Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 359

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

Mr. Chairman, in the case of the CXs, there are 500 to 600 prison guards who at present have not been declared essential services. They will be in a position to strike on Friday of this week. We have to prevent their ability to strike in this case because their work is an essential service.

In the case of the blue collar workers, we know what the strikes have produced in the last few weeks. We know the state of emergency which has been created in Vancouver, as well as for western farmers. We want to prevent that state of emergency continuing during the period of ratification which, once again, could be two, four or six weeks. We have been told by authorities in the west that they cannot continue even for that period of time, even for another two weeks, without these people being prevented from having rotating strikes.

Of course we have to consider the possibility, which does exist, that ratification will not take place. Then, obviously, we would have to have back to work legislation in any case.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that other members of parliament must have been as disturbed as I was to hear that the minister admits not even having considered whether or not this legislation was in conformity with Canada's commitments at the ILO. Could the minister tell us, when it comes to labour legislation and to legislation which is arguably in violation of these international commitments, if it is the policy of the minister and of the government to not even bother subjecting this kind of legislation to an analysis which would indicate whether or not it was in violation of these agreements? Surely this is disturbing.

It would have been better if the minister had said that they subjected it to this kind of analysis and came to a different conclusion than I might have come to, but the minister said that he did not even bother to consider whether or not the ILO commitments were relevant in this case. Could he indicate if it is government policy to completely ignore the ILO? If it is government policy, would he care to defend such a policy? I would not.

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

Mr. Chairman, we operate in the context of Canadian law and Canadian law reflects public interest. We try to make sure, and usually we do, that the agreements we bring together are in conformity with Canadian law and meet the test of Canadian law. It is this parliament that passes the law. We do our utmost to fit this test. The ILO is not a test that is asked of us in terms of serving the public interests of Canadians as expressed in Canadian law.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chairman, this is getting to be a more and more interesting and ridiculous claim. I wonder what the Minister of Foreign Affairs would think of this view as he goes around the world rightly preaching the value of international agreements when the President of the Treasury Board says he is only answerable to Canadian law in this case.

In what context would the President of the Treasury Board argue that he is answerable to international law? Is there any context in which he would be answerable to international law, international labour law in this case, if he is not answerable to it at all in a case like this?

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

Mr. Chairman, in a way, what can I say? We are bound by Canadian law because it is the law that applies to us, so we put it into place.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to find out from the President of the Treasury Board whether there was an offer, in the agreement, from the government and a response from the union for the people who were already on strike regarding the possibility that they might return to work as early as tomorrow, while the agreement is ratified.

Was there an offer from the government on this, and was there a response from the union on the possibility that the employees would go back to work and the agreement would be ratified later on?

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

Mr. Chairman, our negotiator has asked specifically for that to be done and the negotiators for the union have said no.

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

Mr. Chairman, when I asked the minister if PSAC negotiators were willing to give up job action during the ratification period in return for the government giving up its back to work legislation, the minister answered that the union was not willing to give up its strike option. Was this position forced on the union because the government would not relent and give up its right to back to work legislation?

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

Mr. Chairman, we believe it is in the public interest of Canadians, because of the emergencies that exist, to have back to work legislation that will prevent strikes as of now. That is why we want to introduce back to work legislation.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us what will be the lower level of the hourly rate, the highest hourly rate and the average hourly rate under the new contract.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not have that information. Since the agreement was signed only late tonight we have not been able to calculate it. However, we would not give out that information because we are not going to reveal the details of the negotiated agreement.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chairman, could the minister then please give us the lowest hourly rate, the highest hourly rate and the average hourly rate under the old contract?

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

Mr. Chairman, my negotiator does not have that.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I realize that we are not just asking questions here. I might launch into a 25 minute speech just to keep everybody's attention. Then again, maybe I will not.

I have a couple of questions for the President of the Treasury Board. I hope he realizes the difficulty that he has put parliamentarians in and even Canadians as they try to evaluate this bill.

Basically he is saying to vote in favour of this bill and to support the agreement, but we cannot see the agreement because it is secret. In other words, he is telling us to trust him. “I'm from the government and I am here to help”. It is one of those things that one has an awful lot of difficulty believing.

Why would he suggest that parliamentarians, and Canadians in general, would want this thing rammed through parliament, given the stamp of approval, when he cannot tell us what we are voting on because it is a secret? Why should we do that?

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

Mr. Chairman, the general parameters that I have given them tonight are the 2.75% and 2%, plus the increase in salaries. I have mentioned some of the advantages, such as holidays, parental holidays and so on. The existing agreement is available for everybody to see. On that basis one can see what the general parameters are.

As I have mentioned, we have an agreement with the union which we will not reveal because the union wants to present it to its members first. However, I believe it is quite clear to members what the general parameters of the agreement are.

In terms of the CXs, I have indicated what the results were of the conciliation board, what the percentages were and why we believe they cannot be accepted.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we could get a union worker to vote on what the minister just said. That is like saying “Oh, you saw the old agreement. The new one is better, so just vote for it and you will be happy”. Obviously the union would not go for that. Yet here in parliament, parliamentarians are being asked to just trust this government. I guess it is something that we could live with, but it makes it really difficult to be gung-ho for. It is hard to vote for something that amounts to tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, or whatever, when we are not sure of the details.

I would also like to point out this idea of the emergency that is seizing the nation right now. There are going to be darn few people watching this because the real emergency of course is going on over in Europe. This idea of an emergency gripping the nation is a little hard to believe. The grain is moving. That is not the emergency. There is nobody picketing in any major sustained way. I do not see an emergency there. Emergency is a kind of an overplayed word here, I think, unless one is the victim of an overactive imagination.

The procedure we are going through tonight of committee of the whole is a proposal that the Reform Party has made. Each minister should go through this at the tabling of every bill in the House. Whether I agree with the minister or not, I think it has been an excellent process to go through. When a minister tables a complex bill and comes in with his officials and answers questions like this for an hour is an excellent idea and would improve the House of Commons tremendously. I do approve of what is going on here tonight. I think it is great.

During a press conference today the president of PSAC, and I cannot use the words because they are unparliamentary, said some things of the Treasury Board president that were very uncomplimentary. He said that the President of the Treasury Board is not correct when he said refunds from Revenue Canada are behind schedule. He says they are ahead of last year's schedule at this same time. In other words, he says they are ahead of where they were a year ago.

Could the President of the Treasury Board explain whether he believes the PSAC president?

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is an emergency and it is important. The Reform Party itself judged it proper to have an emergency debate on the question. I listened carefully to what Reformers said and they gave all kinds of elements about western farmers that to me would indicate there was an emergency situation.

Yes, I am aware, perhaps unfortunately, of the words the president of PSAC had. I always speak kindly of him. Perhaps we are both wrong in our assessment of each other.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Treasury Board president why he is crying a few crocodile tears on behalf of western farmers. The minister knows very well he has thrown up a smoke screen for the poor job that the wheat board minister has done in selling our wheat.

Western farmers have sold off-board grains at record high prices while the Canadian Wheat Board has sold less than 50% of the wheat board grains at record low prices. If they want to gain some brownie points with western farmers, give us a voluntary wheat board and there will be no problem with strikes on the west coast. Get up and act like a government and let farmers take over their own business.

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

Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member's position.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chairman, PSAC workers were trying to get the same wage for doing the same job as members in other unions working for the federal government. PSAC workers were asking for the same wage as those working for CUPW. Did the workers from PSAC get the same wage for doing the same job as other members working for different unions within the federal government?

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

Mr. Chairman, I am advised that there are different rates for every function. Even within one collective agreement there are sometimes hundreds of rates for very different classifications.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but that is not good enough. People are doing the same job with the same qualifications and the same merits as somebody else doing the same job with the same qualifications and the same merits in a different union but both working for the federal government and yet they are getting paid very disparate amounts of money.

For example, crane operators in my riding were getting paid $16 an hour where crane operators in other unions working right beside them were getting paid 50% more. That is a huge inequity. Was that rectified in the negotiations that were just undertaken?

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

Mr. Chairman, because there are that many unions and because these rates are determined by collective agreements what we do in the federal government is let the collective agreement process determine the wages. This is the system we use.

Now that we are introducing the UCS, the universal classification system, we will at least have a classification system that will be standardized and will enable us to correct some of these discrepancies.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question relating to the PSAC workers, particularly in the Atlantic region.

The President of the Treasury Board said that the regional rates are based on adaptation to living conditions. I have two questions.

First, how are those local living conditions assessed, on what basis are they assessed? Second, are they open to change or review if the living conditions change during the life of the agreement?

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

Mr. Chairman, these rates could always be changed even in the middle of a collective agreement. They would have to be changed by mutual agreement. That is the process we have.

We have adaptations every time we renegotiate these rates. We try to take into account local living conditions in order to get the negotiating rates to reflect local conditions.