Marcel Massé

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

Mr. Chairman, the member has brought that difference between the English and French definitions to my attention today. The English definition is the right one. The French definition, the one contained in the regulations, will be amended deleting the words that are not in conformity with the English version.

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

Mr. Chairman, we do not feel this because we know that if there had been no tentative agreement, the law would have been passed. The workers would have been sent back to work. The workers also know that we have come to a tentative agreement and they have not given us any assurances between the time of the tentative agreement and the time of ratification.

We have to protect Canadian people during that period of time. The workers will have to choose to ratify or not and they will have the choice between the collective agreement that would have been included in the law as presently drafted and the new one and another collective agreement, the one that has been agreed to in principle that contains more benefits than the one included in the law.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are no assurances from the union that they will stop the rotating strikes or that they will not have rotating strikes between now and the time of ratification.

Since we do not know if it will be ratified, if it were not to be ratified then there is a possibility the strikes would continue.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition must be joking because the vote that has been taken is a vote on closure. I have checked. That is what Motion No. 21 does. Mr. Speaker, it was only after you called orders of the day that the bill was introduced for the first time. The information that we had an agreement in principle was irrelevant to the vote on Motion No. 21. It has nothing to do with it. No privilege was breached. There was no information that was relevant for the vote on Motion No. 21. I made the first speech at second reading of the bill and that speech mentioned that there was at that point an agreement in principle.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, obviously questions of bad faith are not mentioned here, but this is a question of bad faith.

The motion on which the vote took place was on a motion for closure. It had nothing to do with the act itself. I have already indicated that the bill itself is not changed by the fact that there has been an agreement in principle. The need for the bill to be passed is not affected by the agreement in principle. It is not affected, on the one hand, because the blue collar workers have not ratified the deal and can, therefore, still strike with the same effect that they have had in the past 10 weeks. The prisoner guards can also still strike. Therefore, the substance of the act does not change.

The vote that took place was on a motion for closure which was not affected in any way, shape or form by the tentative agreement that was reached tonight.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to say that according to the information I received from our negotiator, both parties have agreed not to reveal the details of the agreement at this time.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that it could be produced. I indicated that I would check if it could be produced.

I have my main negotiator here. I can probably get the answer in a few minutes. If it cannot be produced, it cannot be produced.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know that our negotiators have initialled that agreement. I do not know if it can be tabled tonight. We obviously have at least one copy that has been initialled. I am not sure it is available. If it is, we will produce it for the hon. member.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand what the member means. We have been negotiating with the union. We have been at the same table. We knew what the differences were between the two of us and finally tonight at 10 o'clock we reached an agreement.

However, the agreement itself is an agreement in principle. If it is not ratified the strikes can continue over time. Therefore we need the act to prevent the strikes in the meantime, to prevent the strikes if there is no ratification by the employees, and to prevent a strike by the prison guards.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the act is still necessary for the CX workers. Once again, they should be designated essential and they are not. We need back to work legislation to prevent them from striking. It is still necessary for blue collar workers, because the agreement in principle by itself does not prevent them from striking. There have been indications that they want to continue their rotating strikes unless there is back to work legislation that prevents them from striking.

Given the fact that they can still interrupt the movement of grain, by the way all through the period until ratification and continuously if it is not ratified by them, which is a possibility, we therefore need back to work legislation.