Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1997

Division No. 48

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-24, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 46 on page 4, and lines 1 to 12, on page 5 with the following:

“9. The arbitration panel shall be guided by:

(a) cost of living index since the last contract settlement

(b) average public sector increase

(c) impact on postal service

(d) financial impact of contract settlement

(e) will settlement cause an increase in postal rates in excess of inflation since last adjustment

(f) any change in job descriptions

(g) public sector comparisons of any of the disputed items.”

Mr. Chairman, my amendment removes one portion of specific guidelines included by the government to give directions to its arbitrator and replaces it with six points which give guidance in terms of the market, in terms of postal service, in terms of the cost of the settlement, average settlements within the public sector and so on to the arbitration panel as proposed by Reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The proposed amendment broadens even more the concept of arbitration panel we discussed earlier.

It is even more vague and I believe this amendment must absolutely be rejected.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I will speak briefly, Mr. Chairman, to the amendment put forth on clause 9. The arbitration panel, in the minds of the Reform Party, should be dealing with a comprehensive list when it is making its ruling in the settlement of the case.

The list indicates that the arbitrator should be taking into consideration the cost of living index, the impact on the postal service, financial impact of contract settlement, and so on. We should be giving the arbitrator a free hand to make a ruling based on the terms, conditions and guidelines by which arbitrators are always bound and to take into consideration the local factors that would have an influence on that industry.

Outlining them again in any kind of copious detail does not add anything to the argument. Just like a constitutional statement or a statement of any kind, when adopting it like this it should be general in nature so as not to put guidelines on future arbitrators that would make it more difficult for them to bring down a ruling in a multitude of different scenarios.

This would be a very limiting provision to put in place, and we would certainly speak against it.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Shall the amendment to clause 9 standing in the name of Mr. Gouk carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Chairman]

Pursuant to order the vote on the amendment is deferred.

We will now proceed to the amendment as proposed by the member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved:

That Bill C-24, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 46 on page 4 and lines 1 to 12 on page 5 with the following:

“9. The mediator-arbitrator shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the Canada Post Corporation Act and the viability and financial stability of Canada Post, taking into account

(a) that the Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates,

(i) operate efficiently,

(ii) improve productivity, and

(iii) meet acceptable standards of service; and

(b) the importance of good labour-management relations between the Canada Post Corporation and the union.”

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Quebecois has moved an amendment to this clause that provides that the arbitrator must maintain the parameters for a public service that must finance itself, which are currently set out in the incorporating act of Canada Post. The parameters provided by the minister to the arbitrator in the bill give him no choice.

Canada Post must be managed as a private business with terms and conditions such as the ones imposed on the private sector, while Canada Post is a public service under its own act. This wording shows that the government is asking the arbitrator to pursue the same objectives for negotiations as Canada Post, that is no increase in postal rates while reducing the costs to Canada Post. However, the only area where such reductions are possible is in manpower.

The corporation has been admitting since the beginning of its negotiations that its objective is to recover $200 million on its manpower costs, which means the abolition of 4,000 positions. This indication from the government is not made at random. Indeed, the government expects that Canada Post will provide it with dividends of about $200 million in the next few years.

Thus, when the government has the choice between creating jobs and increasing its capital, it chooses its own financial interests at the expense of workers. We have seen this choice being made in other areas such as unemployment where, at the expense of the unemployed, the government has been raking in money by the billions. We must also remember the famous rail strike.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, more than any other clause I think in the legislative package that caught everyone's eye and that everyone was immediately drawn to was clause 9. There was very broad agreement among our caucus that this clause had to be amended in order to make the legislation fair, to not tie the hands of the arbitrator and to result in any kind of settlement that might have a lasting resolve to try to put back together the shattered labour relations environment at Canada Post.

We have put forward amendments to the legislation that we believe would still meet the goals of the government when it puts forward this language, but take away some of the language that we felt was overtly partisan or one-sided.

We had strong feelings that the arbitrator, if bound by the original legislation, would have no option really in bringing down their ruling. They would have no opportunity to consider all the normal factors that an arbitrator should be bound by because there would be a preconceived outcome to the arbitrator's role by some of this language.

For instance, some of the language that we particularly objected to was the original language in clause 9(a)(i) where Canada Post would be bound to perform financially in a commercially acceptable range.

At first reading, that seems like a fairly innocuous statement. In actual fact, it would be an enormous policy shift for Canada Post in terms that it would be now bound. First of all, it is too vague because it does not say what sort of comparison, what is commercially viable. Second, it would be bound to a different way of conducting business forever.

Our feeling was that if the government is interested in changing a mandate of Canada Post or changing the Canada Post Corporation Act, it should be done through the front door with amendments moved to the Canada Post Corporation Act and not through the back door with back to work legislation.

This clearly went beyond what was necessary to get the employees back to work or to settle this round of bargaining. In fact, it read like a wish list for Canada Post.

The amendment that we are putting forward would still address all the legitimate concerns of the architects of this original clause but in a far more balanced way.

We would suggest that the real goal here is that the mediator/arbitrator shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the Canada Post Corporation Act and the viability and financial stability of Canada Post, taking into account that Canada Post Corporation must without recourse undo increases in postal costs, operate efficiently, improve their productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.

That really sums up what the goals and objectives should be for a well-run organization bound by the parameters of the existing Canada Post Corporation Act.

We would hope that the other parties see fit to support this as a way to make the whole system more balanced and more fair, and to preclude tying the arbitrator to any preconceived outcome before they even get a chance to deal with the issues.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak under your supervision.

I wanted to say that this is a very important amendment because, if we go for the status quo, this is purely and simply neo-liberal waffle about efficiency without any reference to the true nature of the corporation. Believe it or not, the initial wording of this provision did not even mention—what gall, and I can see the House leader nod in approval—that it was a public service.

What is at issue today, which this amendment brings into focus, is of course that one can be unionized and at the same time believe in productivity. One can be an efficient unionized worker, a unionized worker who believes that sound labour-management relations are required if we want things to go well in the workplace.

Productivity does not come out of thin air. It comes with motivation in the workplace. To be committed to one's work, one needs to feel respected. In turn, this requires that one's day-to-day working conditions be negotiated.

This particular amendment, put forward by both the Bloc and the NDP—and hopefully others will support it too—very clearly states that, in order for this productivity to be achieved, there have to be sound labour-management relations. Labour-management relations may be considered as an acceptable requirement. We are saying that how the mediator-arbitrator makes decisions and brings both parties together will have to be a clear objective. It is important that we, as parliamentarians, have the courage to say and to reaffirm this. That is what this amendment encourages us to do.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I want to say a word on the amendment proposed by the NDP, in co-operation with the Bloc Quebecois. We are proposing this amendment following meetings with union negotiators who are concerned about the current wording of the bill.

They are concerned about the concept of private corporation, of business venture, since the raison d'être of Canada Post is to provide to the public a service that is meant to be very personalized, direct and efficient, with the help of its employees.

A short while ago, after my first speech, I received a telephone call in my office from a postal worker in Edmonton. He wanted to thank the Bloc Quebecois for defending his interests. His first name is Ron. He told me “I voted for the Liberal Party the last time, but I wonder how its members, given what they were saying back then, can now introduce this legislation, which follows the same pattern as the negotiations did”. By this he meant that the negotiations were biased from the beginning.

The government introduced a bill, supposedly to restore a public service, but the mediator's objectivity is already tainted, first because the government is appointing this person alone, instead of doing it through a consultation process and, second, because the mediator's mandate under clause 9 is in contradiction with the corporation's fundamental role. This is why the amendment must absolutely be supported by all the parties, to do justice to Canada Post employees, but also to reflect the corporation's actual role.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with this amendment. Clause 9 as it will then be worded requires that the arbitrator be guided by the viability and financial stability of the corporation.

Let us not forget that the shareholders of the corporation are the Government of Canada and, ultimately, all Canadians. The government has given instructions to Canada Post. These instructions require that Canada Post make a certain profit. This is necessary to ensure co-operation, viability and stability.

The arbitrator will have to be guided by the instructions, the requirement to be profitable, in his or her mandate. As well, the arbitrator will have to balance good labour-management relations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to see that the government has finally decided to listen to the argument on clause 9. I said at the outset that this was a very important clause.

This amendment will mean that the rules of the game will stay the same at Canada Post during the next round of bargaining, the special round of bargaining resulting from this special legislation. This will perhaps go a small way towards repairing what was not done properly in this round.

We must congratulate ourselves on reaching this degree of unanimity. I hope that we can pass this amendment immediately here in committee, with the support of the Reform Party and the Conservatives. We must be able to show very clearly that there is unanimity in the House that it is not true that the work regime and the purpose of Canada Post will be changed through special legislation. The purpose of the special legislation is to resolve a labour relations problem, not the problems of Canada Post.

The present rules of the game must be respected. I call on Reformers and Conservatives to approve this kind of amendment and to approach it in the same spirit as the government.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we understand exactly what this amendment means.

First, I understand that the union—and it was confirmed by the Bloc member who just spoke—asked the NDP and the Bloc to put forward this amendment because of fear. I have said it many times. The union has the fear that in the government's back pocket is the idea that it will privatize Canada Post. I repeat that the government has no intention of doing that. In French, in English and in Italian, the answer is no. I hope that is clear.

If it takes this amendment to have that assurance, then I am willing to accept the position of the Minister of Labour.

I would also note what the amendment adds. Yes, they put together certain words and then they added “consistent with the Canada Post Corporation Act”, which is perfectly agreeable, “and the viability and the financial stability of Canada Post”, taking into account all the other lines.

My English may not be good, so I will read it in French. In French it says:

<“consistent with the Canada Post Corporation Act and the viability and financial stability of Canada Post”.

Stability and financial viability for me means that any business, crown corporation or enterprise, to be financially viable and stable has to make a profit. Sometimes there are good days and sometimes there are rainy days. When a business does not make a profit, it needs the profit which it made the year before to ensure that the service will continue.

We want Canada Post to exist for years to come. It was the first institution in this country. We want it to continue to exist for a long time. We believe that Canadians should receive mail from coast to coast to coast. They should have a universal service and pay the same price wherever they live.

I agree with this amendment. However, financial stability and viability means that Canada Post has to be commercially viable. That is what the government did and what was mandated by the government. We told Canada Post very clearly that it had to freeze the price of stamps for two years and after two years it could increase it below inflation. We said not to close any more rural post offices.

We believe Canadians in rural communities have the right to a postal service. It is the only Canadian identity in those communities and we believe in that. In order to keep those services, we want improvements. For example, maybe the hon. members do not know but there was always this trouble that in a small community mail gets sorted in a big city before it comes back to be delivered in the small town. We changed that. Now the local mail is sorted locally and it is being delivered locally without going to the main city.

Canada Post is making improvements because it believes and we believe in service. With this amendment that the government accepts, I hope the union and the NDP and the Bloc realize and take away this notion of privatization which does not exist. I said it clearly. The government said it clearly. And my predecessors have said it very clearly. I hope that with that it is clear. However it is also clear that Canada Post has to be a viable and stable corporation to serve Canadians. Therefore it has to make profits.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that hearing the minister speak as he has just done pretty much confirms what I said at the beginning of my first intervention, which is that he takes himself for the President of Canada Post.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not want the debate on this issue to go on forever, but I would like simply to point out one thing. This is not a vote that was accepted by the Bloc Quebecois because the unions requested it, it is an amendment that is being moved. The government recognizes this by voting for the amendment, because if this was just an issue of union position, the government would be against it. Therefore, the government recognizes this.

When the two components of the amendment are considered, it is obvious that the government had not provided for such a change in its bill. If there had not been a proposal from the NDP and our support to ensure its understanding, I do not think that the government would have accepted it, and I congratulate the government today for having accepted it. But it should also be remembered that there are two components. It is said that the negotiations must be carried out in accordance with the Canada Post Corporation Act, and by taking into consideration the need for efficiency, for an increase in productivity, and for application of standards, but also the importance of good labour-management relations between Canada Post and the union.

In all this, it is not just an issue of unionism, it is not just an issue of management. For several years, people at Canada Post have been trying to build new labour relations. There have been experiments with a schedule to the agreement whereby mail delivery could be done by vehicle, and the postal workers' union has repeatedly requested that these measures be implemented.

Like the minister, I would like to emphasize that we have succeeded in saving rural post offices by reversing the Conservatives' policy of unscrupulously shutting down rural post offices. But this is not to say that in the bill that we will be voting on today, it is quite normal that negotiations be carried out under the Canada Post Corporation Act and not according to the rules of the market. I think this is a victory not only for unionized workers and the union, but also for the employer and for every Quebecker and every Canadian, and I hope that with this, we will have a postal organization where, after the results of the negotiations, the environment will be increasingly better.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on this particular amendment.

I want to acknowledge the words of my friend, the minister responsible for Canada Post. He says this is really a clarification and what we are asking for is a clarification that the fundamental purpose and the fundamental role of Canada Post is to serve Canadians by providing first class mail service, not as a cash cow to the federal government. The point is not to make money on this operation to assist the government in one way or another.

Of course we support that principle and acknowledge the work done by the members of the Bloc and by the members of the New Democratic Party working with the government and the minister, and acknowledge the fact that he saw the appropriateness of this amendment. We appreciate that co-operation in order to make this legislation more palatable to all involved.

We cannot overemphasize the fact that the post office is here to serve Canadians. It is not here to make money. If we trace the fundamental problem that our post office faces, we will find that it goes back to the Mulroney era when this principle was introduced and the mandate went out to make money through Canada Post. Ever since that mandate was initiated some of the major problems began, and I know my friend the minister would nod in approval.

I would like to think that through this important amendment to this crucial piece of legislation we will perhaps see a rethinking of some of the priorities when it comes to service and profit.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add a few words in support of what has been said by my cabinet colleague, the minister responsible for Canada Post.

I have just heard something said across the way that I do not believe relates to reality. First, the amendment we have before us speaks of the financial viability of Canada Post. It speaks of principles such as productivity, operating efficiently, and so on. This could apply to any corporation. My colleague has stated very clearly that by financial stability and viability the government means that Canada Post must operate in a manner consistent with comparable industries in the private and public sectors. It must operate that way.

Let us look at the reality. Seven years ago Canada Post was not operating in the competitive sector as it is today, not because we have changed anything but because society has changed. Fax machines, telecommunications equipment, the Internet, electronic transfer of data and finances, and so on are a reality. We must all operate with that in mind.

I would like to add that Canada Post must have sufficient flexibility to manage in a competitive environment. If it does not, it will lose customers to other businesses. Obviously it has to operate that way. Then of course if it does lose business to other enterprises, jobs will be lost and nobody wants that.

In order to do all this, any corporation has to make an acceptable financial return on equity. I heard a colleague across the way refer to Canada Post as a cash cow when it makes, I believe, something less than 2% return on equity. Is that a cash cow? My colleagues who are learned in accounting would say that anything less than approximately 10% return on equity would not be a very profitable business. Obviously a 2% return on equity is certainly not a cash cow by anyone's definition and certainly not by mine. Additionally the arbitrator will have to be guided by the instructions given by the government for the corporation to be profitable when he performs his duties.

I for one and I am sure all of my colleagues expect that Canada Post will be working in a financially sound manner so that it can provide valuable services to Canadians in the long term from here on in.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Is the committee ready for the vote on the amendment to clause 9 as proposed by the member for Winnipeg Centre?

Shall the amendment carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Deputy Chairman]

The amendment is carried but the clause will be—

[An hon. member]

Not necessarily.

[The Deputy Chairman]

No, because there were two amendments. The first amendment did not carry. The clause as amended did not carry so the vote will be deferred, pursuant to order. The vote on clause 9, as amended, will be deferred pursuant to order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want the point of order to be clear. What will be put to a vote later on will be the clause as amended by the amendment agreed to by all parties. The previous amendment, the one proposed by the Reform Party, will be voted on, but what will be voted on is the bill as amended by the amendment that was agreed to and the amendment put forward by the Reform Party.