Marcel Massé

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, once the agreement is ratified and becomes the agreement between the parties at that point there is a no strike agreement. There is a contract between the two parties, but until that agreement has been ratified it does not have the force of law and therefore the employees can strike.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, the process works in such a way that these negotiations take place between the negotiators of the government and the negotiators of the union. They reach a tentative agreement, as they call it, and initial it. However, this agreement does not have the force of a collective agreement until it is ratified by a majority of the members.

This agreement does not have force of law. It is not a collective agreement and it cannot be applied. However, now that we have a tentative agreement it means that since we prefer to have a negotiated settlement rather than a legislated one we will introduce amendments in the law that will permit us, if this initial agreement is ratified, to put it as the collective agreement that will serve as the instrument of relationships within the parties.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, when the initial rates were negotiated I was told there were studies of living conditions, cost of living and so on. These are arguments that are brought up by the union in order to determine the rates for each location.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

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.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

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.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

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.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

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

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

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.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

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.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, my negotiator does not have that.