Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1997

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

It is nice to know that the Speaker is on the ball here.

Let us talk about the costs of this strike. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business the postal strike has cost Canadian small and medium size businesses $200 million a day or a total of $2.4 billion as of December 1. I would say that is a very conservative figure.

I cannot help but get frustrated when I hear a Liberal member across the way say that small and medium businesses are losing money and it is time to legislate. We told the government time and time again prior to the strike that it was going to happen. Now the Liberals sanctimoniously stand in the House to acknowledge it. They are not only acknowledging it, they seem to be taking the credit for it, which is equally and typically Liberal.

During the seven days leading up to the threatened strike, Canada Post's mail volume dropped by 50%. Canada Post has been losing $17 million a day since the beginning of the strike. How ironic it is that the organization which needs the money is losing the money. The employees are saying “They have money and we want money”. The fact is that strikes very seldom, if ever, help anybody.

The employees may say it is the only option left to them but in this case it is not and it was not. In this case the negotiators on both sides had seven long months warning. As I stated before, I never entered a negotiation when I did not know halfway through where it was headed unless I could change the direction of it. I know for a fact that the people involved in those negotiations knew where they were going. The fear of the public was out there, yet the government let it happen. That is poor leadership.

We see in a survey that 82% of small and medium size businesses agree that Canada Post should be declared an essential service. Is it any wonder why the general public has come to that conclusion. Do the employees really want it that way? Is that what the Liberals want? Is that what Canada Post management wants? Because that is what the general public is beginning to say. They have no confidence that this kind of negotiation process will ever cease, will ever improve, will ever be looked at for the benefit of Canadian citizens.

What does the government do about it? Does it say, “There is a concern out there, Canadians have a concern”? No, it lets everything happen as it has done before and then it says, “We have to stop this. It has been 13 days and everyone is hurting. Now we should introduce legislation”. That is poor leadership.

Over 1,000 Canadians were laid off prior to the strike even starting. It is estimated that as many as 10,000 Canadians have been laid off because of the postal strike. Where did that ever once fit into the strategy on the other side of this House? When did it ever once come up in any discussion other than what I heard this morning from a member saying, “We have a problem. There are people who are getting laid off because of this”. My colleagues in the Reform Party have stood day after day saying that we have a bad enough problem in this country with unemployment and now the government is directly creating more unemployment with its inaction.

What about charities? I have talked to a few. Yes, they are hurting. This could not have happened at a worse time. But then of course the parties involved in the negotiations knew about that. Both parties in the negotiations picked the time so very well as to when to strike. The parties that want to strike pick the optimal time. They pick the time when the heat is on the government the most to see if it can resolve the differences.

The parties picked the Christmas season to put the heat on the government. But what about the charities? Has anybody ever thought about that in this House, other than the Reform Party day after day saying you are going to hurt charities? No. The Liberals come in here today and say, “Guess what, we have some legislation because we think charities are being hurt by this process”. It turns out that charities raise 80% of their funds for the year during the holiday season.

What are we going to say to the charities? Gee whiz, we had seven months. We kind of forgot to think about the charities and we knew Christmas was coming. We heard rumours from the union. The postal worker negotiators knew all along what was happening. And the Liberal government in the twelfth hour says it is going to save it all. Well it has not saved it all. It has damaged charities by lack of action, by lack of leadership.

I hear from one of the ill-informed individuals on the other side that that is rubbish. I can tell those uninformed members on the other side that it absolutely is not rubbish. If they would like some information from some of the charities in this country which have been damaged, we will be happy to oblige. We should not even have to come into this place and talk about this. They should know that. That is what is wrong with bad leadership. They do not know it.

As I said, I guess it is just another disappointing day for the rest of us. Those folks on the other side are going to go out of here today and say, “Look at the victory we got. We got an agreement here to legislate these folks back to work. Boy are we heroes in this country”. They are not. They are a major disappointment to the majority of legislators in this House, and I suspect many backbenchers on the Liberal side although I do not know. They are a big disappointment to charities. They are a big disappointment to all those people who count on Canada Post.

I did a radio show yesterday on CKNW in Vancouver. I heard comments that the labour unions will defy the legislation, block public access to our bridges, to our airports and our roads. I do not take any happiness in attacking either union or management in times like this because it does not help either party, but we have to remember that Canada Post is after all a government organization. We have to remember that the bridges, the airports and the roads in this country belong to no one except the people who paid for them.

To take that kind of position is somewhat irresponsible. I hope that those who want to do that will think twice about responsibilities, will think twice about the need to have respect, will think twice about trying to get people back to enjoying what was once a proud service in this country and to try to get some form of goodwill back in Canada Post.

Finally, this is yet another boondoggle of the Liberal government. It is yet another show of lack of leadership, yet another show of indecision and yet another show of lack of strategic planning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite and as usual his Reform rhetoric and his holier than thou position.

I noted that the Reform Party, the great party of less government that always espouses such, has been screaming for government intervention for some time now in this matter. Apparently it would be that the Reform Party thinkers believe that less government is always a preferred policy approach except when Canadian workers are exercising their legal rights. At that point it would appear, according to the hon. member and his party, state intervention becomes more acceptable.

My question to the member is, why the double standard? Why does he say one thing for one circumstance and quite the contrary for another? I would like to hear the answer.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear. It perhaps sounded like rhetoric but I may be one of a few in this House who understand the intricacies that go on at a negotiating table. The fact is that I do believe the members opposite are quite ill-informed of the process.

The answer is that there are no double standards here. All of this could have been prevented. Now we are at a stage where this government sees fit to think that the answer is to react 13 days after the situation happened. A responsible organization would have reacted three months ago, not today. There is no double standard. There is just weakness on the other side in knowing how to manage a country.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Reform Party member, I once again got the impression that Reformers advocate the wrong approach.

I agree with the hon. member when he says that the issue should have been solved a long time ago, but the Reform Party did not suggest anything back then. The problem is that unionized employees were granted a right to strike and they are certainly entitled to avail themselves of this right. Perhaps it is the hypocrisy of the legislation that explains why the workers got taken. They exercised a right that was legitimately granted to them, and then they were told they should not have done so.

Such is the government's hypocritical way of doing things. It gives a right, and then removes it through special legislation. Reformers are no different. They saw it coming. They knew that postal workers might avail themselves of their right to strike. Today, they support the government's bill, but they do not have a long term vision to settle the conflict.

The bill before us is a band-aid solution. The Reform Party is supporting that band-aid solution. Why not have the political courage to tell postal workers “Postal services are essential services. There will no longer be any strikes in those essential services”? Instead of resorting to legislation to settle labour disputes, we could then solve the whole issue.

As is their custom, Reformers came from nowhere, got involved in the issue and are now bragging that they saw the light before everyone else. In fact, they have a short term vision and they never propose anything to help find a permanent solution to the Canada Post issue.

My question to the hon. member is: what does he have to suggest? What constructive measure would he suggest, so that in three or four years, when the collective agreement that we are imposing today through legislation expires, we do not have to relive the same situation? This is my question to the member from the Reform Party.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, where has this guy been? I thought this morning we articulated our position rather well. However it was not just this morning. I just got through saying that for several months now we have been trying to get this government to listen to issues such as final offer arbitration. We have been trying to tell the government, even in the last session of Parliament, how to avoid these kinds of things.

We have also tried to convince the government that this whole issue could have been stopped earlier in the process if the right tactics had been used, if the right advice had been given and so on and so forth. I am not sure where this member comes from, to tell you the truth.

It is essential for the government to get a clear message here. Regardless of what kind of spin it puts on this, it is essential that the government walk away from this exercise in 1997 and say: “We have to develop a better plan, a better process, because this one does not work”.

We will never recover all of the moneys lost in this country by small business and charities. That is gone. It seems of no consequence over here. That is the real galling part of all of this.

To answer the member's question, get up earlier in the morning, come to the House, listen to the members and you will learn a whole bunch more.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Reform spokesperson who spoke a few minutes ago.

Would he indicate to this House if he knows of any western society, specifically G-7 countries, denying their workers the right to collective bargaining? If he knows, I would like to have the hon. member name those countries.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the relevance of the question, I am not sure whether there are countries that deny collective bargaining, but that is not the case in our situation.

The fact of the matter is there has been collective bargaining. The fact of the matter is it did not work. The fact of the matter is it was preventable. The fact of the matter is the Liberal government did nothing. The fact of the matter is this Liberal government cannot see one day past today in the House of Commons. The fact of the matter is this Liberal government is more concerned about its media image than charities and small business in this country.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Reform member said, the postal strike does not just affect businesses and charities. It also affects the public.

My own little survey of residents in my riding was particularly revealing. Everyone I met, without exception, said they were unhappy with the strike dragging on.

I will vote in favour of this bill. Sovereignists are not all left wing, socialist and pro-labour. Our numbers include people like myself who think that there is still room for the diversity that characterized the Bloc Quebecois when it first started out.

I have a question for the member. Did he find the same concerns in his riding that I found in mine, setting aside businesses and charities, as I mentioned at the beginning? I am speaking about the public in general.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes. In fact in my riding there were a large number of concerns, not just business and charities but the general population. In my riding, I have not checked lately, but I quite suspect there are a large number of people yet that are without their pension cheques, and so on and so forth. At the very minimum, there have been delays.

It is a concern right across the country, but why is it we are here on a day like today, December 2, debating back to work legislation? The point still has not sunk in with those that are a lot more dense than the chair you are sitting in that this is entirely preventable. What I heard from several members is how great the government is because it brought in back to work legislation. The problem is it is more concerned about the media than it is the people who have been hurt. It is disgusting.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this morning with the hon. member for Abitibi.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill C-24. I regret that this government has been forced to legislate an end to this postal strike which started two weeks ago, but it is time. The circumstances are right. It is appropriate and I ask all members of the House to join today to support this legislation.

Last weekend when I went back to my riding, I was stopped time and time again by individuals, small business owners and volunteers at the local church, who said to me “Please, it is time now, it is time. We believe in the collective bargaining process but it is time. We need your help”.

In Canada we are fortunate to have an excellent system of labour management relations. A majority of disputes are resolved without a strike or lockout. The system does work. The government has repeatedly said that it would allow the collective bargaining process to run its course. Despite the appointment of a mediator and every effort to support a negotiated settlement, a settlement could not be reached.

For whatever reason, the parties have been either unable or unwilling to make difficult decisions needed to resolve the dispute. The Minister of Labour has been advised by one of the country's top mediators that the parties have become deadlocked and that it is unlikely that an agreement can be reached. We cannot ignore this advice from the mediator. With the advice from the mediator and under the minister's leadership, the government has been left with no other choice but to introduce legislation and resolve this matter.

I believe that both parties have tried to negotiate a settlement to the best of their abilities. We can no longer wait. Yes, small business has been affected. Unfortunately, small business relies very much on the mail, but small businesses continue to pay their employees. At times cash flow is very tight for the small business. As we know, small business is the engine of our economy, it runs our economy. We must now extend our hand to help it.

I want to speak with respect to the concern of the hon. member from the opposition about charities and his allegation that we as the government have not cared about charities. It is because the government is concerned about the well-being of the nation's charities that we are asking the House to join and pass this legislation and resume the postal service. We have been monitoring on a daily, weekly and monthly basis the amount of hardship that has been faced by the charitable sector. This postal situation has hurt charities in four ways. I am going to share those concerns of the charities with the member.

Charities are reluctant to mail and consumers are reluctant to respond. Charities may now have to lay off operational staff due to declining work. The most important giving season, the Christmas season, is now in jeopardy. The shortfall in revenues will have direct impact on charities' abilities to provide programs and services. We are aware. We are aware of what their needs are. Therefore being aware, it is time for us to legislate.

Again with respect to charities, the impact of the initial build-up and uncertainty about the postal situation has hurt a number of organizations. Some funds, diminished though they were, flowed into charities during the lead-up to the current situation. Cash flow for a number of organizations which are heavily dependent on direct mail revenues have now completely stopped. To put this in perspective, I know of several organizations that receive 90% or more of their fund raising revenues through the mail. The current postal disruption means that there is no need for gift processors or volunteers. Some organizations are now faced with laying off their processing staff.

Given that the Christmas season is now upon us, the anticipated revenues that are so vital to so many organizations are now in jeopardy. Fund-raising goals based on the needs of organizations are likewise in jeopardy.

I know of an organization in my riding that after a successful year prior to this strike is now looking at a 15% shortfall in revenues. There is no fat to trim in this organization. This shortfall will mean that it cannot sustain the same charitable activities in which it has been engaged.

Over the last 10 days articles have been appearing in a Toronto newspaper regarding the important and vital role played by our charities. I urge members again, in light of what the charities do for Canada and the people of Canada, it is now time to legislate back to work.

While most of us may not recognize it, charities also face a new threat once the postal strike comes to an end. These charities will be competing with each other with an intensity few have experienced within a compressed timeframe. Every organization that has delayed its mailing and every organization that has already postponed its mailing is going to be out there asking Canadians to help support them.

The charities are losing $10 million a day. It is important now that we put postal workers back to work.

I would like to say to the hon. member from the opposition that instead of bemoaning the fact that the government has done nothing and does not care about charities, I would urge him to not only vote for the legislation but to stand in the House the following day and speak to all Canadians. Tell them just how important those charities are. Ask them to look for their mail and to give more than they have given before and be responsible in that way. I will be doing that.

I regret that we have had to do this. I believe in the collective bargaining system. However, my constituents want the postal workers returned to work. I care and the government cares about those individuals and the charities. I would ask all members of the House to please vote for the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my inclination is to say what drivel, except that I believe the hon. member was very sincere in what she said. She said it was time to legislate.

It is long past time to legislate. We have been calling for this since the summer. Finally, the Liberal government has started to listen to us, the Canadian people, businesses, charities and individuals who have been harmed by this strike. Why has it taken it two weeks to do this?

The hon. member who just spoke said quite eloquently that businesses are losing money, they are laying off people. That is true and it has been true for the last two weeks of this strike. Charities are losing money, 80% of their revenues. That is also true, and it has been true for the last two weeks. We told the Liberal government. Why did it not listen to us?

The member talked about the collective bargaining system. It has three parts; negotiate, conciliate and mediate. It has always been there. We can put a settlement mechanism in place for when those things break down as they have done not only this time, but four times in the last 10 years.

I do believe the hon. member was sincere although misguided because she is so late in making her declarations. This is the fourth strike in 10 years, the third time in 10 years that is has resulted in legislation. The previous government recognized the need to legislate. This government, belatedly, is recognizing the need for legislation. How many more times in the future are we going to let the businesses, the charities and the people she lamented about suffer before we bring in a permanent solution to this ongoing problem?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member the same thing that he has heard time and time again from the members on this side of the floor. The Liberal government believes in the collective bargaining process.

We have negotiated. We have mediated, but we also believe in the right to strike, the right to settlement. We have tried and again it is our Liberal government that believes in the importance of negotiating.

Two weeks after that strike, after opportunities for people to negotiate and the minister's bringing in Canada's top mediator to solve this problem, we have negotiated solutions working in partnership. Those are the solutions.

When those partnerships fail and they cannot be brought together, then it is our duty to bring in legislation. With all due respect, we are doing just that. I would ask that member to join me in voting for this legislation this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, honestly I think my colleague should have become a movie star. She almost got me crying this morning.

Could my colleague tell this House and could she tell the postal workers by legislating the workers back to work why this government put a wage decrease on what was proposed in the negotiations? If it is so serious about it, if it is so honest about it, why did it get involved? Why did it not let the arbitrator make the decision?

Furthermore, what is the government's concern regarding the 4,000 people who will lose their jobs? I would like to hear my colleague, and not as a movie star.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these negotiations have not been about one issue. These negotiations are about a number of issues which we all agree are best to be left to the two parties at the table to resolve.

One issue cannot be looked at, such as why this, why not that. I think that is something the mediator probably asked. I was not the mediator and it is what the two parties have tried to do.

With respect to the member's second question about 4,000 employees being laid off, no one knows how many people are going to be laid off. Where do we get these figures? We look to see what has happened in the last two weeks. We see the people who have been laid off, the part time people, the people who need work now, especially at Christmas so that they can buy their families the things they need.

What about those people? How can we quantify? What I am asking everyone to do today is to bring us together and to make sure that we try to make this thing much better. Vote for the legislation today.

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

Mr. Speaker, Sunday night, I prepared a 20-minute speech, but I will not use more than the five minutes allowed.

It is true that the government had appointed a special mediator and that after one week, the parties were at an impasse.

In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, mail delivery is an essential public service without which the economy cannot function properly. The time had come to make a decision. The letter carriers went on strike on November 19 after the breakdown of negotiations on wages, job security and changes to letter carriers' routes.

Since Monday, the best mediator in Canada, Mr. Edmondson, has attempted to find some common ground between the Canada Post Corporation and its unionized workers. According to the mediator, there was not enough flexibility on either side to arrive at an agreement. Since there was no such agreement, the strike is getting harder on ordinary citizens and especially on businesses which depend on mail delivery and on those workers whose jobs are directly linked to the proper functioning of this service.

This strike is also hurting community associations considerably. Despite the many alternative solutions that have been developed over the years, only the public postal network can deliver mail in every part of Canada at a reasonable cost. Even in Abitibi, in the northern part of my riding, the mail is delivered with efficiency.

We know that it is not easy at this time to introduce special legislation in Parliament, but during the strike and before it started, the government was determined to let the parties arrive at a negotiated settlement. I have always considered that a collective agreement would be the best solution for postal employees, for Canada Post customers and for all Canadians. The federal government gave Canada Post and the union ample opportunity to arrive at an agreement, but things always ended in deadlock. Now we have before us a special law.

During the strike, there is one thing that I greatly appreciated on the part of the Government of Canada, and that is that it did not use strikebreakers. Strikebreakers were used last time and it was rather difficult in all sectors in Quebec. We all know that the province of Quebec has special legislation prohibiting the use of strikebreakers, and labour relations are no worse off because of it.

Last Friday, I was on the picket line in my riding in Val-d'Or and Amos. I met unionized workers. When questioned, they all say they support the national union. It is the national union that runs things, even if we look at the collective agreement, which I have in my possession. I will put it on my desk because, as my adversaries will tell me, I am not allowed to have props. The agreement is 541 pages long. Find me a union in Abitibi that has an agreement 541 pages long. There may be only two in Canada: at the CBC and at Canada Post.

We all know that Canada Post employees work very hard. We are trying to come up with an agreement, a solution for the well-being of our employees. One thing the strikers did very well was deliver the provincial, municipal and federal pension cheques. However, things are at an impasse at the moment. Many families have yet to receive their cheques. There are delivery delays at the distribution centres. But, we are trying our level best to reach an agreement to put an end to it. The only way to do so is to introduce this bill, because businesses in Abitibi—Témiscamingue have been badly hurt by the strike.

The Canada Post Corporation wants to redesign the daily route of each letter carrier in order to deliver more mail with fewer employees. When I travelled around the big riding of Abitibi, a number of people said that this aim was legitimate. We know that the major issue at the moment is redefining the issue of mail and letter carriers' routes.

From the union, the reaction was very different. It is calling for more permanent positions to give job security to the greatest number of union members. With new technologies like the Internet and e-mail, we know what large banks are doing in Canada and Quebec. We know what cities, telephone companies and businesses are doing. Even hospitals have experienced, on the union side, lots of cuts. Unionized workers do have a right to put pressure on to improve their situation, but we have reached a point where solutions need to be sought and the only solution is to enact special back-to-work legislation.

I am asking only one thing. We know that we have good postal workers in Abitibi. They meet many seniors on their run. I hope that, after this bill is passed and work has resumed, there will be good relations, especially with the good collective agreement they already have. Improvements are required in certain areas. I realize there is possibility jobs may be cut here and there across Canada, but I hope there will be no cuts in my riding because we need these people to deliver our mail.

The public wants to know what is what. In 1996, a commission was set up. In his report, Commissioner Radwanski said savings of between $100 million and $200 million a year could be made just by reviewing the 541-page collective agreement, without imposing privatization or disproportionate pay cuts on the workers.

The main issue is not excessively high rates of pay. Payment for time not worked remains a major cost to the corporation. For example, letter carriers get paid at a higher rate for hours worked in excess of their normal week, such as in December, but are paid for 40 hours in the summer, even if their days are shorter. The public may not be aware of these considerations.

Canada Post pays its letter carriers for transportation and time required to have lunch at their home base. I could mention several other examples, such as the replacement of an employee who is not at work. In order to become efficient, the Canada Post Corporation wants to be able to change the itinerary of its letter carriers and find internal solutions. The flexibility required by Canada Post means there will be fewer jobs and perhaps fewer contributions paid to the union. The union estimates that 4,000 of its current 45,000 members will lose their job.

We understand why the union is fighting hard to oppose the demands made by Canada Post. As a former union president, I am aware of what is at stake. I hope that, when they go back to work, these employees will maintain good relations with the public and with Canada Post.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also think this special legislation is necessary, since it is patently clear that the two sides cannot and will not reach a agreement.

Many postal workers themselves are fed up with this drawn out dispute. Many of them welcome this legislation because, let us be honest, postal workers too are affected financially by this strike. They will also tell you that the union is asking for too much in the present economic context

In this regard, a recent article in Les Affaires stated that the issue in the postal dispute is the flexibility Canada Post must have to become competitive and not pass on unwarranted costs to its clients.

This article also quotes Gordon Ritchie, former deputy chief negotiator for NAFTA, as saying that the collective agreement of Canada Post employees is probably the least competitive and most ineffective, bar none, of its kind in North America.

Does the member for Abitibi agree with this statement by the former deputy chief negotiator for NAFTA?

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

Mr. Speaker, as it just happens, I have in my hands the article written by Jean-Paul Gagné that appeared in Les Affaires on Saturday, November 29. The headline reads “Ottawa must put an end to the fun and games”.

The Bloc Quebecois member has omitted to quote from the paragraph in which Gordon Ritchie is quoted as saying that the main problem is not that the rates of pay are too high, that what is really driving costs up is the pay for time not worked.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague.

During his speech, he appeared to be saying that Canada Post intends to do away with 4,000 jobs. Just now, our other hon. colleague appeared not to know where I got that figure from. Well, I got it from their side. They apparently do not consult each other. My colleague confirms it, he is aware of that.

The other colleague could not answer my question, but this one looks a bit more sincere, having been a union president.

Why is it that the government has not only presented a bill to send the parties to conciliation, but has also hamstrung the mediator and lowered employees' rates of pay to less than what had been negotiated?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying just now in my speech, which lasted perhaps five minutes, the union feels that it would lose 4,000 of 45,000 jobs existing as of now. We know that there will be a mediator-arbitrator, but we know as well that, in the bill as introduced, no employee will lose his or her job today, even after the return to work.

As far as rates of pay are concerned, the bill speaks of their being spread out over three years: 1.5%. 1.75% and then 1.9%. At the negotiating table, we do not know whether it was 8% or 9%. We do know that they were asking for 11%, while at the moment they have over 3% for the cost of living.

We still wish to improve the employees' pay, but with the mediator-arbitrator who is to be appointed in order to find a solution satisfactory to both parties, one never knows. At this point, it is possible after the year 2000, but for the next 3 years it is firm. People can always catch up after the three years, though.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with other Bloc colleagues.

Yesterday, we finally witnessed a long awaited moment. The minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation introduced Bill C-24, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. I say “awaited” because the way things were evolving, all those who sit in this House could see it coming.

The legislation before us forces some 45,000 Canada Post employees to go back to work, while also depriving them of fundamental rights, such as the right to negotiate working conditions that will give them satisfaction in their job while also being beneficial to their employer.

To put it simply, the dice were loaded. The Canada Post Corporation knew that it could count on special legislation from the minister responsible.

Remember the memo by the Canadian Direct Marketing Association made public by CUPW on August 7. According to the memo, Canada Post had received assurances from the minister responsible that, should a strike occur, the government would pass back to work legislation.

Bloc Quebecois members believe that, in this context, the deadlock in the negotiations is the result of the bad faith displayed by the Canada Post Corporation. This is why we say from the outset that we disagree with Bill C-24.

It is not so much the labour minister, but the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation who is to be blamed in this whole episode.

Quebeckers and Canadians must know that the minister responsible for Canada Post undermined the negotiations. For example, he said, on November 18, when both sides had undertaken exploratory talks, that the union was uncompromising, that it would be to blame should privatization occur, and that the government had the right to resort to special legislation. Enough is enough.

A brief look at what is at stake shows that, generally speaking, the union is asking for greater job security. This means converting overtime into permanent jobs. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the union agreed to reduce by half, from 3,000 to 1,500, the number of permanent jobs it wants to see created. The other union demands are: extending door to door postal services, a cost of living increase, plus a pay raise and a work contract for a period of 18 months to 2 years.

Canada Post, for its part, wants to cut salary costs by some $200 million, which amounts to cutting 4,000 jobs. It is offering to create 500 permanent positions rather than the 1,500 sought by the union. The government is missing a golden opportunity to create jobs, not vulnerable jobs, but permanent jobs and to spread the wealth among people who want to work. We must not forget that Canada Post is not running a deficit.

What is more, Canada Post is offering a salary increase over three years, with 1.5% the first year, 1.75% the second and 2% the third, plus the cost of living index. With its bill, the government is imposing salaries that are lower than those in the latest management offer of November 17, which proposed the same increases but six months earlier.

We were never given any indication that the employer was making concessions on its demand that it recover $200 million from salary costs. Bolstered by various interventions by the minister responsible for Canada Post, the corporation's management held the line while it awaited the special legislation introduced by the Liberal government.

Bill C-24 is therefore the result of abortive negotiations, in which the bargaining process did not follow its usual course. Had it done so, it would have been cemented by an agreement negotiated solely by the parties, as the Bloc Quebecois has called for since the outset.

The Bloc has always upheld the principle of free negotiations and it continues to do so. My colleagues and I are, however, aware that as things stand now the two parties are at an impasse. The situation is not surprising given that Canada Post is a subsidiary of the Liberal Party of Canada, the place where senators are appointed when there is no place for them in the Senate.

This is why the Bloc will be proposing a series of amendments when the House sits in committee of the whole. These amendments aim primarily at hastening the end of the dispute so as to improve labour-management relations, which were sorely tested, and to resume postal services to Quebeckers, who are waiting impatiently for them.

The clauses the Bloc has difficulty with are clauses 9, 12, 8, 10, 15 and 17.

Clause 9 sets out the principles guiding the mediator-arbitrator in reaching his decision. Specifically, it says that the mediator-arbitrator shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable industries in the private and public sectors and that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short- and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of the corporation. The Bloc Quebecois condemns these guidelines binding the mediator-arbitrator, because they represent an amendment to the Canada Post Corporation Act, which refers to a self-sustaining financial basis rather than competitiveness.

With clause 9, the Minister of Labour is clearly indicating that Canada Post must be run like a private business. This is at considerable odds with the public service character provided for under its own legislation, the Canada Post Corporation Act. The Bloc Quebecois therefore asked the government to give serious consideration to an amendment whereby the mediator-arbitrator must instead be guided by considerations consistent with a self-sustaining public service, as set out in Canada Post's incorporating statute. We already have the government's assurance that this amendment will be approved and that it will have a mitigating effect in the context of arbitration.

Clause 12 sets workers' rates of pay for the new agreement.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the government could have left the salary issue in abeyance so as to give the union an opportunity to present its arguments to the mediator-arbitrator. This is why we are asking the government to amend clause 12 and give unions at least the rates of pay contained in the employer's last offer.

Clauses 8 and 10 make provision for the government to appoint the mediator-arbitrator. The Bloc rejects these clauses, being of the opinion that it is up to the government to see that unions are consulted. This, in our view, is a prerequisite to any real mediation that would be acceptable to everyone, because it would be someone above all suspicion, someone respected by all the parties.

Clause 15 also poses a problem. It states that the government will pass on the mediation bill to both parties. This strikes us as seriously wrong, given that the government played a primary role in the dispute now dragging on. The Bloc Quebecois feels that the government must pay the cost of the mediation it is imposing, and that is why we are asking that clause 15 be deleted.

Clause 17 sets the fines for those who contravene the legislation. A rapid calculation shows that it could cost the union up to $50 million a day to break the law. It is understandable—

[The Speaker]

That was very interesting. Unfortunately, we have run out of time. My colleagues, instead of proceeding to questions and comments, since we have only a few minutes left, I would like to table a report by the auditor general.

Auditor General's Report, 1997

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada for the year 1997.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(d), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The Environment

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past Friday I was honoured to host an environmental round table in my riding at the G. Howard Ferguson forest station in Kemptville. We brought together over 40 individuals, spanning 4 generations from at least 20 different grassroots groups, as well as representatives from a number of resource based industries.

The detailed and candid discussion did not concern the why of climate change but enthusiastically addressed the issue of how. This cross-section of Canadians clearly expect Canada to lead the world in the shift toward sustainable development.

This was an extremely positive event for me and my constituents and I would encourage other members of Parliament to undertake similar initiatives.

Department Of Fisheries And Oceans

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the farmland in the Fraser Valley has remained arable land because of the hundreds of kilometres of drainage ditches that criss-cross the area. For generations now, provincial and municipal authorities have routinely cleaned these waterways of silt and debris so that flooding is reduced and disruptions to streams and habitat is kept to a minimum.

But now the Department of Fisheries and Oceans seems intent on wreaking chaos on our region. DFO is now describing routine ditch maintenance as harmful alteration of fish habitat and has suddenly demanded compensation from farmers and the municipality. It wants a professional review every time a waterway is cleaned and describes even seasonal streams as fish bearing waters.

In short, DFO is risking the lives and livelihood of people in our region, risking the habitat of the very fish it is supposed to be protecting and doing it in a way that makes timely co-operation impossible.

In my riding of Fraser Valley, the riding of Langley—Abbotsford and in Nanaimo—Cowichan, it is time for the fisheries minister to step in and direct his officials to stop confronting and start working and consulting with the farmers, mayors, councils and others living in these areas.

Canadian Sikh Community Centenary

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the celebration of Canadian Sikh community centenary year 1997. This year marks 100 years of Sikh immigration to Canada.

Sharing a common faith and historical roots in the Indus Valley, the Canadian Sikh community has been built from a worldwide diaspora that also has roots in England, Africa, New Zealand, Asia and the U.S. Today Sikhs are represented in every occupation and facet of Canadian life, including being elected as members of this House of Commons, provincial parliaments and municipal governments.

Congratulations to the Canadian Sikh community for its contribution to Canada's multicultural fabric over the past 100 years and best wishes for its success in the centuries to come.