Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

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

Madam Chair, I am going to defer.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

I am pleased to rise and speak in favour of this amendment. Our preference remains stopping the lockout and allowing the sides to return to free collective bargaining in accordance not only with the laws of our country, but also international conventions, UN resolutions and the long and proud tradition in most jurisdictions in the western world.

The union has offered, well before this legislation came forward, to return to work and bargain under the old contract. Instead, the government moved forward with this draconian and backward bill that would tie the hands of the arbitrator and damage labour relations both within Canada Post and across Canada.

The government has seen fit to impose a contract that is bad for our postal service and bad for the people who work so hard there to make it one of the best postal services in the world. The government tried to sneak in these objectionable terms quietly, hoping that the opposition would go quietly into the summer. It is basic to our democratic system that workers are allowed to engage in free collective bargaining.

We in the NDP are serving notice that we will not let the Conservative government quietly take away the rights of Canadians. We will not let it quietly launch an assault on the rights of working people to collective bargaining.

This amendment introduced by my friend and colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh helps untie the hands of the arbitrator so he or she can do the job he or she has been tasked with doing.

I am pleased to lend my support to this amendment and urge all hon. members to respect the working people and their constituents by supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the results of the previous amendment to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendment negatived)

It seems that a second amendment to clause 10 has been proposed by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

That Bill C-6, in clause 10, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 3 with the following:

"(2) The submissions referred to in subsection (1) must include"

Debate, the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh.

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

Madam Chair, I only want to make one point. In one of those series of meetings that we did not have with the minister or her staff, it came out very clearly that the government has decided that any back to work legislation is going to contain final offer selection process. The Conservatives are so ideologically driven in so much of what they do and it shows up here. This amendment would clear the final offer selection process off the desk of the arbitrator allowing the arbitrator to do his or her job properly by allowing whatever is the proper methodology that would be instituted to get settlements as rapidly and efficiently as possible.

I want to make this final point. The amendments we have been trying to get through, and this one in particular, do not preclude the arbitrator on a specific issue from going to final offer selection process. If we narrow the issue down enough it can work, as we have seen in the professional sports situation. But here a methodology is being used in a broad sweep that does not work across the whole sector. It is a sledgehammer approach and it simply will not work. We will see abuses constantly coming forward.

I want to repeat that the government has now decided that all back to work legislation is going to contain this clause. We are going to have a regime of really bad collective agreements as a result of it.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Chair, it is important to point out that the concept of final offer selection is the most rapid and efficient one possible. That is why we have used it. Indeed that is why it was used in 1994 with respect to the west coast ports and in 2007 with respect to CN and the resumption of its service. This is not something new. Although I may not have the length and breadth of understanding of many years of the law, I certainly understand the most recent years of the law.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results of the previous amendment to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare this amendment defeated.

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 10 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results on clause 9 to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 10 agreed to)

[See list under Division No: 27]

(Yays: 158; Nays: 112)

(On Clause 11)

On Clause 11, there are several amendments. We will proceed with the amendment by the Liberals. For the sake of clarity, the reference is 5114336:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 19 to 36 on page 4.

The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso on the amendment.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, that is lines 19 to 36 on page 4.

Our amendment addresses what has been talked about in several past amendments, the fact that final offer selection is of great concern. It is not a preferred way to go. Certainly the arbitrator will be handcuffed if the guiding principles in this legislation are held to.

When we see the reference to the arbitrator having to identify benefits that are consistent with those incomparable postal industries, that raises a flag, because there are no other comparable postal industries to Canada Post. It is unique in itself. There are private companies that provide very similar services, but they are not a national service provider. Certainly, if we are to apply that type of business model, then rural and remote areas that are not profitable will see no service. People in those areas will not be able to pay for the cost of those types of services. We are concerned that this compromise the unique nature of Canada Post.

As well, with respect to the short- and long-term viability of Canada Post, Canada Post has been a profitable corporation in recent years and we are not comfortable with that approach. We think it further handcuffs the arbitrator.

Finally, the taking the pension plan into account, as has been mentioned prior, we think what is at play is an obvious attack on defined benefits pensions in this country. This causes us great concern. That is the intent of our amendments and we would hope to seek support for those amendments.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Chair, we looked at the amendments that were presented by the then Liberal government in 1997, the guiding principles that were embedded in its back to work legislation for postal services. We actually improved on the language in order to ensure we had a decision in a short period of time that made sense to the parties. We also adjusted it to reflect the issues specifically in dispute with the parties today in recognizing how far apart they are, the viability and importance of Canada Post, as well as the importance and viability of the pension plan. The fact is it is the Canadian taxpayer who has the responsibility for any unfunded liabilities of the Canada Post pension plan.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the same results apply as the previous amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the amendment defeated.

(Amendment negatived)

The next amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 13 on page 4 with the following: “pute on that date; and”.

Debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

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

Madam Chair, the reference is to lines 10 to 14, and not 13.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my understanding that the numbering is different in English and French.