Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1997

Division No. 49

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Apologize.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

If it had been put to union members, they might have accepted this settlement. What is certain—

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

They might have.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

No, I will not apologize and say the same kind of drivel as my friend the member for Richelieu because I said what I said. I said that we need this special legislation based on previous settlements negotiated with Treasury Board because we are proceeding in a responsible manner.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to speak on Bill C-24, the Postal Services Continuation Act and to express my support for the legislation which provides for the resumption of postal service and sets up a procedure for the settlement of issues which resulted in the disruption of postal service.

I must indicate that I am less than enthusiastic in my support because back to work legislation always signals a failure in the collective bargaining process, a process that I believe to be a pillar of our democracy and an instrument for economic and social progress.

Specifically the bill establishes a duration of a new collective agreement for Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, that is three years. It also includes wage increases for CUPW members of 5.15% over that three year period. The other key issues in dispute, namely job security, part time work and the length of the letter carriers' routes will be settled by a process known as mediation-arbitration.

In this dispute resolution method the mediator is equipped with the power to settle unresolved issues by binding arbitration in the event that they are not settled by mediation. As specified in this legislation, the mediator-arbitrator's report along with terms and conditions established by this bill will form the basis of the new collective agreement.

The federal government had no choice but to act legislatively to restore regular postal service to Canadians. The economic costs to Canadians of a prolonged work stoppage would have been immense. Thousands of Canadian business firms and their employees depend on the postal service. A lengthy disruption in postal service would threaten the economic viability of those enterprises and thus place the jobs of those employees in serious jeopardy.

Numerous Canadian charities rely on the mail service for support and donations at this time of the year. Many of them receive most of their income during this Christmas season.

Many Canadians count on the post office during this time of year as well to communicate greetings and good wishes to family and friends. Despite the increased use of the Internet and e-mail, and despite the availability of efficient courier services, most Canadians still depend on the post office to send messages and parcels.

With respect to those who receive government assistance, while contingency plans have been put into place for the delivery and distribution of pension and welfare cheques, there is still the chance of non-delivery or delays which would cause undo hardship on recipients.

Finally, there is the cost to the parties themselves of a lengthy work interruption. Canada Post has been losing millions of dollars a day and the workers have been losing huge amounts in wages. It is in no one's interest to see Canada Post Corporation brought to its knees.

In short, the public interest requires that the federal government bring forward this legislation. The public interest requires that the federal government end the economic hardship and uncertainty caused by this work stoppage. The alternative, to let the work stoppage drag on indefinitely, was no alternative at all.

Having said that, and having argued the point for the general good that Bill C-24 is necessary, I would also express my great disappointment that the two parties were not able to come to an agreement on their own. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, back to work legislation always means a breakdown in the collective bargaining process.

Collective bargaining is one of the great processes that we have established to help us resolve workplace disagreements in an orderly, democratic and peaceful way. History and empirical research have shown that collective bargaining has been an effective tool for the promotion of both economic development and for social justice. It is also a form of self-government which encourages the parties to devise their own responses to the issues which divide them. For all of these reasons, collective bargaining is very important in this process.

I do not believe that I am alone in thinking this way. I am sure that most Canadians prefer to see negotiated settlements to labour-management disputes. I am certain too that both Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers would prefer to devise their own solutions in these issues.

I would have liked to have seen more flexibility given to this process including in the wage area. Further negotiation in this area by the two parties would have been desirable as opposed to the imposed wage settlement.

There are some in the trade union movement and some in the New Democratic Party who would strongly criticize the government for bringing in this back to work legislation. I can genuinely understand their position, but I would ask them at what point was the government supposed to act.

Was it when Canada Post reached the point of no return financially? Was it when thousands of Canadian businesses went under and jobs were lost? Was it when Christmas had come and gone and Canadians were unable to communicate with their friends and family? Or was it when numerous Canadian charities had to start to lay off staff and were unable to meet the needs of the very people they serve?

As an objective observer would no doubt conclude, the parties had ample time to reach an agreement. They also had ready access to the very able professionals in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to help them in their efforts, but they obviously could not come to an agreement on their own thereby making the intervention of the government virtually inevitable.

I note that the Reform Party, the party that always espouses less government, has been screaming for government intervention for some time. Apparently, according to the Reform Party thinkers, less government is always a preferred policy approach except when Canadian workers are exercising their legal rights. Then it would seem that more state intervention becomes more apparent and more acceptable to them.

In my view, both the official opposition and the New Democratic Party have failed to take into account all of the complexities of the issue. They have failed to see that all the stakeholders have legitimate rights and concerns and that some kind of balance must be found. That is what effective governing is all about. It is about taking everybody's legitimate concerns seriously. The government has done that and therefore I recommend passage of this bill.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I should remind my hon. colleagues on the backbenches of the Liberals that it was this government that brought the situation to this point.

Last August the minister of public works promised John Gustavson of the CDMA that there would be back to work legislation regardless of what happened in bargaining. Then he denied it. Then he reiterated that it was true. It was not the postal workers or small business that caused this uproar. We should not even be here tonight. It was this Liberal government that made promises behind the back of the negotiation process. That is where the problem was, and the NDP stands behind bargaining.

For the minister to make the accusation that we would in any way try to deflate small business in this country is simply scandalous. The fact is—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member opposite that the government has worked very hard in this whole process to ensure that we did the right thing. The mediation process and the negotiation process took place in a reasonable and fair manner as it should take place—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of the postal workers in Revelstoke. They are asking me to speak against the back to work legislation and other items, which I cannot do because I do not believe it is in the best interests of Canada that I do that.

One of their demands is for the resignation of the current minister responsible for Canada Post. The member will be very interested to learn that I happen to agree with the NDP and I agree with the CUPW workers from Revelstoke—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. The minister along with the government has worked very hard to ensure we get the postal service working again. I think it is appropriate that we do this tonight and get on with the process.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a disciplinary letter that has been sent to a postal worker, and I would like to know whether the hon. member agrees with this.

The letter is signed by Yvan Grenier, a manager in the Quebec area, and it deals with the incidents of September 29, 1997: “This letter concerns your involvement in the incidents that occurred on September 29 at the Henri-Bourassa letter carrier depot. You reported to work without wearing the proper uniform required by Canada Post in contravention of clauses 303 and 34.10 of the collective agreement, and you began your work. At about 7.30, you were advised by Mr. Gaston Roy that you were required to wear the postal uniform—”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington has the floor.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the circumstances surrounding that but it seems to me that is a normal grievance procedure and should be dealt with accordingly.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during the hon. member's presentation I wondered at what point the government should have intervened. The point at which the government should have intervened was to be negotiated over the summer so that this situation did not arise in the first place.

The hon. member also mentioned the fact that because we are discussing back to work legislation it amounts to a failure. The failure is the government not getting this done so we are faced with back to work legislation. That is the only reason we are supporting the legislation.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, negotiations took place. The process that took place over the course of the last number of months was an important one. It was something that we as a government needed to see take place, and here we are tonight doing the right thing on behalf of the Canadian people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for my colleague. Tonight, he saw how the member for Abitibi acted in this House when he took off his jacket and asked one of the workers to go downstairs and slug it out. Is this the kind of government we have here in Canada, the one that says it is not in favour of violence? Tonight, we saw how he acted, and then the other one who insulted the unions—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is demagoguery and he knows full well that provocation was used upstairs—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is not a point of order and it is out of order.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we could certainly resume debate—

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I listened very well to my colleague, who is a great advocate, a good worker, an excellent member of Parliament. But when he said, on the same point of order, that—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, that is not a point of order. The hon. member for Edmonton North has the floor.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we will let the boys carry on in the background.

I want to close the debate with some pretty serious thoughts and some pretty serious concerns about what we are facing across the country right now in terms of 31 million people being without postal service. I am sure, with the noise going on behind me, that they have an equal number of concerns about the postal strike.

Let me make a few comments about some of the things the constituency of Edmonton North has been facing and talking about regarding this postal strike. People were concerned that the postal strike would occur. They were trying to make alternate arrangements for the delivery of mail. They were trying to make sure their voice was heard and that Canada Post, which is a monopoly, was not going out into a strike situation. We certainly hoped that as well.

The Reform Party believes in the collective bargaining process. We believe in conciliation. We believe in the mediation process. We were truly hoping that the situation would be resolved, that CUPW and Canada Post would get along, and that we would have good, sure, safe delivery of mail, especially in this Christmas season.

Unfortunately that did not happen. The member for West Kootenay—Okanagan asked for an emergency debate on the very day the postal strike happened. We knew what would happen if it got into a crippling situation with mail right across the country. Government ministers such as the Minister of Labour would stand, as they did for days after in question period, and say “I will look after the collective bargaining process”. That is exactly what made me and the people in my riding nervous. We heard him say “I am the one that will look after everything”. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Two weeks later here we are with a postal strike that has cost an estimated $3 billion. The government could have done this on the very first day. It could have bargained in good faith. It is just a terrible thing. Maybe we should label the Minister of Labour the $3 billion man. That is what it has cost. They put this thing off and off.

I heard last week that there would be a picket in my constituency office in Edmonton North by some CUPW workers.

Those who worked with Canada Post were out on strike and they came to my office on Friday morning. I phoned and spoke to their union representative and said: “I look forward to talking to you. I am not going to lock my door on you. I believe your members have the right to protest peacefully.” It was certainly a different scene than what we saw when the Prime Minister shouted down those people who were peacefully demonstrating at the APEC conference where the RCMP had ordered pepper spray in their faces.

I said to these union members: “Come into my office. I would like to talk to you about this situation.” They came in and I had coffee and Tim Horton's donuts ready for them and we had a really good visit. I spent 45 minutes talking with them. A couple of the union people said: “We think we should negotiate a settlement.” I said: “I agree with you. We should negotiate a settlement.” Unfortunately, both sides just were not able to come to any sort of an agreement. I said: “There has to be a better way to solve this thing than having four strikes since 1987; two in 1987, one in 1991 and another one in 1997.”

It does not matter if the Tories or the Liberals are in power, it goes back and forth. Basically, it is just the flip side of the same loonie. Whoever is in power, the other side goes hysterical and says: “You simply cannot do this.” Then the other side that is in opposition goes hysterical also.

There has to be some long term solution so that we are not going to continue to face postal strikes for the next 10 or 15 years, if they are allowed to keep the monopoly.

We have to ask the question: is there not a better way than the opposition and the government going crazy and then flipping sides? There has to be a better way.

We think that final offer arbitration is the way to go. If someone happens to work for Safeway and goes on strike, and we believe that there is a right to strike peacefully, then we can always buy our groceries at the IGA.

The Maple Leaf meat processing packing plant in Edmonton is on strike right now. We could buy wieners at Schneider's. We have a choice. But when Canada Post goes on strike, that's it, especially if you happen to live in rural Canada. There are not a lot of options to delivery service.

We say that there are places and times that are so important that final offer arbitration is when we should ask: “What is your bottom line, side A? And what is your bottom line, side B?” Then someone can come in and arbitrate that so that we do not get into a crippling situation such as we have again for the fourth time in 10 years. It is an essential service.

A lot of people have fax machines, so they do not care if Canada Post is out on strike. A lot of people do not have fax machines or modems on their computers, or UPS or Purolator service. I have lived in places like that where the last thing one would see is a Purolator delivery service, which does cost extra money.

The postal service is fundamental. On the day that the strike was called, my colleague, our critic for the postal service, the member for West Kootenay—Okanagan, asked for an emergency debate. It seems that just in the last 24 or 48 hours the government has decided that this is an emergency. Surely to heaven it knew something was coming down the pike and we were going to have some serious problems before Christmas. Of course, there is a huge bulk of mail that goes through at Christmas.

When these people came to my office on Friday, I spent 45 minutes with them. We discussed the situation and I told them I had heard from a tremendous number of people in my constituency that want the postal workers to return to work. I was challenged about that by one of the union members who said that he did not believe me. He thought they represented the majority of my constituents because they had brought a pile of letters with them.

Most of these people were not from my riding but those from Edmonton North came and said: “Okay, here you are. We have the majority now. We must outweigh the number of phone calls and the number of people who have complained. We represent the majority now and you as a Reformer are bound to vote the majority consensus of your constituents.” I said: “You are about 100 here today”. I have about 100,000 constituents and I certainly have not heard from all of them. But I was challenged by the postal workers to ask: “How do you know if there is a majority here?”

Not long after their visit, I got the news that the government had introduced its back to work legislation somewhere around noon on Friday. I thought there had been a change of heart by the government. It has been on a rant for the last two weeks saying that it was not going to legislate them back to work. Then all of a sudden it brought in legislation.

If the speeches today were not so sad they would be laughable. These people are now the great champions of Canada Post. Canadians want to make sure they receive postal service.

It is funny that someone would ask how we know what 100,000 people think. I will tell members how we know what 100,000 people think. We commission a scientific poll that by proof—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.