Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1997

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the minister, they will make $200 million a year in profits. Will the minister stop at $200 million or will he be greedy and go up to $300 million or $400 million?

Why are the minister and the corporation not willing to invest these hundreds of millions of dollars to provide more services to the public and to maintain a healthy relationship between the corporation and its employees?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech made by the member earlier. Unfortunately, the member wants to see only one side of the issue.

The government's mandate is clear. The government wants a commercially viable corporation. Yes, we want Canada Post to make profits to pay for its employees' salaries and to continue to provide Canadians with reasonably priced services.

The member is forgetting to indicate that the government has decided not to close rural post offices because we want all Canadians, wherever they live, to receive the same level of service as those who live in urban areas. He should also note that we have told Canada Post it cannot increase the price of stamps for the next two years. This is so Canadians do not have to pay for an increase in the cost of postal services. After two years, the corporation will be allowed to increase prices by less than the inflation rate.

Of course this is a government decision. We could have made another decision. We made this one because we want to guarantee universal postal services in Canada, from coast to coast. We think this mandate will help us reach that goal. We are asking employees to sign, as did three of the four unions at Canada Post. We are asking the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to sign.

Unfortunately, we reached a deadlock and had to bring in back-to-work legislation, but we would like the parties to sit down and look for solutions so that Canadians can continue to enjoy postal services that are among the best in the world.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister's speech. I am glad to say that at least in some of the preamble in the early part of the speech there were things I was very pleased to hear.

First, there is a recognition that Canada Post is actually doing a very good job in delivering unbelievable quantities of mail across the country. Productivity has increased. Mail delivery access to individual homes has increased 30% and profits are up to $112 million. Given there was an increase in productivity and an increase in profits, Canada Post Corporation saw fit to offer a reasonable wage increase during the negotiations.

My question to the minister would be how can the government justify in the legislation we are dealing with today the fact that the wage offer that will be bound in this legislation is actually lower than the wage offer Canada Post had offered its employees during the rounds of bargaining? Can we get a comment from the minister to that effect, please.

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

First of all, Mr. Speaker, if the member looks at what is in the bill, it is very close to the final offer Canada Post made to its employees.

Let me address that issue and I thank the member for giving me the opportunity on how the offer came about. This was an offer from Canada Post. The House will recall very well that the union was saying in those days that they would go on strike illegally. Hearing those rumours, most of Canada Post's customers were not putting their mail in the boxes.

The president, Mr. Clermont, called Mr. Tingley and said, “The volume of business is melting like snow in springtime. Maybe we should sit down and try to solve this because, yes, we are going to lose our shirt at Canada Post, but your members might lose their jobs”. That is why Canada Post went to the negotiation table in good faith and gave some concessions to the union that it was asking for before and made a better financial offer. Again the union turned it down.

Since that offer, Canada Post has lost $17 million a day. If we count the number of days of the strike and if we count the loss that Canada Post incurred two weeks before because of the rumour that there would be an illegal strike, the financial loss is greater than anything that could be in this bill we are talking about today.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing we can say today to the hon. minister, it is that it is about time.

Millions of dollars have been lost by charity groups, businesses and others who are a vital part of our society. What do we say to these people?

The hon. minister mentioned that he will start discussions for different mechanisms to avoid this in the future. I ask the minister who will participate in these discussions, government, unions, business, charity groups? Does his department have any ideas of different mechanisms that he would suggest can be put in place?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I would like to look at the situation. We need to research. If I had a solution that I would be sure would work, I would have announced it today. What I want to ask after we restore service to Canadians is different.

I thank the member for his question. Not only the minister and his officials but there are Canada Post officials, the union and other businesses, big and small, and researchers, people in the universities who look at postal relations.

We have a situation where 55% of the business of Canada Post is a monopoly and 45% competes directly with private sector businesses. The question we have to ask ourselves is should we continue? How do we balance that 45% and 50%? Should we have the right to strike and a monopoly? What about the competition with the private sector?

It is a very complex question. I hope to ask some experts of different backgrounds and have them propose some solutions which we can implement. Then the next time the collective agreement is ready to expire we can have a negotiated settlement and not a recourse to disruption of services that is very costly. Canadians like their Canada Post services all across the country.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I realize I have only a few minutes. There are just a few points I would like to make. How much time do I have Mr. Speaker? I thought I had only a few minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member is correct. The debate concludes in three minutes.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

What I wanted to do, Mr. Speaker, was reflect on the irony that back to work legislation sometimes brings to this place. It seems to me, having been through a number of these back to work legislation debates, that Parliament is both at its worst and at its best in these back to work debates. It is at its worst because we see a tendency on the part of the government to want to bring out the heavy procedural artillery.

The government was prepared yesterday to move a motion, Motion No. 8, which really amounted to a form of super closure. On reflection, all opposition parties and perhaps even the government, would want to reflect on the ultimate receivability and appropriateness of such motions.

We have ordinary procedures for dealing with legislation, ordinary procedures which provide for various forms of time allocation and agreement among the parties. Yet when we get into a situation of back to work legislation, all of a sudden all of that is suspended. What was sad yesterday was that certain of the opposition parties were willing to let their rights be trampled in this way without so much as even asking for something in return.

We objected but we were in a position where we were trying to come to an agreement with the government in order to make sure that this back to work legislation, as unacceptable as it is, would be better than it might otherwise have been had we not entered into negotiations with the government. We have an understanding that a certain amendment of ours with respect to the mandate of the mediator-arbitrator will be accepted when we get to committee of the whole. The legislation as a result will be much fairer.

That does not take away from the fact that Motion No. 8 as it was presented and ultimately carried by the government is a form of super-duper closure to which all of us should take great offence. Not enough offence was taken yesterday in the context of what went on.

I guess that is the only thing I will get a chance to say because I see you rising, Mr. Speaker. That is unfortunate because there is much more I would like to contribute to the debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 4 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 48

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McClelland in the chair)

[The Deputy Chairman]

Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-24.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among representatives of all the parties. I believe you will find consent that all votes demanded shall be deemed deferred to 6.30 p.m.

I would add that if the debate goes on at committee of the whole stage until 6.30 p.m., we would have bells for 15 minutes. Should the debate collapse prior to 6.30 p.m., we would have 30 minute bells.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clauses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 agreed to)

(On Clause 8)

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment at report stage.

I move:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-24, in Clause 8, be amended by

(a) replacing line 39 on page 3 with the following:

“subject to subsection (1.1), the Minister shall after the coming”

(b) adding the following after line 45 on page 3:

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

If I may, I will take a few minutes to go into a little more detail on the reason for this amendment we in the Bloc Quebecois wish to move, which requires the mediator-arbitrator to be satisfactory to both parties, that is labour and management.

It is self-evident that there are still many question marks about the pseudo-negotiation that has taken place in recent months, and in particular in recent weeks. Has there really been any true negotiation? This is all the more the case because we find some rather surprising things in sections 15 and 16 of the Radwanski report of October 1996. I will quote that report if I may.

In recommendation 14, the report says “That the government direct Canada Post Corporation to bring its labour costs under the collective agreement into line with the realities of the contemporary Canadian workplace, through good-faith bargaining in the 1997 contract negotiations”.

This report already shows a tendency to legitimize the action of Canada Post for a hardening of attitude toward labour, and hence the necessity, in my opinion, for a mediator-arbitrator who is satisfactory to both parties, as I call for in my amendment.

Recommendation 15 of the 1996 Radwanski report reads as follows “That in the event of a failure of the collective bargaining process to achieve the necessary adjustments without service disruption, the government be prepared to take appropriate action to protect the immediate public interest and ensure the long-term financial soundness of a strategically repositioned Canada Post Corporation”.

So, recommendation 15 provides clearly that the government must be ready to demand, as soon as the union takes democratic action—because the right to strike is an acquired right and it is a democratic act to exercise it—home delivery service in urban centres providing letter carrier delivery, subject to the availability of resources, after giving priority to improving the speed and reliability of delivery.

So, having accepted the Radwanski report in October 1996, Canada Post latched onto recommendations 14 and 15 to create the appearance of negotiations. Subsequently, the statements by the Minister of Public Works were tendentious and surprising, to say the least, given that a responsible minister should want the parties to come to an agreement. What did he say? He said, rather than remain neutral, that the union was pretending to negotiate. He also said that there were many good reasons for the union to strike for more, and that it just wanted to strike.

Name me one worker, unionized or not, who wants to picket for weeks and lose his pay. This is quite surprising from the minister.

Therefore, given the minister's statements and recommendations 14 and 15 of the Radwanski report, it seems to me that, if we are to be honest and objective, we must have a mediator-arbitrator acceptable to both parties. In addition, we heard about what I would call dubious support from the Canadian Direct Marketing Association. These are the people that deliver Reader's Digest , and other publications. It gets a preferential rate. Canada Post is a partner in this company. Is it in conflict of interest then? So it was rather dubious for Canada Post to be giving Direct Marketing preferential rates and then asking it to give it support publicly as it opposed the potential strike by the union.

Why did Purolator also sign an agreement, and quickly I would add? Canada Post owns 75% of it. Did Canada Post place itself in a conflict of interest position by signing immediately and quickly with Purolator, which offered reasonable terms, and slowing down the negotiation process with its own workers because in the event of a strike it had access to a service that was cost-effective, as it was 75% owned by the corporation?

Why was the 1995 collective agreement signed before the previous one expired and why was it impossible to even sit at the table to negotiate this one? This is incredible. We must ask ourselves serious questions about Canada Post and its approach, hence the need of a mediator-arbitrator mutually agreed on by both parties, as suggested in my amendment.

It has also been rumoured that the government might possibly ask the Canada Post Corporation to pay $200 million a year in dividends. There have been such rumours. This hinders the process or can give the impression that there is a government-Canada Post coalition to go for these dividends at the expense of the workers.

These reasons prompted me to suggest and truly hope that the selected mediator will be acceptable to both parties, bearing in mind that the Canada Post Corporation is not there to make profits. Its role is to provide a service, and the money it makes should be used to create jobs through delivery.

We know that, for some time, like some sectors in the Sorel area, any new postal sector no longer benefits from mail delivery service. Super mailboxes are used instead. There are also contradictions: in a small town like Saint-Joseph-de-Sorel, with a population of 2,000, mail delivery services are provided, while in a city like Nicolet, with a population of 7,000, there are none.

Why not use the profits generated to expand services, serve the public better and ensure at the same time that jobs are created for our children? What is the point of eliminating interesting jobs?

So in its struggle the union is not necessarily fighting for the protection of its own interests. In fact, this struggle is to prevent Canada Post from challenging the workers' acquired rights. In fact, it is a struggle for the right to work full time instead of part time.

This is what they are fighting for, and it is not only the postal workers who are benefiting, because they are the standard bearers for all workers in crown corporations and also in quasi-public corporations. They are in fact preventing Canada Post from falling apart by forcing it to continue to provide complete, personalized services.

We have seen post offices closed down, we have seen the super mailboxes. How far will this go? They want to eliminate part of letter carrier services. How far do they want to go? What is the future of Canada Post? It will become an organization whose profits are handed down to the government, as was done with unemployment insurance, and then they will develop a technology that does nothing for job creation.

A fair arbitrator chosen by both parties is required. This is necessary because we have heard all sorts of messages during these so-called negotiations, including that $1 million is saved for each minute that is taken from postal workers. All sorts of numbers have been thrown about, but Canada Post has not stopped directly attacking service to the public, a direct and full service, which is essential.

The consequences of the lost of jobs on small regions, in Quebec as elsewhere, are extremely significant. When there are five or six employees in my region, and then this group is cut to four, that is one job less for the young people who want to live in that region. But that is not the only job. Dozens of jobs could be created for young people in our towns, or communities, instead of concentrating the money in automated sorting centres which in fact provide poor service to the public with five-day delivery, instead of the one-day service we had before.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the choice of a mediator-arbitrator could allow this Parliament and its members to show on whose side they are. Earlier, the member for Abitibi, instead of defending the workers—a former union leader, and the member for Anjou, a former union leader of the CEQ—voted for the bill. It is incredible to vote for such a bill and to say “they are well paid”. But what do they want in their regions? Part time jobs paying $6 or $7 an hour? We want good paying jobs because it is with such jobs that car dealers, restaurant owners and businesses can sell their products.

What Canada Post is doing is distributing money. It should be remembered that Canada Post does not have a deficit. At the moment, it is showing a profit. This profit should therefore simply be distributed in the form of services to the public and of job creation.

That is why I am not afraid to state outright today, in conclusion to the amendment I am proposing, that I am on the side of my region, I am on the side of full time jobs and I am on the side of plain common sense.