Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 359

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

Mr. Chairman, how long does the minister expect this ratification or rejection process to take?

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

Mr. Chairman, the normal period for the ratification process is four to six weeks. In this case the union negotiators have indicated to us that they will try to do it within two weeks.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board has made no mention of the Canadian Grain Commission. Is there anything that prohibits the Canadian Grain Commission from eliminating positions in order to create efficiency and effectiveness in the Canadian Grain Commission?

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

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the agreement on that subject.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I ask a question specifically relating to the solicitor general group, group four. Some time ago that bargaining group had two options other than negotiations when there was a problem. They could either have conciliation and the right to strike or they could have binding arbitration.

This government has taken away their right for binding arbitration and has left them only with conciliation and strike. So they went for conciliation, and the conciliation panel, never mind that there was a dissenting report, there was a majority report. They are prepared to accept that. The only thing that the government has left them is conciliation and the government is rejecting that.

It was only through a slip-up on the part of the government. In actual fact it was a big slip-up, mainly because there were unfilled positions that did not get designated and the government could not designate something it said was not important enough to fill, then it turned around and filled them. That is why it has the problem.

The position now is that the only thing left for these people is conciliation. They went that route and accepted it. The government is saying, “We are going to designate you so you cannot go on strike. We have taken away arbitration and now we will not accept conciliation”.

How does the President of the Treasury Board justify the fact that the government has taken away the two options they had? It has taken away strike and it is going to designate them. How are they ever in good faith supposed to negotiate with this government when the government has totally emasculated them and taken away every opportunity for action against the government? They rely only on the goodwill of government and that is not very strong these days.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am advised that even when the right to arbitration existed, the PSAC, the CXs, have never used it.

Second, the conciliation board report is a useful instrument, but as I mentioned, in the case of the blue collar workers we thought that the conciliation board report made a lot of sense and the blue collar workers refused it. We used exactly the same right in this case. Also we have to remember that in the case of the CXs, in December we had had an agreement with the negotiators. Hon. members will remember that even the union thought that the agreement with the correctional officers was a good one and recommended to the union to accept it. But in the end, the employees did not accept it.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the minister will be aware, Canada has undertaken international obligations with the International Labour Organization and it is signatory to a number of international labour conventions.

I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether he has gauged the acceptance of the bill which is now before the House against Canada's international commitments under ILO conventions. I would suggest through the Chair that in fact Canada is in breach of our ILO conventions through this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have evaluated that agreement in terms of domestic law, of Canadian law and not in terms of international law.

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

Mr. Chairman, the obvious question is if Canada is serious about its obligations under international law and particularly these conventions that we have signed, why on earth is this government refusing to evaluate the legislation against that and refusing to respect those international commitments?

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

Mr. Chairman, our basic desire of course is always to come to negotiated settlements. In cases like this, I think it is clear that the domestic law predominates.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Could I ask why it seems that almost everybody is getting supplementaries but I did not?

[The Chairman]

I did not see the hon. member rise, unfortunately. The hon. member need not worry. I will come back to him in due course.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I will ask a supplementary because the answer to my first question will help me with the second question.

In response to my colleague from the Kootenays and to my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, it was not made clear to my satisfaction at least as to whether this legislation relative to the CX employees will permanently put them out of the range of strike. Will this permanently refuse their ability to strike?

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

No, Mr. Chairman. That is done through other means. It is the designation as workers in essential services.

In the present case we have a specific problem. We are solving it through the back to work legislation until this agreement expires and another one replaces it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the definitions group specific agreement means any agreement specified in schedule 1. The second part of the bill deals with schedule 2.

It strikes me that the government is basically saying to its workers that they have a right to strike up to the point that they want to strike. Is that not what it is saying? In other words, we are having to deal with the legislation we have at the moment at 3.40 a.m. because of the inability of the government to come to an agreement with its workers. Having reached a point where it cannot come to an agreement with its workers, it then removes the right to strike.

I ask the President of the Treasury Board, what is the purpose of having a right to strike for people in the public service if when they choose to exercise that right we are forced to vote on back to work legislation thereby removing that right?

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

Mr. Chairman, in the case of the CXs, because they are designated as an essential service the right to strike does not exist. This has been a choice that has been made because the security of prisoners and other people is involved.

In the case of the blue collar workers, it is obvious that the right to strike is not absolute. When there is an emergency situation like there is in terms of western grain, then at that point the government has the ability, and it has used it in the past, to bring the workers back to work because the security, safety or economic life of Canadians is involved.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Chairman, before I start, is this the supplemental I did not get or is this a new one which will give me a supplemental?

[The Chairman]

If the hon. member wants it.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I want to finish off with the answer I did not get from the President of the Treasury Board.

I specifically asked how unions and more specifically the CX employees are supposed to bargain in good faith if the government takes away every single tool that they have. He said that the arbitration has not been used, yet the government saw fit to take it away from them.

Now we have a situation where they are designated. The government is saying it still left them with the right to conciliate and strike. If the government does not like the report of the conciliator, it will take that right away from them too, but the government will keep rights on its side. We have an incredible imbalance.

One of two items that is in this proposal of the conciliation board, and there are only two, deals with pay and training. I am a member of the subcommittee studying the CCRA. I have been in the Pacific region and I have been in Atlantic Canada. Training is non-existent. Guards are being asked to do a job which they do not know the details of or what the rules are because there is no training. That was one of the two items.

If this is such an unacceptable conciliation report, is the government saying it does not care what they make, it does not care if they are trained and it does not care if they have any rights any more? How is the CX employee supposed to bargain in good faith when the two things the government said that were their tools in the event of a failure to settle a dispute are taken away? How are they supposed to negotiate in the future if they are told no arbitration, no strike and it will not accept conciliation unless it says exactly what the government wants it to say?

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

Mr. Chairman, in fact the past history proves that we have been able to come to agreements with them. We were very close to having an agreement with the correctional officers before. There was an agreement accepted by the negotiators but, as I mentioned, it was not ratified by the employees. Clearly, over the past years we have been able to come to agreements with them.

In the conciliation report there were four items. One was, of course, wages. There was training. There was another one about a study that will establish if really they are or should be equivalent to RCMP officers, and so on, and we have agreed to that one as well. Out of the four elements we have agreed to three. I think our record shows that we have been able to come to agreements with them.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I still have not received an answer to a question twice asked. How are the CXs supposed to negotiate in good faith with the government in the future when they are being told they are designated, they cannot go on strike? They have had the right to binding arbitration taken away from them and the government has now proved that unless the conciliation report says what the government wants, it will not accept that either.

How in the future are they supposed to bargain in good faith in light of what the government has done to them this time?

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

Mr. Chairman, in the end it is always the market that determines if a level of salaries or wages is acceptable. In this case we have no problem with rates that are offered in the negotiated settlement. We have no problem recruiting prison guards.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chairman, we now have a tentative agreement. We have an imposed settlement, this 500-page plus document. We have had questions about what is now seeming to boil down to a concern about what happens between now and ratification in terms of the government's concern that these people will be able to strike.

If that is the issue, and that appears to be a very big part of the issue, I want to follow up on earlier questions by other members and ask the government why it does not bring forward simple legislation that just deals with keeping people on the job between now and the eventual ratification of the agreement, and forget about this imposed settlement that we have all been bogged down with in this place today.

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

Because, in fact, Mr. Chairman, the agreement may not be ratified. We have already had the problem with the CXs where there was an agreement with their negotiators. It was put to a vote of the employees and it was not ratified.

We have three problems that can only be solved by passing back to work legislation. The first one is the problem between now and the moment of ratification. That means that for two to four to six weeks the farmers in the west would be submitted to the kind of rotating strikes that have taken place in the past few weeks. I think we have come to the judgment that the farmers in the west are not ready to accept that.

There is also the possibility that the agreement will not be ratified. If it is not ratified, of course, we need back to work legislation for the same reasons: the emergencies that have been created, in particular in the west. In terms of the CXs, as I have explained, we have to have back to work legislation that will prevent them from striking because we cannot afford a strike in the essential services in the penitentiaries.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chairman, my question really has not been addressed. The reason it has not is because I used the words “eventual ratification”. The government has proved that the way it is going to bargain is that it is going to legislate people back to work anyway. That is a given.

It does not have to all hinge on ratification of this agreement. We can talk about eventual ratification. In terms of the corrections officers, the corrections table, I think that surgical legislation is another option for the government rather than this huge, imposed settlement.

Can the minister please tell me why that is not an option?