Mr. Speaker, first, a few comments, because throughout the day we have listened to what others had to say about the back to work bill before the House. It is with some reluctance that the Conservative Party will vote for this bill. I must say however that we will be consistent with the statements we have made in the past.
I will review the comments made by some hon. members from the Bloc and the NDP. For instance, the hon. member from the NDP who spoke before my hon. colleague said that we have a parliamentary dictatorship, that parties argue at election time to see who will get the parliamentary dictatorship.
One thing is sure, the New Democrats have no chance at all of being part of this so-called parliamentary dictatorship. However, I would like to point out that they are very closer to a proletarian dictatorship, something that does not seem to have worked in Europe. So, we have nothing to learn from the kind of dictatorship the NDP could propose.
Some have argued wrongly that Canada Post will become a cash cow, when this crown corporation should just break even. I would like to remind our friends from the Bloc that, in the province the Quebec, those very same criticisms are made every day about Hydro-Québec. But Hydro-Québec keeps increasing its rates and reducing its staff so that the Quebec government can benefit from higher dividends.
We have to be careful about the statements we make. We may be against the legislation before us today, we may be against a lot of things, but we have to be sure of ourselves when we give examples. For instance, some people said Quebec is the realm of social democracy, but let me remind my colleagues that successive Quebec governments, whatever their political stripe, have introduced since 1975 or 1976 the largest number of special back to work bills setting conditions of employment. The hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic should know about that. The wage scales of teachers in Quebec have been frozen now for more than six or eight years. He should be aware of that. And it was a social democrat government that implemented the freeze.
That having been said, Bloc and NDP members have made a great deal of the amendment they managed to wrest from this dictatorial Liberal government, an amendment on clause 9 which we did not support.
Let me remind them without demoralizing them too much that clause 9 deals with economic stability the Canada Post Corporation must achieve without recourse to undue increases in postal rates. They should have listened to what the minister responsible for Canada Post had to say this afternoon. He made a commitment not to increase postal rates in the next two years and that the inflation rate would apply in the third year. Therefore, this clause does not mean anything. But I do not want to discourage them. That is part and parcel of parliamentary politics.
The worst part in this bill and in the 1991 bill and all previous back to work legislation is that, as a matter of fact, the normal negotiating process did not take place. We do not need a strike to realize it did not take place. There is and there has been a big problem at Canada Post for years, for decades.
Several previous governments have tried to address this problem. In the past we had strikes and labour conflicts every year and a half to two years and a half or so, with postal workers and letter carriers taking turns. We tried to create one big union in order to have a better balance in the negotiating process. Unfortunately, it did not work out.
With this bill before us today, only one party has moved amendments to prevent this type of legislation from being needed again in the future. We had three amendments, including one on clause 21, but they did not get the support of government members, of Bloc members or NDP members.
Those amendments required the employer, Canada Post, and the union to start considering right away a new process for negotiating and ratifying the collective agreement. Those amendments have been criticized. But when the time comes to find a solution before the end of the next agreement, none of them will be around.
When we want to bring in real solutions, they are not there. We have brought forward solutions. However, it must be recognized that there is an imbalance in the negotiation process in that there is no negotiation process. In dealing with crown corporations, there is always that sword the government can dangle, special legislation from coast to coast. In the last 30 years, numerous special bills have been introduced by all governments, be they social democrats, white, red, blue, right wing or left wing governments. It has become fashionable to bring in special legislation. There have been cuts everywhere. Governments are now governing with special laws.
However, I remind the other parties, the people of the union as well as those of the Canada Post Corporation and the public that we have brought forward solutions to prevent strikes and special legislation, but our friends of the New Democratic Party and those of the Bloc Quebecois have opposed them. As for the Reform Party, its only proposal dealt with a small mechanism in the special law, a binding arbitration process applying to this collective agreement, but it says nothing about the future. Frankly, it is extremely disappointing.
Bloc members should stop playing holier than thou because their cousins in Quebec City are doing exactly the same thing. They should remember negotiations last year and this year. Before having the honour of being elected to the House of Commons, I was a mayor. The government sent us a bill. Whether it was right or wrong is not the question. It told labour and everybody else “Labour costs have to be reduced by 6% or we will bring in special legislation”. What kind of negotiating is this? This is not negotiating. The same thing is happening now with Canada Post.
What we want to do today is put the process back on track because we in the Conservative Party know one thing, namely that we a have a labour code, we have a charter of rights and the right of association cannot be tempered with. However, when you deal with a service deemed essential to the operation of a country, province or area, one must look at the negotiation mechanisms. Maybe we should stop crying foul and sit down to find solutions. But our friends next to us, mainly on our left, but also on our right, do not agree that we can sit down and put the negotiating process back on track. We have witnessed everywhere, especially in the Asbestos area, a great improvement of labour relations. Why? Because of the setting up of a co-op. This example has occurred in a Quebec town. My friend from Frontenac—Mégantic knows all about it.
We can take initiatives, we can be original, we can propose amendments, as we did. However we ask that others listen, open their mind, stop being partisan saying “We support unions” or “We support employers”. This is not what it is all about. We support people. We support Canadians and Quebeckers. This is what the Conservative Party stands for.
That having been said, I will conclude. Those who followed the debate heard the minister responsible for Canada Post declare that he will review the process and the mandate of the Canada Post Corporation. I invite everybody to keep a very close eye on the minister because he often makes promises he does not keep.
For our part, we will keep an eye on him. Bear with us, Mr. Speaker, through our critic for the Canada Post Corporation, we promise to bring you alternatives. We just hope that our friends in this Chamber will be willing to co-operate with the Conservative Party so that we never again have to see special back to work legislation brought in under conditions that do not please anybody.
