Bill C-6 (Historical)

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services

This enactment provides for the resumption and continuation of postal services and imposes a final offer selection process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[The Chair, NDP, 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, Liberal, 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.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. minister for her answer, but I want to explain to her why I do not think it is satisfactory.

The main point proposed by the minister seems fair to her, but she did not explain in which way the last offer of the employer is unfair. The last offer of the employer was more satisfactory to the employees. Perhaps it is because the employer, in exchange, received from the employees some compromises that the employer wanted.

The employer is being put in a situation in which it will perhaps not be able to ask for these compromises, or it will ask for these compromises but with a lower wage. This is definitely interference in the negotiations, which is not in the interest of the employer, not in the interest of the employees, and not in the interest of Canadians.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment to clause 16 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the results of the vote taken on the previous amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 16 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the results of the vote taken on the previous clause?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The amendment is defeated and clause 16 is carried.

(Clause 16 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27.

(Yeas: 158; nays: 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On Clause 17)

Shall clause 17 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Will we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 17?