Marcel Massé

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.