Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1997

Division No. 48

[The Deputy Chairman]

That is correct. Certainement.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If I am correct, what will happen is that first the Reform amendment will be voted on, then it will be the clause either as amended now or as amended by the Reform amendment because it is subject to a second amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Hon. colleagues, we are moving on to the next clause. This will go forward, as amended. The vote will be on the Reform amendment. If the Reform amendment passes, then the clause will be voted on but it is going forward as amended. If that is clear, we will go on to clause 10.

(Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to)

[The Deputy Chairman]

Clause 12 has four amendments. We will start with the amendment to clause 12 by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

(On clause 12)

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-24, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 39 on page 5 with the following:

“12. The collective agreement shall also be deemed to be amended by increasing the rates of pay in effect as of February 1, 1997 and set out in Appendix A to the collective agreement by 1.5% effective August 1, 1997, by another 1.75% effective August 1, 1998 and by another 2% effective August 1, 1999”.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply aims at ensuring that what is in the legislation is the best offer from management that was on the table when negotiations ended. For example, this means that the 1.5% increase would be effective February 1, 1997 instead of February 1, 1998, the 1.75% increase would be effective August 1, 1998 instead of February 1, 1999 and that the 2% increase would be effective August 1, 1999 instead of February 1, 2000.

In other words, we want to ensure that the rate increases provided for in the special legislation are those that management was willing to offer to the union. In the present government proposal, the rate increases are lower, which seems unacceptable to us and which does not demonstrate a will to create a good labour relations climate. We must understand these people. All the offers we are talking about are lower than or equal to the inflation rate, and I think, in this regard, there was some ground to be made up.

We think that, if management saw fit to put these offers on the table, they should be considered at this point. In addition, the next amendment, brought forward by the NDP, will serve as a complement to our amendment, if it is accepted, so as to ensure the rate increases provided for in this legislation are the best that could be negotiated with the consent of both parties.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Chairman, very briefly I have two points.

First of all, I am having a little trouble understanding why in changing the dates of implementation they are going back to several months before the contract expired. That one frankly confuses me a little. It is irrelevant in my point of view because we are fundamentally opposed to legislating a settlement when there is an arbitrator placed in there.

The arbitrator is being told let these people negotiate, let them settle if they possible can. If they cannot then the arbitrator is empowered to make those settlements. If the government does not trust its arbitrator, it had better make a different choice.

First, if there is an arbitrator, this does not allow them to continue negotiations on the very important question of wages. Second, if they cannot reach a decision, it should not be the government making an arbitrary decision on a corporation it owns any more than the union should be able to arbitrarily decide how much of a raise it will get and the company not have any response. If it cannot be done by negotiation, it should be done by some form of arbitration. That is the reason we are opposed to this motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I will speak very briefly on this because the amendment that we are going to speak to next that was put forward by the NDP is very similar.

We find it very easy to agree in principle with the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois who put forward the last amendment. We too believe that the least the workers should be offered in this legislative settlement should be the offer which was last made by Canada Post and was left on the bargaining table when the bargaining collapsed.

To add to that, and you will see when we speak to the next amendment, our feeling is that while we believe the Bloc Quebecois is correct in its analysis, it should be the floor but it should not necessarily be the ceiling. It is almost merging these two resolutions. We should be merging the idea put forward by the Reform Party with the idea put forward by the Bloc.

The arbitrator will be free to choose a wage somewhere between the last offer from Canada Post and the last position of the union. It would give them a range to choose from. It would give them a scope the arbitrator could draw from. We believe that would be the best resolve to the whole matter.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Hon. members, I understand that it is not the Chair's purview to do anything but guide the debate. There are quite a number of amendments yet to come.

This debate will end in 27 minutes. I would implore hon. members to keep the interventions brief and to the point so that we can get through them all.

The hon. member for Richelieu.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you will agree however that some of the amendments seem more crucial than others and this one, since it deals with wages, seems important enough to warrant a fairly close examination.

I have been a member of this House for 13 years and I am stunned to see that a special bill could be introduced and include lower rates of pay than what the employer, Canada Post, has proposed during the negotiations. That is where the problem lies. It is unacceptable and I am not surprised to see my Liberal colleagues, Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. St-Julien, Mr. Coderre—we can name them since we are in committee of the whole—remain quiet on this issue and refrain from voting or speaking in support of the postal workers in their own ridings, to tell them “Yes, the crown corporation did made a proposal.” It was the lowest offer the management could come up with, but still, in the bill it introduced, the government took it away from the postal workers.

Earlier, Minister Gagliano said that he was being unbiased, but in the speech he just made, he spoke just like he would if he were president of Canada Post and he is taking a tougher stand than the president of Canada Post by offering less to the workers.

This is why this amendment, coupled with the NDP amendment, would be fair to the workers and still be in line with what Canada Post proposed during the negotiations. After all, the government cannot be allowed to cut even further after tampering with the bargaining process.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if we forget for a while the demagoguery of the hon. member for Richelieu and consider the simple facts, we realize something. First of all, this is a government bill and it should be based on the Treasury Board guidelines. We cannot increase—

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the use of the word demagoguery parliamentary? I have been accused of being a demagogue because I side with the postal workers.

[The Deputy Chairman]

The Chair would ask all hon. members not to use this opportunity to raise the temperature of the debate.

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad case of increasing cloudiness. One sure thing, Mr. Chairman, is that when you consider the facts, nobody can take offence from those words. The fact is that when we deal with a government bill based on Treasury Board guidelines, the government cannot give more than what it is ready to give in its own negotiations. That is the first point.

The second point is that the union has been offered 2% in a settlement proposal and that it has rejected it. That should also be taken into consideration.

The most important thing for us is that we should pass this bill as quickly as we can because businesses in Quebec are losing $54 million a day because of this strike. Charities that should receive millions of dollars through the mail are not getting anything. We should stop listening to that broken record of Bloc recriminations on behalf of the unions and take a cold hard look at the real situation. We should not only reject this amendment but also go on to consideration of the following clauses.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief enough because, as you said, we have several amendments to look at before 6:30 p.m.

This afternoon, some were talking about people with experience in negotiation. I can tell you that I have been involved in collective bargaining since 1979. Every time we returned to the table after we had reached a goal where we could have a collective agreement and a wage increase had been put forward by the employer, it was fine. But when we returned to the table only to realize that they took some away, it was more often than not that they were negotiating in bad faith.

So, when a government refers the negotiation to an arbitrator without giving us the assurance that they will bring about a collective agreement for our postal workers, I think they are missing the boat. Again they tell us they are not involved in the negotiation. With this motion they show that they are involved in the negotiations and that they do not want Canada Post to give anything to their workers.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very unusual that the Bloc would put forth a motion which would support a legislated settlement as far as the money is concerned. Of course one would expect them to say that it should be negotiated and I would agree with that.

If it gets to the point where we have to legislate an organization back to work and appoint an arbitrator, then we should allow the arbitrator to make these decisions.

I believe it is absolutely wrong to have the dollars and cents spelled out in the bill. It will handcuff the arbitrator.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must ask the hon. member for Bourassa to remain calm and collected during today's discussions. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that what we said was very reasonable and I know he can be reasonable when he wants to. One has to catch him at the right moment.

Now, will the hon. member admit that there is an unspeakable contradiction in the fact that the government wants to put in a bill an offer lower than what the Canada Post Corporation, which is supposed to negotiate freely, was ready to make?

Will the hon. member admit that there is something absurd and that the real priority for the government—and I believe the members opposite should recognize that—is not the quality of life at work or the quality of service to the public but the need to get $200 million. This is the main guideline, the leitmotiv of the government. This is and has always been the main focus of the negotiations.

I believe we must act as enlightened spokespersons and recognize that this is an unacceptable mistake.

How dare the member for Bourassa, the minister of public works and the minister responsible for the Canada Labour Code say that they will talk, and talk less in favour of workers and make an offer inferior to the one Canada Post was ready to make? What rule of generosity are they obeying?

I will conclude by saying that we must stop those who are stuck in the confines of the limited logic of the Treasury Board.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Chairman, there have been negotiations going on since April. Quite simply, they never could reach an agreement on wages. The increases provided in the legislation are in line with the collective bargaining set amounts in Canada and compare favourably with the current rate settlements for other public sector agreements. In fact, they are slightly higher than the settlement for the third quarter of 1997. That is fair for CUPW and it is fair for the post office. That is why the rates are there.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say one thing which I consider very important at the moment and which affects me significantly.

The member who just spoke was the Minister of Labour. In this debate, he should be neutral. His prime objective is for labour relations to work well and not to sell management's offer.

I think he should give this serious thought.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Minister of Labour make his comments and I feel compelled to say that when it comes to collective bargaining, I think it is fair to say that collective bargaining associated with the federal government has been a complete disaster over the last few years.

The Minister of Labour should stand up and apologize to the tens of thousands of employees that he dumped on to the streets over the last little while. To suggest that somehow this settlement reflects the process of collective bargaining in this country after having such an abysmal record is almost unbelievable.

However, having said that, I have to agree with my hon. friend from the Bloc who just said that if we are going to impose a settlement, for goodness sake, why wouldn't we impose the settlement that at least the postal corporation suggested in the first place? To go beneath that again is one more step toward humiliation of the people that work for the federal government, either directly through the crown corporation or their own employees.

It reveals the contempt that the Minister of Labour has for working people in this country.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to take this opportunity on this amendment to reinforce the comments that were made by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre and other colleagues et aussi d'appuyer la motion de mes collègues du Bloc.

When we look at the whole history of the relationship between Canada Post and its employees, that relationship in many respects has been poisoned by the absolutely intolerable interference by this government in the collective bargaining process.

Look back, for example, at the nudge-nudge, wink-wink commitment that was made by the minister from Montreal who suggested to the Canadian Direct Marketing Association: “Do not worry about it. You will not have to worry. We will send them all back to work anyway.”

How could there be any good faith bargaining? How could there be any serious negotiation in those circumstances when the employer knows full well that all they have to do is just hold out and ultimately they will be sent back to work.

What is so outrageous about this legislation is that not only are they being sent back to work, not only is the collective bargaining process being completely subverted, but they are being sent back to work with conditions of employment that are less than the employer was even prepared to offer at an earlier stage of the collective bargaining process.

I just want to reinforce our concern. We are voting against this legislation because it represents not just an interference in the collective bargaining process. That is bad enough. But it demonstrates absolute contempt for the loyal and hard working men and women who are now working for the Canada Post corporation.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Are we ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Chairman]

The question is on Motion No. 4.

Shall the motion carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.