Marcel Massé

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

Mr. Chairman, the rate we got was 2%. In this case the basic settlement was 2.5% and 2% just as the base.

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

Mr. Chairman, we will look at these possibilities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am informed that there are none.

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

Mr. Chairman, the member probably has more knowledge of that specific type of arbitration than I do. I will just indicate that there are various types of arbitration. They all have pros and cons. If one of them is more efficient obviously we should give it more weight.

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

Mr. Chairman, these are options that could be considered. One of the reasons we have taken away arbitration was that we were in the process of introducing universal classification systems where all kinds of salary adjustments had to be made. This is why at present we do not have them, but arbitration in a number of cases is a very useful way of dealing with these problems.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the term withhold, but I will go with the reason for the legislation. Unfortunately the way that negotiations take place means that we still need the back to work legislation in terms of emergency for the CXs. That is clear. That is half the legislation.

The other part of the legislation deals with table two blue collar workers. The fact that there is a period of time when strikes can take place before ratification and the fact that ratification is not assured indicate that the requirement for back to work legislation continues to exist.

In terms of the emergency itself, we had an emergency debate. We dealt with that question and we came to the conclusion that there was an emergency.

Negotiations take place all the time more or less seriously. There was a meeting between our chief negotiator and the head of PSAC between 8 and 10 this evening. I was told after the final meeting between the two of them that they had reached an agreement.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thought that had been solved when the question of privilege was argued. The right argument is that this fact was not one that would affect the motion to expedite debate but this fact was a force essential for the discussion of the bill. I learned about it at 10.10 p.m. and I was here at about 10.40 p.m.

I barely had time to change my speech in order to be able to make my first statement on that news. During that first statement, as the member may recall, I indicated what had happened. I also indicated that because of the CXs and because of the time period before ratification for blue collar workers we still needed the type of legislation that was in front of us. I do not want to resurrect that but that is how it happened.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not think so because these workers are all designated essential. In this case when new positions were created they had to be defined and then registered. When people move into existing positions they have to be reconfirmed as essential workers. That unfortunately was not done. I could say it is not the fault of Treasury Board, but this does not matter. In this case it was not done and the result is that there is a risk of a strike and that is why we have to introduce legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, if we had been able to solve that question through a negotiated settlement there would have been no need for legislation because the situation would have rectified itself through common agreement. In this case, because there was no agreement, we have to legislate.

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

Mr. Chairman, we would have had to introduce the act purely for the CXs, for the correctional officers, given that in this case they should not have the right to strike. They are designated as essential and there was that possibility of a strike.

However, in the case of the blue collar workers, we believe, and I think a lot of the people in the Reform Party agree with us, that there was a state of emergency. The communications from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the communications from the Canadian Wheat Board, the communications from the Saskatchewan government were quite clear that there were conditions there that were threatening the livelihood of farmers and that is in good part why we are bringing in back to work legislation.