Marcel Massé

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-87, an act for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be read the first time.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

moved:

That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1997, be concurred in.

[Employment Equity, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the public service, it is incorrect to say that women are being discriminated against in terms of numbers. The percentage of availability of women in the workforce is 47 per cent. For this year our report indicates that women make up 48.7 per cent of the public service, more than their actual number in the labour force.

In the public service in the last few years of downsizing we have been careful to maintain the number of women to at least what they were as a percentage of the total labour force and we have more than succeeded.

[Canada Pension Plan, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the way in which the pension plan is accounted for is according to the rules of the Canadian chamber of actuaries and accountants.

Not only that, but it is done with the approval and support of the auditor general. Would the member want us to start breaking the rules just to satisfy his biases?

[Canada Pension Plan, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Superannuation Act for the public service is not negotiable.

A committee of people have for the last few years been looking at ways to amend it. A way to amend it to deal with the increase in CPP premiums is part of the discussions which should be concluded within the next few months.

[Federal Public Service, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, again, I ask the hon. member to send me the facts of the case he is referring to, so that I can look into the matter, because I am not aware of this case. I will then be pleased to provide him with a reply.

[Federal Public Service, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the facts of the situation to which the hon. member is referring. I am not aware of that situation right now.

However, I can assure the hon. member that, in the public service, we have put in place the necessary systems and procedures to make sure government employees are treated properly. Whenever transfers have been made from the public to the private sector, we have strived to respect the rights of all our employees and to treat these employees fairly.

[Pay Equity, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. She is well known for having defended the questions of pay equity and rights of women in the community and in Parliament, and she continues to do so.

She should be proud of being in a party, in a government, that has done so much for pay equity and the full rights of women.

Not only have we been among the first to accept the principle but we have been the first to have paid over $1 billion in order to implement it. At present there is a case in front of the tribunal and in that case the pleading has stopped a few months ago. We except the judgment to be as soon as possible in the next few months.

We have already solved the question with some unions and I am prepared to offer to the unions involved, if they want to get a settlement quickly rather than having to wait for the judgment in court, to tell them let us sit down at a table and negotiate the issues so we can have a quick judgment.

[Pay Equity, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that in this field the federal government provided leadership to the private sector and the provinces.

I repeat, we have paid over a billion dollars since the legislation came into force to implement pay equity. Not only do we believe in pay equity, but we have negotiated agreements with a number of unions. Therefore, in those cases, the unions were in agreement with us. We negotiated agreements to implement pay equity.

However, when demands reach $2 or $2.5 billion, you would expect any good government, especially if the process is flawed, to say the equity principle requires that we serve all taxpayers, not just the ones in the public service, and that is what we have done.

I repeat, we are willing to negotiate with the unions and settle the issue, even before the court makes a decision.

[Pay Equity, March 7th, 1997]

Check your dates. Not only did that legislation establish the principle of pay equity, but since then, we have spent more than $1 billion to implement that principle, to turn it into reality, and we have succeeded.

We have even negotiated with some of the unions, with the professional employees, an agreement granting pay equity. Let me add that we are willing to implement pay equity. We have already indicated that we are ready to negotiate the pay equity issues.

The unions chose to go before the courts. We are awaiting a court ruling. There is no doubt that we have established the principle, that we have put it in place and that we will continue to adhere to it, as we must.