Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 359

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

Mr. Chairman, the rate we got was 2%. In this case the basic settlement was 2.5% and 2% just as the base.

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

Mr. Chairman, these people have been legislated back to work four times. This is the fourth time we are attempting to do it.

In order to avoid these problems in the future, will the President of the Treasury Board include in the contract an opportunity to engage in either final offer arbitration or binding arbitration to prevent strike actions that have impaired our economy, or a solution that would get us out of the problem of ordering these workers back to work against their will while enabling them to have a legitimate out?

We could develop a solution that would be fair to the government, the taxpayers and the workers who are trying to get a fair resolution to their grievances.

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

Mr. Chairman, I underline the fact that we have been able to negotiate collective agreements with our members in more than 87% of the cases. However I will consider the possibilities my hon. colleague mentioned.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would not like to leave on record two inaccuracies that were mentioned tonight. The first was when the President of Treasury Board said that they took arbitration away this time because of a whole series of new classifications. I want the record to show that the right to arbitration has been taken away for two successive years at budget time, not just for this set of negotiations.

It was also stated that the conciliation recommendation covered four areas when it covered two. It covered pay and it covered training. The training clause was watered down so much that even I do not accept it. Yet they were prepared to accept it.

The President of the Treasury Board specifically said that by comparison wage parity with the RCMP was included. Wage parity with the RCMP would require about a 38% increase. The conciliation report ranged between 12.5% and 14.2%. Let the record show accurately what happened and not what has been stated by the President of the Treasury Board.

The question I would like to ask goes back to what I asked three times now and did not get an answer to except under the most insulting terms CX workers could possibly imagine. I asked how they could possibly negotiate in good faith with the government in the future, given that the government had taken away arbitration and given that the government had essentially rejected conciliation, had taken away their right to strike and had said it would designate them.

His response the third time I asked the question was that if they did not like it they could quit because there were lots of people who would work for less. Prisoners work for $5.65 a day. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will get the prisoners to look after themselves, or maybe the CX employees could lock themselves up because it seems they would have more rights that way.

I would like to ask this question for the fourth time to see if I can get a logical and acceptable answer. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how employees like the CX group will be able to negotiate in good faith with the government in the future when they have lost the right of binding arbitration, when the government rejects their conciliation, rules them back to work instead of allowing strikes and goes to full designation? How will they negotiate in the future?

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

Mr. Chairman, the member unfortunately will get the same answer because I do not know of any other answer to his question.

The four elements in the conciliation report are training, parity or not with the RCMP, a step taken off the bottom and a step added at the top.

The member is right when he says there has been a prescription for arbitration twice: one in the last budget for the reason I gave and one in the budget at the time we imposed restrictions. At that point we indicated that we wanted to be responsible for the settlements and did not want a referee to be responsible for them.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, we have been listening to the President of the Treasury Board saying over and over again that it is necessary to designate the 600 or 700 CX people who are left over.

However, as recently as March 22, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada signed a memorandum of settlement saying that it was understood and agreed that the 608 positions identified were not designated within the meaning, et cetera. Item No. 3 said that the parties further agreed that the employer would not seek any change of the non-designated status of the positions until subsequent notice to bargain was served in the next round of bargaining, et cetera.

The treasury board and the Public Service Alliance met all day on March 19 to hash out the agreement that they would not do anything to go after these non-designated people, and now we are facing legislation, the heaviest hand of all, being imposed in the House of Commons. I guess I am asking for some explanation.

If the memorandum signed on March 22 said that we could survive with this number of non-designated people, why is it now an emergency and all of them have to be designated immediately with such a heavy instrument or a blunt cudgel, one might say?

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

Mr. Chairman, the answer is easy. Before that agreement was made, there were 900 people in that situation. That agreement solved it for 300, but unfortunately it did not solve it for the 500 to 600 that were left. For these 500 and 600 we still have the need for back to work legislation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, my information shows it was actually 1,200 when the application was started on February 19. The fact is that the language in here is fairly clear: The parties further agree the employer will not seek any change to the non-designated status of the positions in this appendix until subsequent to notice to bargain being served in the next round of bargaining involving the correctional. The government clearly built in a strategy on how it would get these other people designated in the next round of bargaining.

Is it not being intellectually dishonest to sign this on the 22nd and one day later try to slam this through with the back to work legislation? Clearly something needs more explanation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am told there was an emergency in these two institutions where these 300 people were. That emergency was solved for these two situations. However, the rest of the problem remained. Once again that is why we have to have back to work legislation for these essential services.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like the President of the Treasury Board to clarify one thing.

When we were discussing blue collar workers' salaries, we asked why people on the east coast were paid less than others. The case of members of Parliament was used as an example. The President of the Treasury Board said that certain MPs were compensated at a higher rate than others. I think that all MPs are paid the same amount whether they come from the east coast, from New Brunswick, from Vancouver or from Edmonton.

I know all MPs receive the same salary. The only thing which is different is the travel expense budget for members who live further away.

What was said in the House is not correct. People in the Atlantic provinces deserve to be paid the same salary for similar jobs as the people in the west or anywhere else. In the collective agreement signed with the union this evening to be submitted to its members, is there some reference to the fact that people in the east will be paid the same for the same work as those in the rest of the country?

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

Mr. Chairman, my colleague is of course referring to the fact that federal MPs are all paid the same no matter where they come from. What I said earlier was that members of provincial parliaments receive different salaries. This can be proved. You only have to look at the difference between the salaries of MPs in Newfoundland, for instance, and Ontario. That is what I said.

Regarding regional rates of pay, I said that equity involves adapting to local circumstances and the local cost of living. That is what we are doing.

If we look at the case of the blue collar workers, the Atlantic region benefits enormously under the agreement we have now.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I just want it to be clear. It is as if the minister said to the House that MPs from Newfoundland or elsewhere were not paid the same. We are not at the provincial level. We are at the federal level.

An MP gets the same salary whether he comes from Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Vancouver. Do the people who work for the federal government not deserve the same salary, whether they come from Newfoundland or New Brunswick or Vancouver or Edmonton, no matter where throughout the country? I am talking about salary here, not expenses.

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

I have understood what the member has said.

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 3 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Clause 3 agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 4 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Clause agreed to)

(On clause 6)