House of Commons Hansard #42 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.

Topics

Sugar ExportsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, are you saying that it takes three to tango?

I certainly welcome the passion that the member brings to the House and to defend a very important national constituency.

As the member will know, there was a lot of discussion between the sugar industry and the federal government vis-à-vis the whole question of the agreement with the United States.

It was the feeling of the industry in recommending to the Government of Canada to enter into this agreement as opposed to continuing the kind of harassment that has been experienced in the past, but we will continue to work.

AgricultureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Simcoe—Grey is composed heavily of residents directly involved in the agricultural industry.

As a representative of these farmers, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. What new funding commitments has he made that will benefit the agricultural industry?

AgricultureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Prince Edward—Hastings Ontario

Liberal

Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we will continue to work with the industry, to develop new horizons and new opportunities in the industry.

I am pleased to remind everyone that, through the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund, there has been a contribution made to the Canadian Agricultural New Uses Council, which is made up of representatives of the industry from across this country, to work with the industry to come up with new food products and new non-food products from the agricultural industry for the benefit of our domestic and international consumers.

HaitiOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, finally our troops are coming home from Haiti after being on mission impossible.

After we spent $500 million on this mission, we have not achieved a democratic Parliament. We have not achieved hospitals or schools. We do not have a working judiciary or a police force.

While our troops and police have done the very best job they could, how can this minister call this mission a success?

HaitiOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to recall a few short years ago when Haiti was governed by one of the worst dictators ever seen in the western hemisphere. Now there is an elected president and an elected parliament. The people of Haiti are making an honest effort to try to recover, re-establish and rehabilitate themselves.

It is very unseemly for a member of the Reform Party to cast aspersions on both the efforts of the Government of Haiti and our own peacekeepers who have made such a great effort to try to rebuild that country.

HaitiOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, that would bring to a conclusion our question period.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Albert Pintat, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Principality of Andorra.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, a former member of Parliament, Mr. Jack Pickersgill, passed away a little while back. We are going to have tributes to him now. We will begin with the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

The Late Jack PickersgillOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Fred Mifflin LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)

Mr. Speaker, today it is both an honour and a privilege, though a sad one, for me to pay tribute to a good friend, a truly remarkable Canadian, the Hon. John Whitney Pickersgill, or Jack as he was known to many of his colleagues.

His passing last month marked the departure of an extraordinary individual. Jack Pickersgill was an exceptional politician, a devoted public servant and an avid author and historian. His outstanding talents and notable achievements all constitute part of the rich legacy he leaves for Canada. Admired for his integrity, his intelligence and his impeccable sense of social justice, he served four prime ministers with great distinction.

His unwavering commitment to Canada was reflected in every challenge he rose to accept. Whether serving in government as an honourable minister or as a member of the official opposition in his colourful role as a member of the four horsemen, Jack Pickersgill was highly respected by his colleagues within the Liberal Party of Canada and outside of it.

As an author and historian, his written works are insightful pieces which will long remain valuable reference materials for all Canadians. His exemplary sense of social responsibility in hand with his keen intellect has proven instrumental in developing many of—

The Late Jack PickersgillOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleague, I know this is a very serious issue we are addressing.

I invite you, colleagues, if you have other meetings, especially during the time of tributes, that you carry on the meetings outside of the House. I apologize to the member for interrupting.

The Late Jack PickersgillOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Fred Mifflin Liberal Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your intervention. I thought it was most appropriate.

I would go on to say in respect of the Hon. Jack Pickersgill that while his influence was in virtually all aspects of policies and politics, I think it is important that success to him would appear to have been measured in large part by those accomplishments he could achieve on behalf of all Canadians.

It is a mark of the man and a solid indication of his values that, despite the power and influence he possessed, there were two accomplishments of which he was exceptionally proud. One was the provision of unemployment insurance for fishermen. The other was the provision of a place in Canada for 35,000 Hungarian refugees who became exemplary citizens.

On that note, as we take this opportunity to pay tribute today to Jack Pickersgill, it is imperative that we acknowledge his unfailing commitment to Canada. During this period in our history when we are being asked to reflect on the question of unity, let us learn from Jack's devotion and his strong belief in a better future to rededicate ourselves to ensuring a nation strong and indivisible.

Having worked steadfastly to help build many of the institutions that Canadians enjoy today, let us also take a moment to give thanks and recognize these contributions.

On a personal note, I am extremely proud to have known him as you have, Mr. Speaker, and am honoured to have considered him a dear friend. We did not spend a lot of time together but the moments we did spend were precious. His larger than life counsel and his advice were always beneficial; his wit and his wisdom always inspirational.

Given the privilege that we both have had to serve the people of Newfoundland in Parliament, he in Bonavista—Twillingate and I in almost a mirror image of that riding, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, I know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in particular will always have for him a special place in their hearts. The public contributions he made during his lifetime were remarkable. His personal impact on those whose lives he touched was equally as significant.

I recall the first time I saw him as a young boy, observing him through the picket fence on the grounds of the Orange Lodge in Bonavista as he campaigned in the early days with Joey Smallwood. Even then I was struck by his commanding presence and his lasting and reassuring smile.

While Canada mourns the loss of an exceptional leader whose indelible mark has been left on the national stage, let us give thanks for Jack Pickersgill and for his tremendous legacy. Dedicated to his constituency and committed to his country, the personal and public achievements of Jack Pickersgill are the pillars upon which this nation has been built.

By way of conclusion, in his book Seeing Canada Whole , he describes his family values this way “The friendship of our children for their parents and for each other has been a great reward for Margaret and me. Despite two great wars and some personal sorrows, mine has been a happy life. The half century of living with Margaret has been the supreme experience of this happy life”.

Jack will always be remembered as a rare Canadian treasure. To his widow, Margaret Pickersgill, and to their family, I am sure that all our colleagues join me here, in the Parliament that he so loved, in expressing our heartfelt condolences.

The Late Jack PickersgillOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB

Mr. Speaker, I too rise today on behalf of the Official Opposition to recognize the years of public service of Jack Pickersgill. He lived from 1905 until 1997.

The member from Newfoundland just made reference to Jack Pickersgill and the book that he wrote, Seeing Canada Whole . It is amazing to think that Jack Pickersgill was born in Ontario, grew up on a farm in Manitoba and then later served in Parliament from a riding in Newfoundland. Maybe he really did see Canada whole. He served under and was an adviser to three Liberal Prime Ministers, Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent and Lester Pearson. He also worked with and against, I suppose, and helped orchestrate the downfall of John Diefenbaker in the 1960s.

Mr. Pickersgill served as a member of the original rat pack, or the four horsemen as they were called then. His specialty was Question Period and I understand he loved it. He enjoyed the cut and thrust of debate and was perhaps the king of the one-liners.

He is referred to in many articles as, and I quote: “A master story teller and tactician with a razor wit.” That is certainly a good thing to have in this place. A good sense of humour does not do any of us any harm.

Let me just pay tribute again to Jack Pickersgill and say that our sympathy as the official opposition goes out to his family. We are grateful for someone who spent so many years in public life.

The Late Jack PickersgillOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to offer my most sincere condolences to the family of Jack Pickersgill, who passed away on November 14.

Born at Wyecombe, Ontario in 1905, Mr. Pickersgill enjoyed a long and fruitful career on the Hill. He entered politics in 1937 as a secretary in the office of the Prime Minister of the time, Mackenzie King. He also served under Louis Saint-Laurent, who appointed him as Clerk of the Privy Council in 1952 and Secretary to the PMO.

In 1953 he moved from behind the scenes into an elected role as the MP for Bonavista—Twillingate, Newfoundland, the riding he represented until his resignation in 1967.

During his parliamentary career, Mr. Pickersgill held the positions of Secretary of State and Minister of Immigration. From his time in opposition from 1957 to 1963, we owe the axiom that one should never ask a question without already knowing what the answer will be.

With the Liberals' return to power in 1963, he became Minister of Transport until he left the House of Commons to assume the presidency of the Canadian Transport Commission, where he remained until 1972.

On behalf of myself and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I want his family and friends to know that they have every reason to be proud of all his accomplishments during a long and fruitful political career.

The Late Jack PickersgillOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I would like to say a few words in tribute to Jack Pickersgill who passed away recently.

As was mentioned before in the House, he was a very unique individual. Born in Ontario, raised in rural Manitoba and member of Parliament from the great province of Newfoundland. He was a very versatile person, a scholar, a public servant, a Prime Ministerial aid, an author, a cabinet minister and a very effective opposition parliamentarian.

He did not seek re-election in 1968 when I first came to the House, so I did not have any personal experience at seeing him perform in the House of Commons. However, when I arrived here I heard many stories about the effectiveness of Jack Pickersgill.

I suppose he was in the category of many of those extremely interesting parliamentarians of the 1950s and 1960s. I think of John Diefenbaker, Paul Martin, Senior, Tommy Douglas, Real Caouette and Jack Pickersgill, all very effective parliamentarians, the like of which we do not see often today in the House of Commons. They were members of the pre-television age in this place.

He was very effective in bringing Newfoundland into Confederation and became a very close friend of the first premier of that province, Joey Smallwood. He was an effective and passionate cabinet minister and perhaps his reputation is best known as an opposition parliamentarian when the Liberal Party was defeated in 1958 and 1963. He was a member of the so-called four horsemen, or the original rat pack in the House of Commons, and I understand that he often sparred with Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.

It is with a great deal of respect that I offer my condolences today on behalf of the New Democratic Party to his widow, Margaret, and his family. He made a tremendous contribution to Canada and the House of Commons. As did Stanley Knowles, Jack Pickersgill really loved this place and all that was best about it. With that, I want to extend our condolences.

The Late Jack PickersgillOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, in joining with other parties in the House today, I want to also extend to Mr. Pickersgill's family, his wife, his children, his grandchildren, my personal condolences and the condolences of our party.

Anyone familiar with the history of Canada and the history of the House of Commons knows that Mr. Pickersgill was a giant. He, like all of us in this place, was a partisan and it should be stressed that he enjoyed partisanship and every dimension of it. I say this as a Progressive Conservative who represents a political party that was on the receiving end of that partisanship throughout his career.

Many members in this place know the distinguished writer Doug Fisher. He is a very distinguished member of the press gallery, someone who himself was a member at one point and sat in the House of Commons. Mr. Fisher called him “the liveliest, most cunning and partisan politician I have observed”. What a compliment.

In that light perhaps I might observe the admission that Mr. Pickersgill made in his own autobiography that his middle name was Whitney. His middle name was given to him in commemoration of the Tory premier of Ontario, James Pliny Whitney who swept to power in Ontario in the year of Mr. Pickersgill's birth.

Mr. Pickersgill not only practised politics, he wrote about them. I have particularly noted his account of the revival of the Liberal Party, a book he wrote entitled The Road Back . Apart from the story of the rebuilding and renewal of his party, one is struck by the wonderful material that Mr. Pickersgill and his contemporaries on both sides of the House also provided for many of the great political cartoonists in Canada in that period.

In his last book Seeing Canada Whole , he summed up his public and private life. The title therefore has great meaning, seeing Canada whole. He played an important part in the entry of Newfoundland and Labrador into Confederation.

At the end of his life, Mr. Pickersgill was still working passionately to help Canada keep whole with his active support in particular of the Meech Lake accord. In fact he joined with the Hon. Robert Stanfield to urge adoption of this accord in testimony that he offered in front of the Senate of Canada. This testimony will forever remain a very significant part of the public record in this country. His defence of his position in his book is instructive and an inspiration to those who do not know, or easily forget or sweep away what has been the history of this great country.

How did he see his own parliamentary career? His assessment is that he achieved a few things, or at least contributed to a few things that he felt may not have happened otherwise. One was the provision of unemployment insurance for fishermen. The other one was the provision of a place in Canada for 35,000 Hungarian refugees who became exemplary citizens. He also said, “I was never bored by Parliament. I would try again”. If only we could have persuaded him to run again, I am sure he would have been elected.

His assessment though is far too modest. I think we all recognize today that Canada has truly lost a giant.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997Government Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Jonquière has five minutes for questions and comments. Any questions or comments? Resuming debate. The hon. member for Champlain.

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997Government Orders

December 2nd, 1997 / 3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Réjean Lefebvre Bloc Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-24, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

At the outset, let me say that the hon. members have to vote on Bill C-24 today because of the incompetence of this government. Let me explain.

When negotiations started, in April, we suspected the government's intentions with regard to Canada Post. The Radwanski report on the future of the Canada Post Corporation, tabled in October 1996, hinted at what the government's priorities were concerning the future management of the corporation.

The report is clear. It reads, on page 4, and I quote: “Canada Post is operating under the constraints of a collective agreement whose provisions, particularly with regard to pay for time not worked, flexibility and job security, are completely out of line with the new realities of today's workplace. The financial consequences of these provisions pose a serious threat to the eventual viability of the corporation and hence to the future of all its employees.”

This is the basis on which the government plotted its course of action in the postal dispute. From then on, everything became a matter of cost-effectiveness. In co-operation with the corporation's senior management, the government set targets in terms of cost-effectiveness and commercial results.

These were easily agreed to since the government had made sure to appoint its friends to the board. Everyone knows that the president today is none other than the hon. André Ouellet, former Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Liberal government.

So there was no problem digging into the Canada Post surplus to reduce the federal deficit.

Of course, such an objective could not be achieved without cutting jobs, without reducing employee benefits, without reorganizing the work done by letter carriers, and I could go on.

That is exactly the result sought and achieved with the introduction of Bill C-24.

Events started to unfold more clearly as soon as the postal workers' collective agreement expired last June. The government's strategy was simple: let things drag on, make sure that negotiations are going nowhere and push the postal workers to strike just as the holidays are approaching. At this time of the year, it is easy for the government to justify the early introduction of special back to work legislation, and that is what it did.

For the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, the agenda has been set since last August. The Canadian public knows today that the minister stated that the strike would be short and that back to work legislation would be quickly introduced. It was at a meeting held last August 6 with the president of the Canadian Direct Marketing Association and other large mail users that the minister revealed his intentions.

I am not inventing anything. The details of that meeting are clearly set out in a memorandum released by the postal union at a press conference in September.

Obviously, the government and especially the minister found themselves in an embarrassing situation when the content of that memorandum was revealed. There is no doubt about that. In fact, on September 8, the national union president sent a copy of this memorandum to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

The union had provided proof that there was collusion between the government and the large mail users. That is outrageous.

The large mail users are already benefiting from the lowest postal rates in the world. To preserve these benefits, they supported the government so that it would reduce salaries and benefits for postal workers.

The minister responsible for Canada Post even prepared for a parallel service to deliver government cheques. Again, according to the famous memorandum made public by the union, the minister even declared that “this time, the social benefit cheques will not be delivered by postal workers during the strike, but by another unidentified delivery service that has already concluded an agreement with the government”.

The government backed down on this when this other tactic intended to put pressure on the negotiators was revealed.

To cover up its mistake, the government finally accepted the offer sent by the union of postal workers to the minister responsible for Canada Post on August 7. A few days before the strike, it half-heartedly came around.

It has become obvious that the parties to the dispute are still far apart. But the evidence is there that the government bears a large share of responsibility for the breakdown in negotiations. The minister responsible for Canada Post promised to pass back to work legislation so as to put a wrench in the bargaining process. Well, he kept his promise. We now find ourselves debating Bill C-24, the result of this collusion.

Once again, the government has demonstrated its incompetence and lack of resolve. It has shown a complete disregard for the right to strike provided for under the Canada Labour Code, by forestalling any chance of successfully negotiating a real collective agreement. The government did everything it could to shift the blame for this strike onto the union. The Minister responsible for Canada Post said so himself. This is what it says in the memorandum from the Canadian Direct Marketing Association.

We in the Bloc Quebecois asked the government on numerous occasions not to interfere in the postal dispute. It was up to the two parties to negotiate a new work contract. Through its repeated interference, the government has made a mess of things. The government should not kid itself. The upshot of Bill C-24 will be unhappy people and considerable dissatisfaction on both sides.

At the end of the road, the deterioration in postal service will once again hurt the public. There has even been talk of civil disobedience by postal workers. We have the government to thank for this.

Consideration of Bill C-24 shows clearly that the government has chosen to favour the employer's objectives over those of the union.

Canada Post Corporation is going to become a cash cow for the government. The bill represents much more than the end of a strike. It is also an insurance policy guaranteeing that the corporation will also be a increasing source of revenue for the government's consolidated revenue fund.

There is no getting around it, the government has put itself in a conflict of interest situation in the negotiations. Now, it will make huge profits of $200 million over five years through the corporation, thanks to the savings that will result from implementing of Bill C-24.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of resolving labour disputes through negotiation. Imposing working conditions through special legislation does not solve the basic issues.

I agree that the postal strike has a devastating effect on the country's economy. Businesses, particularly small and medium size businesses in Quebec, are deeply hurt by the lack of postal services. Customers are late paying their bills and suppliers do not get the money owed to them. The strike has cost millions of dollars. All this would not have happened had the government acted in good faith and had it not interfered in the negotiations. The government planned the outcome well in advance.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-24, which forces postal employees to go back to work, in spite of their legal right to strike.

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the railroads had a lot of contracts in the fifties, sixties and seventies which ended up with very high rates of pay and other union-type clauses in them. This has resulted in rail lines in Manitoba being abandoned due to the high cost of operation. The postal service has to ensure that it does not end up in the same situation of pricing itself out of the market.

I would ask Bloc members to advise me and other members of the House how long they would have allowed this strike to continue. Indefinitely?

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Réjean Lefebvre Bloc Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, it will not take me very long to answer the hon. member's question.

I believe that, when the government has a choice between promoting job creation and increasing its capital, it opts for its own financial interests, at the expense of the workers.

It made this choice in other areas, including employment insurance, at the expense of the unemployed. Remember the rail strike. I think the government is more interested in putting billions of dollars in its pockets than in resolving conflicts through special legislation.

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel Québec

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the unfortunate circumstances that led to this debate, I want to tell you how proud I am to be the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation.

Canada Post is one of our country's most important institutions. It was among the first departments to be established after Confederation, in 1867. Afterwards, it evolved in harmony with Canada and kept pace with it, while also being a reflection of our nation.

The Canada Post Corporation delivers 11 billion items of mail every year to the 12 million addresses in its register, thus acting as a link between us and between our communities.

Some small communities in our great northern regions are totally dependent on postal services, not only for mail, but also for the delivery of drugs, food and other products essential to their survival.

Canada Post, which became a crown corporation in 1981, is now the fifth largest Canadian business, with sales of $5 billion and more than 54,000 employees. The cost of a stamp to send an ordinary letter is the second lowest in the world, and it is frozen for the next two years.

The service provided by Canada Post is often criticized in our country, but it compares very favourably to that of all other postal administrations in the world. Still, our postal service, like our whole society, is going through a period of intensive changes.

Faced with the massive expansion of new technologies such as fax machines, electronic mail and the Internet, Canada Post must make changes or else it will disappear. What used to be the raison d'être of the postal service, namely mail delivery, now accounts for only 55% of the corporation's activities. Nowadays, 45% of all Canada Post operations are based on modern and competitive products.

It is this approach, this modern vision of our postal services which led to the labour dispute we are dealing with today. Normally, seven months of negotiations and three resourceful mediators and conciliators working on the issue should have produced the agreement we were seeking. This is what happens in more than 95% of all labour disputes in Canada.

What is even more surprising is that the Canada Post Corporation has signed agreements with its three other employee unions. Why is it that things are always so difficult with the postal workers and letter carriers?

After spending months carefully studying of this situation, I must say that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers refuses to recognize some undeniable facts. The best case in point is the possible privatization of the Canada Post Corporation. I said it, I repeated it in all languages and I say it again: Canada Post is not for sale, not today, not tomorrow and not in any foreseeable future. Both former ministers repeated it over and over again. In spite of all that, the union keeps on frightening its members and the public with this threat of possible privatization.

This decision was not made lightly. It was confirmed by the government last April, after a complete review of the terms of reference of the Canada Post Corporation. Public hearings were held in all regions of the country and then a complete report was issued. The conclusion was very clear.

In a country such as Canada, whose landmass is so great and population so widely dispersed, no private system will ever be able to provide a universal service for a reasonable price.

For the last ten years, the Canada Post Corporation has not received any public money and we have to make sure it never again becomes a burden for the Canadian taxpayer.

First, the government decided, last spring, to give the corporation the means to ensure its long term viability.

Last April the government directed Canada Post to offer Canadians universal postal service at a reasonable price, institute more transparent reporting and the highest standards of business practice, achieve financial performance consistent with the private sector regulated monopolies, continuously improve letter mail and retail service especially in rural Canada, respect stamp price freeze for two years and then maintain stamp price increases below inflation, ensure no cross-subsidization from exclusive privileged products, create an ombudsman position, and recognize these principles in labour negotiation.

Canada Post has already moved on many of these items. It has opened its books and published its annual report. It has appointed an ombudsman and it has demonstrated that there is no cross-subsidization between its exclusive products and the competitive ones.

Over the past several months Canada Post has also committed significant resources to transforming and improving postal service in rural Canada. The result will be faster, more reliable and more predictable service in rural Canada.

Beyond these specific initiatives there is an urgent need for the corporation to address service improvement at a more basic level. This is why it has become a key factor in the current negotiations. In its current form the collective agreement is a major barrier to making the service improvements customers are demanding from Canada Post.

In an independent evaluation, Gordon Ritchie, well known as the deputy chief negotiator of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, said:

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been remarkably successful over the past 23 years in arrogating to its members the lion's share of economic rents from the Canada Post monopoly.

Recent polls show that around 85% of Canadians believe that Canada Post employees generally have good working conditions especially with regard to pay and benefits.

Ritchie came to this conclusion:

The existing Canada Post Corporation collective agreements constitute what is arguably the most uncompetitive and inefficient labour agreement currently in place in any jurisdiction in North America.

He also specified:

Excessive wages are not the main problem.

Pay for time not worked is an even more substantial direct cost burden.

The most costly provisions over the long run are probably those restricting the Canada Post Corporation's ability to terminate, to redeploy or to employ more efficiently its huge workforce.

This is precisely what is at the heart of the present dispute. Canada Post must be able to adjust its work force to its needs. Let me illustrate this point with a concrete example.

Last spring, the corporation started a reassignment process for 47 of its Toronto employees who were surplus by following to the letter the provisions of the collective agreement.

There is a very complex process whereby employees can apply, according to seniority, for vacant positions. After seven months, the corporation had managed to reassign four of the 47 employees.

Still according to the established process, management will be able during the next few months to reassign the others to vacant positions. This staff movement will have, in the end, involved hundreds of personnel. And altogether it will have taken a year.

Moreover, in most cases the reassigned employees need training to perform their new duties, which means their productivity is lower for a long time.

Obviously, the yoke in which the management of Canada Post must work involves operating costs that have a considerable impact on the competitiveness of the corporation.

The current collective agreement that binds Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers contains dozens of clauses that are equally inconsistent with the competitive world in which the corporation must operate.

It is only for this reason that the bill before us today requires the mediator-arbitrator to “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 Canada Post Corporation”.

We also ask him to take into account that the corporation must, without resorting to undue increases in postal rates, perform financially in a commercially acceptable range, operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.

Employee pay and benefits account for 63% of Canada Post's operating costs. The most surprising thing is that too much of this goes to unproductive employee activities. But this should not in any way be seen as blaming Canada Post's employees.

Indeed, the vast majority of them are devoted and qualified workers. Rather, the flaw comes from an obsolete system that badly needs modernizing.

For example, every day, the 16,000 letter carriers spend an average of 16 minutes on a bus or in a taxi to go back to their depot at lunch time. They do not have the right to eat on the road, even though this would suit them better. Their collective agreement forbids it.

If we only allowed those who use a motor vehicle to eat on the road, the corporation could save $8 million a year. But this is not allowed either by the current collective agreement.

On September 15 of this year, the Post Canada Corporation submitted a comprehensive offer to the union. In exchange for concessions on human resource management issues, Canada Post has offered pay increases of 1.5% for each year in the contract, the creation of 500 full time positions and the preservation of full job security for those who already have it.

A few weeks later, in order to prevent a strike, Canada Post waived some of its demands, improved its pay increase offer and accepted a union demand on overtime carrying a cost of $35 million a year. The union refused again.

As I said earlier, this labour conflict is in a class of its own. As the labour minister has so ably demonstrated, the Government of Canada has done everything it could to create a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement.

Three experienced mediators and conciliation officers have helped the parties with all their skill and expertise. We have given the bargaining process every opportunity, but all to no avail.

In the meantime, hundreds of small businesses have experienced difficulties. Hundreds of men and women have lost their jobs. Dozens of charities have been deprived of their principal means of collecting the donations they need for their activities.

I have received personally over 2,000 messages from postal service users throughout the country begging the government to step in.

This strike has already been the cause of major damage to our economy and our social fabric. That is why we had to resort to back to work legislation. We are not doing it lightheartedly but because we feel this is our responsibility. We acknowledge this is not a perfect solution. This conflict, like previous conflicts, will leave scars. Many customers will not go back to Canada post. In the absence of postal services, they have found alternatives, and often permanent ones. That is what have done for over a million recipients of our various social program benefits who have chosen direct deposit in the last few months. Those postal revenues are lost forever.

To prevent such conflicts in the future, mentalities must definitely be changed and more efficient mechanisms developed to manage labour relations at Canada Post.

That is why, in the next few months, I intend to undertake serious research to find instruments better suited to the realities and imperatives of the Canadian postal system.

Some progress is already obvious. For the first time in history, Canada Post completely suspended its operations and did not use replacement workers. This is a first step in the right direction. Many others will be needed.

In the meantime, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation for the speedy resumption of postal services, which will greatly help our small businesses, our charities, and all Canadians.

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Questions and comments. I would ask hon. members to keep their questions and responses short as there is quite a lot of interest.

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I guess you could see right into my mind as I have many questions for the minister.

First I would like to comment on the fact that in his speech the minister stated that there was an openness in the accounting of the post office and that there is no evidence of cross-subsidization between regular first class mail, ad mail and the Purolator courier business. As a matter of fact, that is not accurate. The books of Canada Post do not clearly show the separate accounting of those arms of the post office. Consequently, the statement the minister made is really not accurate.

I would also like to ask the minister to comment on a second point, one of process. It is very intriguing to me that after weeks of hesitating to intervene, now the government has gone overboard and intervened to the point of stating wage increases and the dates they are effective. That is wrong. Back to work legislation should say that there may not be a strike until there is an agreement and then there should be a mechanism to force the parties together with a mediator or arbitrator which should be binding.

If the minister has time, I would also like to know about any long term plans they have, which I doubt, after this thing is settled.

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the time of the House would allow me to prove to the hon. member that there is no cross-subsidization. Definitely I will send him the appropriate documents so he can see them.

In terms of future plans, I stated in my speech that after this thing is over, and naturally this is not something anybody takes pride in but we have to restore the service. There is nothing new, as a lot of people know. In the past when trying to modernize the system, management and labour relations at Canada Post have been very turbulent. We have to go to the root of the problem and definitely look at it in a different way which we have done. The last strike was in 1991. Each time the government gives a mandate to make sure that Canadians can rely on a universal postal service, the union reacts differently.

I hope once the Minister of Labour appoints a mediator that we can have normal relations which we have always sought to have with the administration of Canada Post. As I said, I will research other ways, other avenues so that the next time around Canadians will not be faced with what they have had in the past 13 years.