Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1997

Division No. 48

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like of course to correct somewhat the comments made by the hon. member for Richelieu. Given his experience, the member should not make statements which I would call gratuitous.

I never said that I wanted to make the union look bad. At the time I met the Canadian Direct Marketing Association, I also met the union leaders. I told them clearly that I recognized their right to strike. In fact, the member should realize that, for the first time in the history of the Canada Post Corporation, we have a strike with no violence on the picket lines.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

It is not because of you, but because of the postal workers.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chairman, indeed, but the Canada Post Corporation did not hire replacement workers, even though it had the right to do so.

The problem on that side is that the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party have no objectivity and believe every word union leaders might say. They are at their mercy. I never made the comments attributed to me by the hon. member. I always defended the workers' right to strike. Postal workers have the right to strike. I also said that we must protect the interests of all Canadians, not just those of some like the unions and the large corporations. This is what we are doing today.

So, before making gratuitous statements or putting words in my mouth, the hon. member for Richelieu should be very specific and he should prove his claim, instead of relying on hearsay or on comments made by others. In this House, we must report things accurately, not rely on hearsay or on comments that others may have made. I hope the hon. member will have the courage to admit that what he reported in this House was actually said by others.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to start a debate on this, but I would simply like to say to the minister that, if he had listened to the news on television, he would have heard himself saying that the union was pretending to negotiate. That is plainly what he said on television.

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

Mr. Chairman, the debate on this clause is proof that our amendment is a good one. It says:

(1.1) The Minister shall, in so far as it is possible, appoint a mediator-arbitrator who is satisfactory to the parties.

It is important to note that, in the initial bill, it is the minister who does the appointing in a dispute, without saying who is wrong or right, whether it is the union or the employer. The basic principle is that the first job of the mediator-arbitrator—not just an arbitrator, but a mediator-arbitrator—we see this in subsection (2) of the clause, is to endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to in subsection (1) and to bring about an agreement between the parties on those matters. It is therefore very important that justice appear to be done, that those who come to the bargaining table, on both the employer and the union sides, feel they are able to put a minimum level of trust in the person appointed.

The Bloc Quebecois' amendment basically makes a lot of good sense. I think the government should receive it in this spirit. The purpose of the amendment is not to win a battle against the government, but to ensure better conditions, better labour relations in a milieu that has had a very troubled past.

The past history of Canada Post must be remembered. There have been difficult periods In 1995, there was almost model bargaining. I went to Kanata, not far from Ottawa, with the president of the union and the negotiator, Philippe Arbour, to try to persuade the municipality to adopt mechanized services for letter carriers. This is not the stand unions usually take. It is a stand that would help people find a job and develop it in order to improve the quality of the service provided. So, the mediator-arbitrator appointed at this stage should try to define the working conditions. He should bring the parties to an agreement.

Earlier, when the minister spoke, I just listened to what he had to say. By taking part in this debate, I want to ensure the best relationship possible between the two parties and I think the government is wrong in not addressing the substance of the issue. In committee of the whole, we are trying to come up with the best legislation possible because Canadians and Quebeckers alike want their postal service back, but a postal service that works. If the government is unable to take this issue seriously, we can.

Let us go back to the purpose of the amendment. The amendment is to simplify the legislation, where it says that the minister shall appoint a mediator-arbitrator. We agree that the minister can appoint the mediator-arbitrator, but we think that, as much as possible, the appointee should meet with the approval of the two parties involved. We just want to ensure the best conditions possible. We are also taking clause 9 into consideration. We have showed what is most important.

This is not a question and comment period. Unless I am mistaken, during this debate, every hon. member can have the floor and the others should listen to his arguments without trying to dispute them while the member is on his feet.

Going back to the issue, the mediator-arbitrator will have the mandate, under clause 9, to make very important decisions. If this clause is not amended, it will give the mediator-arbitrator the mandate to make certain decisions based on economic criteria where he will treat the Canada Post Corporation as if it were a private business. Doing away with the monopoly on letter distribution and doing away with rural post offices will take us straight to privatization. That is why it is absolutely essential that the mediator-arbitrator be recognized by the parties.

That is the Bloc's one and only objective, and we hope that, in this regard, the government will be responsible enough to allow all Canadians and the negotiating parties to ensure the future of the Canada Post Corporation.

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

Mr. Chairman, not to interrupt the Bloc, but could I ask them to give consideration to the fact that there are 15 amendments in total and we are now half an hour into the allocated time. In an hour and 25 minutes we are going to have bells.

I know they have a point to make, but it would be nice if we could hear all of the amendments, including their other ones as well.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of comments.

I listened very carefully to what the Bloc was saying and I have great sympathy for the principle of appointing a mediator-arbitrator who is agreeable to both sides, but I would like to point out that this is an exceptional circumstance because it is the union versus the people of Canada. Canada Post is the people of Canada. It is a crown agency. It is the interests of the people of Canada that are at stake.

I have listened to the comments of the Bloc with great attention and great sympathy, but it does seem to me that one has to lean in the appointment of an arbitrator-mediator in this case to somebody who will look first to the interest of all Canadians rather than to the interest of the union.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Labour it is my responsibility to appoint the mediator-arbitrator and it would only make sense that I appoint somebody who would be fair to both sides.

I am quite willing to take names or suggestions from either party, but in the end the responsibility of appointing the mediator-arbitrator is with the Minister of Labour.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am a bit surprised to hear my friend from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, with whom I have had the pleasure of working.

There is a contradiction because what the Bloc is saying is that, for the process to be successful, the person who will play the very important role of mediator must be trusted by both parties. It is the first requirement of labour relations. It is not only a matter of appointing somebody; that person must be trusted by both parties.

This is so true that when the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel was labour minister, his whole philosophy was aimed at changing the Canada Labour Relations Board, which will become the Canada Industrial Relations Board, where the parties will choose from a list of potential mediators. We all know that if neither party trusts this person, the process cannot end successfully.

I find the member a bit cheeky, and I say this as a friend, because he cannot rise in this House and say that negotiations were conducted in good faith. We saw disgraceful scenes that caused parliamentarians to blush when the chief government negotiator assaulted, just like another public person, his union counterpart in an unacceptable act of violence. I think this has to be pointed out.

Mr. Chairman, I will not let the Minister of Public Works get away with saying it was provoked. This is unacceptable in any circumstance. In negotiations, violence is not the way to a solution.

Negotiations are the expression of equality in which all parties attempt to look after their interests.

Can anyone in this House deny that bargaining was not in good faith? Bargaining was not in good faith because the playing field was not level. From the outset, this government gave assurances, should negotiations not prove successful, that it would force a return to work. That is the thing.

The Minister of Public Works says “The thing about this dispute is that there was no violence”. That is not what it was about; it was about not bargaining in good faith. But the government can redeem itself, show that it has a bias in favour of the workers and that it recognizes its past mistakes. In doing so, it must find expression through support for the Bloc's amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

I should point out that we do have 15 amendments. Therefore, in the spirit of giving everyone a chance, let us keep our interventions brief and to the point.

Shall Motion No. 1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

The vote stands deferred.

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-24, in clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 45 on page 3 and lines 1 to 37 with the following:

“8.(1) The union and employer shall select 3 people as possible arbitrators acceptable to them. The union and employer shall then have seven days to provide the other party with the names they have selected, along with their curriculum vitae. Each receiving party shall select one name from the list submitted within seven days of receipt and notify the other part of their decision. The two selected arbitrators shall then have a maximum of 14 days to agree upon a third arbitrator who shall chair the arbitration panel.

(2) The arbitration panel shall therefore consist of 3 people, including the chair.

(3) Upon selection of the arbitration panel, each party shall submit their best and final position on each outstanding contract item within 30 days of the arbitrator's selection. The arbitration panel shall notify both parties in writing of the location at which final positions must be filed including the precise date and time of the deadline for filing.

(4) Failure to submit a final position within 30 days shall be considered an abandonment of the process and the other party's final position shall be accepted. If both parties fail to submit within 30 days, settlement shall be completed by binding arbitration.

(5) The arbitration panel may not divulge any details of either party's position to any party until a decision has been rendered.

(6) The arbitration panel shall consider each party's final position on all outstanding contract items as a single package unless it is agreed upon by both parties to the dispute to deal with outstanding items on an individual basis, or in specific groupings.

(7) During the deliberation period of the arbitration panel, each party shall be permitted one day, not exceeding 7.5 hours to make personal presentations to the panel.

(8) Each party shall be provided with not less than 5 working days notice of the time, date and location of their personal presentation. This notice may be provided during the interim submission period.

(9) The arbitration panel shall select the final position of the party whose position is most justifiable in accordance with the guidelines set out for the arbitration panel within 30 days of the filing deadline.

(10) The arbitration panel may not change or modify the position of either party.

(11) If, in the opinion of the arbitration panel, both parties are far removed from a justifiable position, the panel may provide both parties with notice to resubmit their final position. Where this is done, each party has 20 days to resubmit their final position. The arbitration panel shall again notify both parties in writing of the location at which the resubmission must be filed, and the precise date and time of the deadline for filing. No information on details of the first submission may be released before the final settlement is announced.

(12) If either party fails to resubmit their offer within the 20 day period, their last filed position shall be used by the arbitration panel.

(13) The arbitration panel shall shall select the most justifiable final position submitted within 20 days of the filing deadline for resubmissions.

(14) Within 30 days of the announcement of the successful submission, the arbitration panel shall submit a full report containing the final submission of both parties and a full point by point justification of the arbitration panel choice of the submitted offers.

(15) If the report was not unanimous, the dissenting panel member shall submit a minority report within the same timeline as the other panel members.”

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak very briefly to this amendment which would put in place final offer selection arbitration to address the matter of pay schedules rather than having it done through an arbitrary manner.

Certainly when these matters arose in the House and during question period when we questioned the Minister of Labour, he stressed the need to have a negotiated settlement. We agree with him. We think a negotiated settlement far surpasses an imposed settlement any time. However, we also believe the use of final offer selection arbitration is a tool that can be used equally by both sides and is a very worthwhile tool that can be used in instances like these without having to use this method of back to work legislation, a method, I might add, that has come to be counted on by labour and management. It is less than a perfect situation at any time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will just add very briefly to that. Contained in this amendment on final offer arbitration is a specific mechanism for the selection of what would be an arbitration panel. We will not go into all the details as it is available here and the vote on it will be deferred until 6.30.

It was mentioned in debate today. It provides a very specific mechanism for the selection of one arbitrator from the union side, one arbitrator from the Canada Post side and one jointly selected to be the third member and chair of the panel. It also provides very specific timelines in order to have the parties make their presentations. It also provides a mechanism for the panel to make a decision.

As I said, if any member wants a detailed reading of it, I would be happy to show them a copy between now and 6.30. It is also on file with the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

The amendment is three pages long, quite detailed and is available at the table.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing a lot about this whole issue of final offer selection in the last couple of weeks. I think virtually everybody who has risen to speak on it first prefaced their remarks by saying there is no substitute for a freely negotiated settlement. I think we are all in agreement on that, even the mover of this amendment.

The whole idea of final offer selection is a choice that some people make in the course of labour management negotiations and it has its place in a very limited application.

As such, even in this round of bargaining, had the two parties agreed that it was a suitable way to resolve the issue they could have opted for it at any time in the process. Both the Canada Labour Code and the collective agreement in effect have provisions that if the two parties agree they may settle their outstanding issues by any type of binding arbitration. Final offer selection is only one of those types of binding arbitration.

I have personally used final offer selection as a union representative in the province of Manitoba. Final offer selection was law in that province for six or seven years. The NDP introduced it. It survived four or five years until the Filmon government was elected and then it was chucked out. As a union representative in the dozens of union negotiations I conducted we may have used it three or four times. In a limited application we see its use.

The whole premise is that when we have narrowed down all the outstanding issues to a couple of simple straightforward issues like money possibly the two parties could see fit to use it. Even in the province of Manitoba it was optional. Either side could make application to the minister to solve its outstanding issues either 60 days prior to a strike or 90 days after a strike. Those were the windows during which we could opt for this FOS.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union used it a lot. CUPE was vehemently opposed to the idea. The steelworkers played with it as did the carpenters union. I might have used it a maximum of five times over the course of seven or eight years.

Final offer selection had its origins in pro baseball and it is still used there. After the union negotiated all the outstanding issues except for money and the two parties still did not have the monetary package resolved, the employees put in their final offer and the employer puts in its last offer. The arbitrator can choose one or the other but not a combination of both. There is no cafeteria style shopping here. It is one or the other.

We should try to transpose that into the type of bargaining we see at Canada Post. Anybody with any sense of or any background in labour relations would see immediately that there would be pandemonium. It simply could not be done in negotiations that involved a complex set of rules of work or issues the current round of bargaining has been bogged down in. There is simply no way in the world that FOS would be useful, which is why the very experienced people at the table have chosen not to exercise their right to settle this round of negotiations with final offer selection.

To follow the recommendation put forward in this amendment and to institutionalize FOS so that all negotiations from hereon forward will be resolved by FOS would be absolutely ludicrous. It indicates to me a lack of knowledge of the subject. It is as if somebody stumbled on a new idea and decided to give it a whirl. There is media attention so the idea is being milked over and over again until most of us on this side of the House are sick of hearing about FOS. If I never hear the word again it will be too soon.

I speak very strongly against any such introduction. The only latitude we would see necessary in the Canada Labour Code would be in the ability of the two parties, should they see fit, to conclude their negotiations through the process of binding arbitration. One of those offers may be final offer selection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief and as concise as possible.

For those listening, so that they may understand properly, the final offer means that the union and management sides each make an overall proposal, and the arbitrator, or in this case the arbitration board, decides which of the two will be accepted.

For the public sector, this means that things are greatly distorted from the start, because the union members will want to be sure that their final offer as possible is accepted. This exerts terrible pressure and so, finally, the union offer contains virtually nothing, to ensure it will be accepted.

On the management side, in the public sector, there is a lot of time ahead. Nobody is talking about cutting the salary of the chairman of the board at Canada Post if no agreement is reached, nor of its executive director. If such a situation existed in the bargaining process, perhaps agreement would be reached more quickly.

The final offer, particularly in the clause we have before us, is a nebulous and complicated matter, and one which create new labour relations law. I believe that we should make sure that special legislation does not create a precedent which could be applied to other sectors and systematically lead to interpretations which would harm good labour relations.

I am dealing with clause 9, which is a key clause. I hope that the House will come up with an amendment to clause 9 because as it stands now, if we have final offer selection on top of it, it would amount to telling the arbitrator or the arbitration panel “Now you are going to manage this whole thing, and look at it as if it were a private company, a totally private firm, and at the same time you will be looking for the best way to settle the dispute”.

This would mean that to reach a settlement the union would have to accept working conditions similar to those in the private sector. We saw this kind of struggle at UPS in the United States. The union won because it convinced people of the need for regular workers, and permanent jobs. But with final offer selection, the union and workers involved would have been stuck with unacceptable conditions.

To conclude, the Reform Party's proposal may have been made in good faith, but in my view it is unacceptable because it is too vague and it does not provide both sides with a level playing field.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply primarily to the intervener from the NDP who suggested that obviously we do not know anything about how FOS works and that we are out to lunch. I am not sure what little parlances he used.

If anyone does not know what is going on it is him. We announced our proposal in detail. I know he was in the House at the time, but I do not know if he was listening or doing something else. Obviously he does not have a good grasp of what we proposed. We put it out in significant detail.

He suggested that FOS has a place but that we should not use it in this case because the union and the post office had an opportunity to select it and they did not. However he is backing arbitration. They had an opportunity choose it but they did not choose that either. Why is he backing that or, for that matter, anything else?

In this proposal they have an opportunity to bargain collectively and to negotiate. There is conciliation, mediation and any other form of settlement they mutually choose and agree upon, provided it does not end up in a labour disruption.

There has to be some final settlement when they say they cannot reach an agreement, cannot agree on how to settle the issue, cannot agree on an arbitrator, or cannot agree on tossing a coin or cutting the cards. If they cannot agree on anything there has to be some final resolution. That is why we are here tonight.

Whether it is final offer arbitration, straight toss of the coin arbitration or any other method, there has to be something. For the member to suggest that we cannot have final offer arbitration because they had the opportunity to choose that and did not he is saying in other words that we should not be here tonight.

I go back to the original question I asked him today which he did not answer. Why did members of the NDP agree in the first place to pass the motion and to fast track it unanimously? If they are so opposed to everything we are trying to do on behalf of 30 million Canadians, why are they even here?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, maybe I can answer briefly.

The member from the Reform Party indicated that we are for arbitration but we are not for FOS. That is not clear. Nothing we have done should lead him to believe that we are voting in favour of back to work legislation or binding arbitration. In fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Yesterday when the government asked for unanimous consent to move speedy passage of the bill and not be faced with obstacles and stumbling blocks it got our unanimous consent.

The member from the Reform Party has no idea how we will vote on the back to work legislation and binding arbitration. I think he could probably guess how we will vote on it. I can guarantee it will not be the same way he is thinking.

In terms of final offer selection we have read the member's outline in detail. Adding more pages to it does not give the idea any more merit. It was a flawed idea to begin with it. It was worth floating as a trial balloon but piling on the pieces of paper and raising it over and over again do not give a bad idea any more merit.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Shall the amendment to clause 8 standing in the name of Mr. Gouk carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Pursuant to order the vote on the amendment to clause 8 is deferred.

We will now proceed to the two amendments to clause 9 standing in the name of Mr. Gouk and in the name of the member for Winnipeg Centre.

(On clause 9)