Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 359

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

Mr. Chairman, my question for the minister relates to the definition and in particular to the provisions which are included in the collective agreement affecting gay and lesbian partners of public servants.

As the minister knows, in other collective agreements that have been negotiated with the federal public service benefits have been extended to gay and lesbian partners. In the English language definition of common law spouse, the definition reads as follows: “Relationship exists when for a continuous period of at least one year an employee has lived with a person, publicly represented that person to be his/her spouse and continues to live with the person as if that person were his/her spouse”.

In French, the definition of common law spouse reads as follows:

Common law spouse Il existe des liens de conjoint de fait lorsque, pendant une période continue d'au moins une année, un employé a cohabité avec une personne du sexe opposé et l'a présentée publiquement comme son conjoint et continue à vivre avec cette personne comme si elle était son conjoint.

I wonder if the minister could clarify and confirm that it is his intention to extend the benefits of the collective agreement fully to same sex partners and that the French language definition of conjoints de fait will be amended to reflect that equality.

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

Mr. Chairman, the member has brought that difference between the English and French definitions to my attention today. The English definition is the right one. The French definition, the one contained in the regulations, will be amended deleting the words that are not in conformity with the English version.

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

Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, is it then the intention of the government to extend these benefits to gay and lesbian partners of public servants covered by the collective agreement?

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

Mr. Chairman, yes it is.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board who is not covered under this agreement. Which workers, please?

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

Mr. Chairman, basically under the agreement there are two groups that are covered, table two, the blue collar workers, and table four, the CXs, the correctional workers. The agreement covers only these two groups.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister how he explains the fact that, over the years, ever since 1982 as I mentioned before in my presentation, the times when the federal government has actually managed to get along with its employees have become the exceptions to the rule? How does he explain the fact that this government is incapable of finding ways to come to an agreement with its employees?

Is there something in the process that is wrong or flawed? Is the problem the competence of the public servants? Is the problem the orders that are given by the government?

How does he explain the fact that the government, no matter which party is in power, is unable to get along with its employees?

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

Mr. Chairman, before the two groups that we are talking about, table 2 and table 4, we reached negotiated settlements over the past two years with 87% of our employees. If we include blue collar workers, this brings the number of employees with whom we have negotiated collective agreements to almost 95%.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have three brief questions for the minister responsible.

Would he agree to update the House specifically on the instructions he gave to the government negotiators? Who are they? What is their background in negotiation?

Secondly, what specifically caused him to lose confidence in the possibility of reaching an agreement with the correctional officers' representatives? At what point did he lose confidence and what specific instructions did he give to the negotiators?

Is he going to be able to sleep tonight, knowing that he has made a mockery of democracy?

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, the instructions to the negotiators for members of the correctional groups were the same as were given to most of the other bargaining tables, in other words a 2.5% increase the first year, a 2% increase the second year and a whole series of provisions dealing with things like parental leave, annual leave depending on seniority and so on. Our instructions were the same.

Second, we have complete confidence in our negotiators because they have made it possible for us to reach agreements with 87% of our employees this year in difficult circumstances.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Chairman, my question pertains to the discriminatory practice of paying workers in one region of the country, members of the public service, less for work of equal value for the same work done in another region of the country.

I would like to know from the minister whether there is any intention on his part or his negotiator's part to delve into this issue with a mind to making an equal rate of pay across the country. Will the minister enlighten the House as to whether he is amenable to moving toward this in the future?

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

Mr. Chairman, in most cases regional rates are the rates that permit equity in terms of the rewards for the work done. This is because the cost of living and market conditions vary in the various regions of the country.

This is so true that in a department like external affairs there are groups of countries defined according to cost of living, difficulty of being there, the element of nearness or being very far away, very isolated, and there are compensations for all of these factors.

In the RCMP there are cost of living adjustments for instance. Our regional rates adapt themselves much better to living conditions, the cost of living and local market conditions.

In the present negotiations we have reduced the number of regional rates from ten to seven. That was one of the difficult parts of the negotiations but we succeeded in getting agreement between employers and employees.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chairman, if this back to work legislation pertains to the grain weighers, what does the minister intend to use as a method to settle the contract once he gets the workers back on the job?

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

Mr. Chairman, what we have in the tentative agreement is a list of conditions of work that will take place once the contract has been ratified by the workers. We have a tentative agreement that has been initialled by us and by the representative of the workers.

The back to work legislation has to apply in the interim period which is between now and the time when the agreement will be ratified. During that period there is no guarantee that there will be ratification. There is no guarantee by the employees that they will not have strikes.

The conditions of work will apply in the interim period, unless it is ratified, and they will continue to apply if it is not ratified. Those are conditions of the present contract.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, now that table two is less of an issue and now that certain terms will be recommended by the union to its workers for ratification, I would like to ask about table four.

We now have the report of the conciliation board to the chairperson of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. It is a detailed ruling that came down from the board on March 19.

What is it about this report that the government cannot see fit to implement knowing now that the union finds it okay? The union has seen this report and finds it tolerable or to its liking and will vote for it. Why can the government not simply say now that it also accepts the findings of the conciliation board and use this as the settlement for what has been going on?

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

Mr. Chairman, even though we have an agreement that has been initialled by the negotiators once again this does not cover the period between now and the moment of ratification. For that time we still have to prevent strikes from taking place. We have to take into account the possibility that the agreement will not be ratified.

In terms of the CXs the conciliation board report is equivalent to an increase in compensation of about 11% compared to the 2.5% and 2% that have been the basic compensation. What PSAC was asking for was equivalent to about an 18% increase in salary. We cannot accept the conciliation board report because it is clearly excessive in terms of all the other agreements we have negotiated.

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

Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that the very reason for this bill's existence has ceased to exist.

The government decided to bring in legislation because it thought no agreement would be reached; since an agreement has been reached, the reason for the bill no longer exists.

Starting now, should the government not provide instead that for the group of correction officers who are not on strike, who will not be going on strike because they are not in a legal position to do so for two days, should it not provide in the bill something that would allow 24 or 48 hours for reaching a settlement, without the legislation as such applying to them?

It has already been proved that there is no need for special legislation, since a settlement has been reached, while the whole principle of the bill was based on the fact that the government thought it could not reach an agreement, and an agreement has in fact been reached.

Could the government not show good faith and give correctional officers a chance to put this in a collective agreement, without having to take the special legislation route?

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

Again, Mr. Chairman, in the case of the blue collar workers themselves, the reason we still need back to work legislation is because there is a transition period between now and the time when the agreement is ratified, and if the agreement is not clearly ratified by the members, they have to be prevented from causing more problems for western farmers, in particular.

In the case of the correctional services officers, in theory, they do not have the right to strike. They have all been declared essential. A strike did not take place, this time. Of course, we cannot take the chance that the 500 or 600 correctional services officers who currently have the right to strike could actually do so, because already a riot in just one prison makes the lives of inmates and staff very difficult. This is why they must be included now while they do not have the right to strike.

The fact that they would be able to go on strike on Friday or Saturday forces us to include them.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Chairman, when this evening began there was no tentative agreement. Now there is a tentative agreement which substantially changes the whole nature of the discussion.

I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board a simple question. Is it his intention to table in the House tonight the tentative agreement which we are now discussing?

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

No, Mr. Chairman, and I have given an answer in this regard. There has been an agreement with the negotiators, the union representatives and ourselves that it would not be revealed.

The agreement, as I mentioned, was signed late last night. Therefore the agents of the employees want to have time to explain the agreement and present it to their members.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps members of the House would also like to understand what is in the tentative agreement because it affects what we are doing tonight.

If the President of the Treasury Board cannot present the agreement or table the agreement in the House, could he at least explain the substantive points in it that make it different from the current collective agreement or the one that would be perpetuated if the legislation were passed?

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

I am told, Mr. Chairman, that the agreement includes the basic 2.5% and 2%. There is also a long list of improvements in terms of holidays. For instance, they can have five weeks of holidays after 18 years of employment rather than 19 years and so on.

Another advantage has been given to them. There are five steps in each classification. One step has been added or reduced. I am told that the increase that was offered to them is 2.75% instead of 2% and there is a small increase in the salary or wages they get per hour.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. The hon. government House leader told me earlier that he did not believe that there was any provisions for the corrections services people, but the minister just informed the House that group four, the corrections people, were included.

Are the corrections people included in this tentative agreement? If there is an initialled tentative agreement I can take it that all the issues are resolved. If that is the case, would it not be in our interest to give the workers an opportunity to ratify it before we proceed?

The minister is not willing to table the document in the House for members, but the union will be taking it to its membership and it will therefore be in the public domain. Obviously they have to know what they are voting on.

Why will the minister not give members of the House an opportunity to see the agreement when in essence it will be in the public domain as the union membership must see what is in it if it is to vote and ratify the agreement?

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

Mr. Chairman, in the agreement only the blue collar workers are covered. The CXs are a different table. It would be a different agreement and there is no agreement with them. The agreement that was initialled tonight covers only the blue collar workers, what we call table two, but they are both in the law.

On the other question, there is agreement between the unions and ourselves that they would not be tabled for reasons that are easy to understand. Yes, the union may reveal it, but we cannot break our word to the union that we would not reveal it until there is an agreement on it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. Could the President of the Treasury Board inform the House of what the total cost difference is between the agreement outlined in the bill now before the House and the tentative agreement that was arrived at with the table two workers?