Mr. Speaker, this evening, we are holding an important debate, and I would like to take this opportunity to review the negotiations between the Government of Canada and its employees.
This House will recall that the Government of Canada has already bargained in good faith and signed collective agreements with over 87% of its employees. And, in this group, I include over 100,000 members affiliated with the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Furthermore, last week, some 10,000 technical employees, represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and the government reached and ratified a new collective agreement.
I have always held that it is by bargaining that two parties can reach an agreement. Confrontation of any sort leads nowhere but to frustration of both sides.
I agree we had a long salary freeze. It began with the Conservative government. We continued it for a number of years because it was essential to eliminate the deficit, which was undermining our national fiscal and financial health. We did that, and two years ago we reintroduced the right to negotiate collective agreements. That is what we have done in the past two years.
Again, we reached agreements with 26 of the 29 groups. We are now at the point where over 85% of our unionized employees have signed collective agreements with us, thus allowing both sides, as employer and employees, to continue to provide necessary services to Canadians, in a manner that reflects the agreements reached by unionized employees and the government. We hope to be able to continue to do that.
In the course of the negotiations with all these groups, we were able to offer, on average, a basic salary increase of about 4.5% over a two-year period. It is on that basis that we negotiated and that we arrived at agreements with such a large proportion of our unionized employees.
There are two groups left, including the blue collar workers, with whom we have been trying in vain for two years to arrive at a solution. At one point, we thought we were very close to an agreement with one group, the correctional services people. In fact, we did reach an agreement with the union leaders. We arrived at an agreement with those who negotiate on behalf of correctional services employees.
It is only when the time came to ratify the agreement that, unfortunately, a small majority of employees refused to ratify the agreement that had been reached with their negotiators and that had been approved by their union leaders.
Despite all our goodwill and our desire to reach a conclusion, we now find ourselves with two cases where the demands of unionized workers do not correspond to the percentages offered to and accepted by almost 90% of the public service in other cases.
Instead of having basic demands of approximately 2.5% for the first year and 2% in the second year, the basic demands are two, three and, in one case, four times higher than what was approved for the very great majority of other unionized workers.
It is clear that, if we said we were ready to accept this kind of demand, not only would we be creating an untenable situation for the almost 90% of our employees who have already signed contracts, but we would also be causing insurmountable problems in future contract negotiations due to start up again in a few months.
We would have established a percentage increase that was out of line with what we gave most of our other employees and with what the private sector got. Right now, private sector increases in the last 18 months have been approximately 2.1% a year. And this would also be out of line with what Canadians can afford to pay, a salary that is current in the market and fair to our employees.
That is why we find ourselves unable to reach agreement with a very small number of our bargaining tables, particularly blue collar workers, because of their excessive demands.
When the government negotiates, it has a basic goal in mind. That goal is to try to find a balance between the interests and priorities of Canadians and those of government workers.
All Canadians have made important sacrifices in recent years. They recognized the need to put our financial house in order to continue moving forward. Poll after poll, Canadians are telling us they are proud of their federal government, which is making the right decisions, although they are often very difficult ones.
Throughout this process, we have had to compromise. We have made offers the government could afford because we have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of this country.
For example, in group 2, blue collar workers, the government made all kinds of compromises. For instance, on the issue of regional rates, we have accepted to reduce the number of regions from ten to seven in spite of the fact that, in the interest of fairness, the rate should not be national, but such that it meets the needs of the local market and does not create distortion on the local markets.
Specifically, when the cost of living is much higher in Vancouver than in Fredericton, it is only fair that workers in Vancouver be paid salaries taking into account the cost of living there.
However, if, given local market conditions, we offer pay rates significantly higher than local rates, we create an upward pressure on the salaries of workers in the area.
Clearly this has been justified for years and condoned by all kinds of commissions on public finances. Fairness demands regional rates. In spite of this we have agreed with the union to reduce the number of regions.
At the same table, with regard to salary increases, the offer we made was higher than what we had offered most public servants.
We raised our offer to a 4.75% base rate increase because we wanted to try to solve any problems with this group so we could get on with the negotiations, reach a negotiated settlement and keep the peace with the union and the employees. To achieve that goal, we were convinced Canadians were willing to accept a rate of increase that was slightly higher than what we had offered most public servants.
But, unfortunately, not only were our employees not satisfied with that, they are now asking twice the salary increase we gave our other employees. These demands are excessive, therefore, and we are convinced Canadians are not willing to accept that.
I still have hope that we will be able to reach a negotiated settlement because, even though the right to strike is recognized by all at this time, strikes have the effect of taking Canadians hostage and cause considerable damage, for example to the grain trade. There are also millions of Canadians who may have to wait a long time before receiving their tax refund.
Unfortunately, our employees, our blue collar workers, have started using tactics that create problems for many Canadians. They have taken Canadians hostage.
For example, I remind members that they stopped traffic at Dorval airport, which is not even under federal jurisdiction anymore. They forced many travellers, some of whom were not even Canadians, to walk more than one kilometre to get to the airport. Many of them missed their flight and were left wondering, and rightly so, what the dispute was all about.
The right to strike exists because when employees withdraw the offer of work they do, the services are not provided. But what right have the employees to hold farmers hostage in the western provinces, taxpayers hostage in the case of Revenue Canada or travellers hostage at Dorval airport? What right have they to hold them hostage and thus create such monumental inconvenience for third parties that they create an atmosphere they think will lead more easily to the conclusion of negotiations?
On the contrary, Canadians are reacting like the farmers in the west, saying “Why are our means of livelihood being affected by the union's taking third parties hostage, in this case the western farmers?”
A strike is never easy, but it is even less so when it involves the security and the health of Canadians.
We want to bargain in good faith and sign agreements with our blue collar workers. We especially want Canadians to receive the Government of Canada services they are entitled to and they pay for.
However, in this strike, we can only conclude that our employees at the two tables remaining, which I mentioned—specifically the blue collar workers—are making excessive demands. Their demands are not in keeping with the balance we must maintain, as a government, between taxpayers and the salaries we pay our employees.
At the moment, we have to consider that our employees, unfortunately, in the case of these two tables, are taking Canadians hostage and forcing us to consider the various options at our disposal to protect Canadians' right to services they elected a government for and they have paid for.
