers who are not out on strike? We cannot send people back to work who are not out on strike and we should not be voting for something like that tonight.

Why is the minister not introducing some kind of legislation on a separate basis to designate these people and then we could have argument and debate fairly on that one issue?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, these people have already been designated as essential workers and they do not have the right to strike. As I mentioned, 500 to 600 of them now have the right to strike because of a quirk. We are correcting that quirk. Because there is the possibility that these 500 to 600 would strike, and they have indicated that it was their intention to disrupt the services in penitentiaries and so on, we have to bring in back to work legislation that will prevent these people who unfortunately now have the right to strike from having that right in the future.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if his attitude means, as far as the government's strategy as the employer is concerned, that he has crossed out the report by the conciliator, the neutral, impartial intervenor whose proposals were endorsed by the union? Does it mean that the employer does not intend to give any weight at all to this report and that it prefers to legislate strategically?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, in the case of the blue collar workers there was a conciliation report that we were ready to accept but the workers decided to reject.

In the case of the corrections employees, there was a report that was in our opinion excessive and that we decided not to accept. Both sides have an equal right to accept or reject. We decided not to accept it.

However, there are clauses in the conciliation report for the correctional workers that are in our opinion very useful. We have already indicated to the union that we are ready to accept them.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the amendment to clause 7, but in fact it could stand for all the government's amendments.

I would like the minister to confirm something for me. We have been told that there is no guarantee that the collective agreement resulting from the settlement that has been reached would be the one that would take precedence if it is only ratified in the next few weeks.

Given the way the clause is drafted, is there not a possibility that the government could order that the conditions in the legislation will take precedence, instead of waiting for the actual results of the bargaining? Is this clause water-tight enough to ensure that the settlement will take precedence over a government fiat?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, our intention is clear. We have said what we intend to do and we hope that the way the amendments are drafted expresses our intention equally clearly. If the initialed agreement is ratified by the blue collar workers, that is the agreement that will become the contract between the employer and the employees.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Chairman, I have two brief questions for the minister.

While both teams were at the negotiating table, did the PSAC negotiators agree to forgo job action during the ratification period if the government were to give up and delay its back to work legislation?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the union has indicated that it is not ready to let go of the right to strike during the ratification time period.