Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this issue today.
First of all, the member will be very happy to know that negotiations are ongoing which is the question she asked. At the end of my speech I will respond to some of the comments she made about the budget.
As was stated previously, the collective agreement for the correctional services group expired on May 31, 2002. The 5,500 employees in this bargaining unit are represented by the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers.
The negotiations began in March 2002 when the bargaining agents served notice to bargain. Since then the employer has been working diligently to reach an agreement that is satisfactory to both parties. However, although the parties have been at the table for over 80 days to negotiate a new collective agreement, several major issues are still in dispute.
In light of the difficulties the parties face in reaching a settlement, the employer suggested on several occasions during the negotiation process that the parties could benefit from the help of a conciliation officer to move the process along, but the bargaining agents declined.
On March 3, 2004, after two years of negotiations, the employer asked the Public Service Staff Relations Board to appoint a conciliation officer to help the parties resolve the outstanding issues.
On November 30, 2004 the conciliation officer informed the parties of his decision to terminate the conciliation process due to the number and the scope of the issues still remaining, as well as the limited prospect that this process would lead to a settlement. Following the discussions between officials of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the bargaining agents, two series of meetings are currently scheduled for negotiations.
Let me be clear, the Treasury Board is committed to the collective bargaining process. Treasury Board's ultimate goal is to reach a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to the employer, to our employees and to Canadian taxpayers.
I was disappointed that this is one of the members of the Bloc who may vote against the budget and therefore unfairly represent Quebeckers. The budget has foreign aid and Quebeckers are very generous people. Yet, the Bloc is joining the Conservatives to vote against foreign aid.
There is affordable housing in the budget which Quebeckers support. There is child care in the budget which Quebeckers have shown to lead the country. Yet the Bloc, now representing Quebeckers, is joining the Conservatives to vote against these social initiatives.
There is a huge environmental greenhouse gas reduction in the budget. There are investments in a climate change plan in the budget. Many Quebeckers are very supportive of that, yet the Bloc is voting against that.
There are a number of items for first nations people. I noticed in committee in the old days, before the Bloc joined the Conservatives in the House, that the Bloc was supportive of some first nations issues. Now it is voting against the budget that is moving these issues forward.
There are literacy initiatives in the budget. I cannot believe any party would vote against that, but the Bloc is doing just that. There is money for the cities of Quebec. Those municipalities could sorely use that money and the Bloc is voting against that. There is money for seniors. I know the people of Quebec are a warm and generous people who would want to vote for money for seniors. Yet, the Bloc is voting against that. It is unfair of the Bloc to act so uncharacteristically on behalf of Quebeckers and vote against money for the poor, the disabled and the sick.