Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Clause 6 is carried.

(Clause 6 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27.]

(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 7)

Shall clause 7 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. Chief Government Whip.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, I believe if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the previous recorded vote to the current clause, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, the Liberals will vote no.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare clause 7 carried.

(Clause 7 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27.]

(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)

(Clause 8)

There is an amendment to clause 8 that I am going to read:

That Bill C-6 in clause 8 be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 3 with the following:

The minister must appoint as arbitrator a person that the minister

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

Madam Chair, the proposal regarding clause 8 seeks to recognize and respect the responsibility of an arbitrator. If a collective agreement of any industry, whether in the public sector or elsewhere, is violated, the parties can choose an arbitrator who, at the end of the process, will issue a ruling on the interpretation of the collective agreement.

I have never seen an arbitrator become involved in an arbitration process while knowing in advance what his decision would be. If that were the case, an arbitrator would not be needed.

The clause in the bill reads as follows: “The Minister must appoint as arbitrator for final offer selection a person that the Minister considers appropriate.”

If at that time the final offer is made automatically, the arbitrator is being told what to do. The arbitrator's job is to make that decision. The arbitrator is a qualified individual. He or she is an individual who the two parties decide on together, or the minister makes a decision as to who the arbitrator will be. The person that the minister or the two parties decide to accept has to be a qualified person who understands the subject and is able to make the decision.

That is why we said that the government should not participate in the negotiations by telling the arbitrator in advance what to do or not do. The arbitrator should make the decision.

Whenever the legislation provides that the arbitrator must make a decision on a final offer, the employer wins. One only has to look at the precedents to see that. Whenever such a situation occurs, the employer always wins. This is why we are saying that the clause must be changed.

The bill and even our amendment provide that “the Minister must appoint as arbitrator ... a person that the Minister considers appropriate”. If the person is appropriate, why tell him to select the final offer?

In the past, because of the final offer clause, the arbitrator has always sided with the employer. Once the employer has made its offer, the arbitrator examines the situation and finds that there is too much difference between that offer and the offer made by the union and the employees. The arbitrator must then select between the two offers, and he has no choice but to select a final offer, instead of using his judgment.

Whose judgment are we talking about? It is that of the arbitrator appointed by the minister. The minister has selected a qualified arbitrator. To tell that arbitrator in advance that he is not qualified is to insult him. The fact is that he is qualified to do the job. He must be able to be fair to both parties and to society. He must take everything into consideration.

This is why we are saying there is no possible negotiation between the two parties if the government gets involved in the negotiation process by introducing in the House of Commons a bill which says in advance that the arbitrator must select the final offer. The employer does nothing and does not have to negotiate, because the government is doing all the work for him.

Even this morning, the government advised the employer to go and negotiate in good faith. The employer replied that it no longer wanted to negotiate, because it was over. In fact, the employer went so far as to say that if it were to negotiate, it would offer less than what it offered in its last offer, earlier this month. It is obvious that any new offer would be less, because the government has already introduced a bill that also provides less.

That is why the Conservatives have got it wrong. Or they have not got it wrong and they intend to hit the workers. I have said this to them several times and they did not like it. What have the postal workers done to the government for it to hate them so much? Why do the Conservatives hate the workers so much that they are asking the arbitrator to select the final offer, which is lower than what the employer had offered?

That is why I asked, and I said it publicly. I will say it again: when a crown corporation makes a proposal of 1.9% and the government comes in and says no, it is not 1.9%, it is 1.7%, what have those workers done to the government that the government hates them that much?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

What did they do to you?

What did they do? That is why the government is going to have to think about it. Is the government going to hit on the men and women, on all those workers, and all those who are coming up? People will remember that. Men and women who work hard see that their government, the one that has this big majority, this solid majority in the House of Commons, the members of the Conservative Party, will never speak for them in the House of Commons because they do not count. In all we have done since Thursday, they have never spoken for men and women, never.

What have they done for the workers? We have a bill that is less than we had—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, what is the definition of "relevant"? Are we going to keep going on and on and talk about everything or are we going to talk about clause 8 and the arbitrator? If they do not like themselves, let them sort that out in therapy, but we would like to know what clause 8 is.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Yes, clause 8 concerns the arbitrator. I would therefore ask the hon. member to alter his presentation accordingly and address his comments to the chair.

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

Madam Chair, I know it is also tiring for the member from Bourassa when we talk about workers. That is his problem. I understand that, but we have rules to follow, and I am prepared to follow them. I know he finds it tiring for us to be here, and I accept that. I accept the fact that in 1997, the Liberals also forced workers back to work with lower wages than the employer had offered. I accept that, and that is also tiring for them today.

I am asking the government to show respect for the arbitrator's authority in this clause. The arbitrator is a qualified person who will be appointed by the Minister, so let the arbitrator do his or her job.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Very briefly, Madam Chair, this clause speaks to the ability of the minister to be able to appoint for the purposes of final offer selection. Final offer selection is indeed a legitimate means of arbitration. In fact, it is one that ensures the public that each party puts the best offer on the table. It actually encourages a rapid decision-making process, and indeed, when there are issues that are very much apart between the parties, it is the most appropriate method to use.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Chair, that statement from the Minister of Labour really shows a lack of understanding of how the system works, not just in Canada and not just at the federal level, but in every province and territory in this country.

The reality is that the final offer selection process was developed in professional sports in the United States. That is where it came from, so it is no surprise that the government is particularly interested in it. It worked there. One would have one employee, or maybe two to three, and a very narrow range of issues that had to be dealt with. Final offer selection worked quite well and still works quite well in those circumstances.

It is an absolute failure in a situation where we have a large workforce, as we do here, with 50,000-plus employees, members of the union, and then as well, because there are so many people, a large number of complex issues.

I will ask members to pretend that they are the arbitrator. One gets a list of 10 issues from the employer and a list of 10 issues from the union. One has to choose all 10 from one and reject all 10 from the other. There may be a great proposal from the employer on the pension issue, a lousy one on the wage issue and a lousy one on pay equity, but it is all or nothing. That is what the arbitrator has to do because of this clause and a number of the others, clauses 9, 10 and 11 that are forthcoming. That is why we made a series of amendments to give the arbitrator discretion.

Again, we have seen the way the government has attacked our judiciary to try to take away judicial discretion. It is doing exactly the same thing here. The bottom line on this is that the government is taking away that discretion and narrowing the ability of the arbitrator to do his or her job. The end result, and this is what all of the academic studies have shown where final offer selection is used, is that it benefits the employer to the detriment of the employee.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, without having the background in labour relations that my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh has, I know that we have voiced our concern with regard to final offer selection.

His background in regard to the process coming from the sports arena is absolutely right, but aspects of that have bled into public service contracts, where we have seen final offer selection on an issue-by-issue basis. There may be 10 issues listed, and the arbitrator can pick and choose the best offer from management or from the union people on an issue-by-issue basis. Even that would be less egregious than this particular approach to solving this problem. Certainly we have a great deal of concern with final offer arbitration.