Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Stéphane Dion Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Madam Chair, the minister will have several opportunities to respond to this question. I will ask the question, though I know she will not answer me right away because it is not in the definition of the debate, but we will move our own amendment and she will have another opportunity to respond.

This debate has been very long and difficult, but I still do not think she gave a clear answer why she does not want the salaries freely negotiated. It is the main reason that some in this House, but certainly not me, question her good faith and commitment to workers. I will never go there because I do not like to impugn the motives of other colleagues, but if she were able to give a clear and convincing answer, it would help everyone to know where we are.

I heard the arguments that she put forward and I want to review each and every one of them.

First, she told us that we had to give postal employees the same treatment as other federal public servants. However, there is no reason to do this, since Canada Post has the right to negotiate. Therefore, if Canada Post has the right to negotiate, there is no guarantee that its employees will end up getting the same kind of salaries as other federal public servants. And no one said anything about depriving Canada Post of its right to negotiate. That is why it is a Crown corporation. So, this argument is a very weak one.

I do not know if the minister is still interested in listening to me, but I hope so. This debate has been a long one, but we still have not received any answer.

The second problem is what happened in 1997. The minister referred to the 1997 precedent but, at the same time, she was very critical of the government of the day. She has to make up her mind. She cannot have her cake and eat it too. She must choose. If she does not like what happened in 1997, she should not invoke that precedent. In any case, an argument based on a precedent is always a very weak argument.

She is saying that she wants to avoid uncertainty about wages, but such uncertainty is part of life when one negotiates wages. I do not think the Canadian society denies this kind of uncertainty. We have much worse uncertainties in life than the results of wage bargaining, where the gap between an employer and the employee may become narrower through negotiation.

Up to now, her reasoning is very weak, but before the end of this debate and the final vote, she has an opportunity to come forward with something that I hope will be much more convincing, because Canadians deserve an answer and workers deserve an answer and this House deserves an answer.

Lisa Raitt Halton, ON

Madam Chair, I will just reiterate what I have been indicating with respect to the purpose of having the wages embedded in this act. Quite frankly, it is because it is a fair wage that has been negotiated. If members had been at the table and had understood the differences between these two parties in the past eight months, and had even understood the wide gap in differences in the number of disputes, and the quantum within the disputes, they would have understood why the government felt that it was very necessary to give certainty and include wage increases in the act.

The choice of those wage increases was based on what had been negotiated freely and fairly at the table with PSAC, the largest union we negotiate with. The increases are more than appropriate.

Finally, as well as being the caretakers of the Canadian interest with respect to crown corporations, the government has to make sure that the crown corporation itself, Canada Post, is held whole and has the ability to be economically viable in the future, in both the short and the long term. These are things that matter to Canadians, and that is why the government has acted in the best interests of all Canadians and the economy in general.

The Chair Denise Savoie

Shall the amendment on clause 15 carry?

The Chair Denise Savoie

Can we apply the results of the previous vote to this one?

The Chair Denise Savoie

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 15 carry?

The Chair Denise Savoie

Can we apply the result of the previous vote to clause 15?

The Chair Denise Savoie

I declare clause 15 carried.

(Clause 15 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27 ]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

The Chair Denise Savoie

(On clause 16)

I will read the Liberal amendment:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 6 with the following:

“provided for in subsection 14(1), and to give”

Rodger Cuzner Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Madam Chair, certainly in light of the last amendment being defeated, it is appropriate that we proceed with this amendment to strike the clause in its entirety.

As the Liberal Party has put on the record from the outset, probably the two most concerning aspects of the legislation are the final offer selection, and, with respect to salaries, the identification of salaries at a lower rate than had been previously bargained for and agreed to by Canada Post.

This section underlines just how the government has missed the mark. Of all the clauses in the legislation, this certainly speaks volumes about how the government has missed the mark.

To quote Einstein: “A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it”. Certainly we have seen, through this legislation, that the government has not avoided the problem, and through the defeat of these amendments tonight, is doing nothing to solve it.