Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1997

Division No. 48

[The Deputy Chairman]

Pursuant to order made earlier the vote is deferred.

We will proceed to the second amendment on clause 12.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved:

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 by amounts to be determined by the mediator-arbitrator, provided that the increases be not less than the most recent offer of the Canada Post Corporation and not more than the last proposal put forward by the union.”

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is so close in substance to the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois that it really does not warrant entering into a major debate. The only qualifying statement that differentiates this from the Bloc's original amendment is that we are suggesting that the arbitrator's legislated settlement be no less than the last offer from Canada Post and no more than the last demand from the union.

It would give the arbitrator a range within which to choose. We believe that is in keeping with the role of an arbitrator, who should have a free hand, who should be able to look at the market conditions and the profitability of the corporation to find a compromise position between the company's last offer and the employee's last demand for a wage increase.

We would hope that the Bloc Quebecois members would be able to see fit to support our amendment. By the same token, other members should be able to see the basic issue of fairness here.

The previous speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, raised the issue that it really makes us wonder, when this offer is such a small amount lower than the last offer left on the table, if it is not sheer malice or if it is not mockery or trying to rub the employees' noses further into the ground. Kick them while they are down. That is the only reason we can think of for an offer which is one-tenth of one per cent in the third year lower than the last offer from Canada Post. That much we would think would be corrected automatically just out of good faith. It amounts to pennies.

The issue of substance here is that the starting date for the proposed wage increase has been moved ahead by six months. That amounts to a lot of money. By the calculations of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers it amounts to $8 million per year. Compounded over three years, I believe the figure is in the neighbourhood of $25 million to $27 million. Less wages will go into the pockets of the employees during the lifetime of the collective agreement.

It is massive. It is simply taking advantage of a bad situation. If the employer was prepared to put that money into wages when bargaining fell apart, surely that money had already been allocated for that purpose and is readily available. They are harvesting that money out of this unfortunate situation, taking advantage of a bad situation.

We would appeal to the other parties to support this amendment. We believe it will answer the concerns of all parties on our side. It answers the Bloc's original concern that it should be not less than the last offer. It answers the Reform Party's idea that the arbitrator should have a free hand in ruling what the wage increase should be. We have pulled those two ideas together into one composite amendment which we are suggesting is the fairest position.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I also agree with the remarks just made by the NDP member, which is totally in line with what we said about the first amendment we proposed to clause 12, which would restore the offers made by Canada Post to the workers.

They went on strike because they were not satisfied with the way Canada Post behaved during negotiations. The minimum was not enough, and the government comes along with a special bill and stabs workers in the back by depriving them of the little they had been given. None of the Liberal members has anything to say in response to this injustice, to this behaviour. Some of them are former union leaders, like the hon. member for Abitibi, Mr. St-Julien, who was saying today that he had visited—

[An hon. member]

You are not allowed to name members.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Yes, we can name them. We are in committee of the whole, Mr. St-Julien. I can name you.

He said he had visited the strikers and told them he understood their problems. He said “I looked at their collective agreement. They are paid well enough, I think. They have good wages, good conditions. We can give them a little stab in the back by voting with the minister on cutting back the conditions offered by Canada Post”. I have trouble understanding hon. members such as Mr. St-Julien, Mr. Coderre and Mr. Charbonneau, who claim to be sensitive to public concerns.

This $24 million that had already been gained by the postal employees is being taken away. This is money that will not end up in our ridings, and in your ridings, because that is where postal employees and mail carriers spend their pay, in their region. So this is money being taken away from all of the regions of Canada, which they prefer to leave in the accumulated funds of Canada Post, which as I said earlier makes a profit of over $125 million. This petty amount of $20 million will do nothing for it. The corporation is already profitable, and its role is not to make money but to get the mail delivered properly, while respecting the men and women who work for the corporation and assuming that responsibility.

I am appealing, therefore, not to the generosity of all hon. members, but rather to their common sense, in voting in favour of the amendment on which my hon. NDP colleague has spoken, as well as my hon. colleague for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who spoke on the first. These two amendments are very much complementary and would result in the offer that has already been made to the postal employees and letter carriers during the negotiations being made the minimum in the bill. As I said, never in 13 years have I seen a bill that was going to be tabled to force a return to work which contained less than what the negotiations had partially arrived at. I am therefore appealing to the common sense of all hon. members in this House that they may understand this situation and back the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party.

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

Mr. Chairman, we do not like the Bloc's amendment because, as we said, it is legislated settlement. In the case of the NDP's amendment, it is moving a step closer but it is like straddling a fence and we all know what happens if that is a picket fence and your legs are little short. We think there is still a problem with that. However, it is a move in the right direction and if we have to choose the best of two bad choices then that would be the better, no question.

When we have an arbitrator we think the proper way is take the conditions out and let the arbitrator decide.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the Bloc Quebecois member. He talked about backstabbing. We have seen people in this House, such as Lucien Bouchard, stab others in the back. These people are now elsewhere.

I look at the member opposite who just arrived from Florida, who was not here during the strike, and who is now telling us that we do not do anything in Parliament. MP Louis Plamondon, who went to Florida and came back with a nice tan, accuses us of stabbing strikers in the back, but I want to tell him that we talked to workers on the picket lines. People want—and I checked this afternoon with my constituents in the riding of Abitibi—postal services to resume. Community groups want postal services to resume. So do small and medium size businesses.

But we are telling union workers in the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region that they do a good job, that they have always done a good job. I realize they follow the instructions given by their national office in Ottawa or Toronto. We can see in a 541-page tome that, since 1981, the union stewards have always been the same. They are here on this page. There is no one from the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region in this chapter. There is no one, on page 29 of the collective agreement, representing the province of Quebec. Since 1981, it has always been the same people who have represented the union. Think about it. Think about the fact that our people, the union workers, are protected at Canada Post by a collective agreement that is 541 pages long.

The member talks about backstabbing. I realize that he is not even a hunter. But here is one who has already stabbed the Conservative Party in the back. I want to tell you that we want to have good relations with our workers, who have always served us well. I support the bill. I spoke this afternoon and my opinion will not change.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the debate back to the bill before us. We are here today to pass legislation, back to work legislation restoring appropriate labour-management relations, as quickly as possible.

There are two requirements: that the act be the best possible and that it be passed as soon as possible. Those are the objectives and criteria applicable.

To have two objectives like these requires that the best possible conditions be provided for in this bill. When we ask that the management negotiation proposal be what appears in the legislation, it is no secret, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand why.

Mr. St-Julien should understand this concept. It is the management proposal, the very proposal made by management, that we have put forward in our amendment. I listened to the hon. member for Abitibi earlier and put up with what he had to say. He said among other things that those selected to represent the unions, because they have been in the same position since 1981, are not the right people to do the job.

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

Shame.

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

This is an insult to all union officials. It is also an insult—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Don't choke.

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

It is also an insult to all members of Parliament who have been sitting here for years.

I will conclude on this. We have a duty to produce the best possible piece of legislation, and I would really like Mr. St-Julien to refrain from participating in the rest of the discussion so that we can end up with something reasonable.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Chairman]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is well aware that another member should not be referred to by name but by the name of his riding. I hope that the member will respect the rules of the House on this.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been insulted today. I have been insulted because the people from the Bloc, which is being paid and financed by unions, are telling me that I am stabbing workers in the back.

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

And who is financing you?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

There are people who go to Florida, but me, I go to my riding and I work there. What are the people telling me? That they are losing money. There are companies who are forced to tell their workers to stay home because these people do not want to listen to reason.

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

Come and try this where I live.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

There is no doubt that this special legislation has to be adopted as quickly as possible. It is time that we stopped listening to the same union song and that people stopped talking about knives.

Personally, I have chosen to help the companies, I have chosen to help the citizens. I have chosen to help the charitable organizations. I have chosen to help my fellow citizens because people are losing money. I have decided to help the Salvation Army. I have decided to help Enfants Soleil. I have decided to help all these people because they are really losing money. I have decided to help those who rely on the holiday season to earn a living.

One thing is certain, when I hear members talk about knives and about stabbing, I do not know where they come from, but we have nothing to learn from the likes of them. We must reject this amendment because the union bunch on the other side, what they did is to refuse a settlement. We gave them a settlement, and they refused. This is a government law. We must follow the rules of the Treasury Board.

If these people fail to understand anything, it is because they fail to understand their fellow citizens. Instead of going to Florida, Mr. Plamondon should be going to his riding. Instead of talking about stabbing, the member for Richelieu should go speak to his fellow citizens, and he would see that 76% of the people in all ridings support the government, which has decided to bring in special legislation because we have chosen to be on the side of the citizens and not to be paid by the unions and to play their song. That is the problem, Mr. Chairman.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chairman]

Too late.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Chairman]

Order, please.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.