House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was post.

Topics

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 6:50 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Conservative

Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Labour

Madam Chair, as I indicated, these wages are fair. They have been negotiated already between the federal government and its largest public sector union and, quite frankly, with respect to the constitutionality or fairness of the matter, it has already been well decided that the bill meets the requirements of the charter, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 6:50 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Madam Chair, there is an awful lot wrong with the bill. In fact, everything from the title, which is An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, to the coming into force, the last clause, is wrong.

The title is wrong because this is not an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. That could be done with a phone call.

The worst clause in the bill, however, is clause 15, which imposes on the postal workers a wage rate less than the employer had put on the table in the course of collective bargaining.

I have not heard members opposite join the chorus for the remarks of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, and nobody cares. Nobody cares about workers. Nobody cares about workers' rights.

Let me say who does care. The principle of free collective bargaining is something that divides societies that are free from those societies that are authoritarian and controlled. If we consider authoritarian societies, dictators, societies that do not have free elections, they do not have free trade unions either. Workers do not have the right to bargain collectively.

In Canada the right to bargain collectively is a constitutionally protected right. It is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is part of the International Labour Organization, the treaty into which this country has entered. It is something that we take very seriously.

There is no greater principle within the right to bargain collectively than the duty to bargain in good faith. In good faith the employer of the postal workers, Canada Post Corporation, put on the table a wage offer that it was prepared to pay to workers from the $281 million worth of profit that Canada Post made last year. To bargain with its employees, it put forth what it thought was a reasonable proposal to increase the wages of the workers, but what have we here? We have a clause in which the government imposes itself inside this good faith bargaining, this foundation of a free society, and says, “No, the government is going to force the workers to take less. We are going to decide what we think you should be paid. Never mind what was put on the table by a process of free collective bargaining”.

The minister just repeated what the Prime Minister said, so I will not blame her as she is just doing what her boss has said. She said this is a wage that was bargained freely by the largest public sector unions. Let us go back to that discussion in 2008 when this wage we are talking about was on the table, as it was called. It was not on the table. What was on the table was legislation proposed by the government to take away the right to strike for all public sector workers. Remember that? It was in the fall of 2008.

Those wage rates were offered for one day and if workers did not accept the wages within one day they would be reduced. Yes, they were accepted. There were not bargained freely and fairly over the course of negotiations. They were accepted with a gun to the head of the public sector workers in this country.

The Minister of Finance knows that members of one group said no. What did they get? That group received less. That is the kind of bargaining that the government entered into with the public sector workers in 2008 that produced the rates that are in this particular clause.

I am not surprised that the previous speaker talked about who is next because that is what everyone is asking. If this is what is going to happen to free collective bargaining in Canada under this regime, who is next? The government has contempt for the process of collective bargaining. It has contempt for the process of this constitutionally protected right that the Canadians are supposed to enjoy.

If members opposite think that nobody cares, they are wrong, and the people of Canada will be telling them that they are wrong.

I ask all hon. members, even those over there who think no one cares, to recognize that people do care and they do want to have these rights and do believe in free collective bargaining. I see the doubtful faces over there and I hear a few remarks that something is wrong with the idea that one can sit down and negotiate a wage, that an employer and employees can actually sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate wages and put an offer on the table and have it respected. That is something Canadians have come to enjoy and expect.

The government has no respect for that and it wants to insert its own version of a wage rate into a collective agreement regardless of what the employer in this particular case offered through free and fair collective bargaining.

This is a fundamental right that is being taken away, a fundamental change in the relationship between employers and employees. The question remains of who is next if the government is not prepared to accept the notion of free collective bargaining and takes away from employees what the employer has in fact offered. It demonstrates how much contempt it has for the collective bargaining process and for the rights of workers.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Madam Chair, the minister will have several opportunities to respond to this question. I will ask the question, though I know she will not answer me right away because it is not in the definition of the debate, but we will move our own amendment and she will have another opportunity to respond.

This debate has been very long and difficult, but I still do not think she gave a clear answer why she does not want the salaries freely negotiated. It is the main reason that some in this House, but certainly not me, question her good faith and commitment to workers. I will never go there because I do not like to impugn the motives of other colleagues, but if she were able to give a clear and convincing answer, it would help everyone to know where we are.

I heard the arguments that she put forward and I want to review each and every one of them.

First, she told us that we had to give postal employees the same treatment as other federal public servants. However, there is no reason to do this, since Canada Post has the right to negotiate. Therefore, if Canada Post has the right to negotiate, there is no guarantee that its employees will end up getting the same kind of salaries as other federal public servants. And no one said anything about depriving Canada Post of its right to negotiate. That is why it is a Crown corporation. So, this argument is a very weak one.

I do not know if the minister is still interested in listening to me, but I hope so. This debate has been a long one, but we still have not received any answer.

The second problem is what happened in 1997. The minister referred to the 1997 precedent but, at the same time, she was very critical of the government of the day. She has to make up her mind. She cannot have her cake and eat it too. She must choose. If she does not like what happened in 1997, she should not invoke that precedent. In any case, an argument based on a precedent is always a very weak argument.

She is saying that she wants to avoid uncertainty about wages, but such uncertainty is part of life when one negotiates wages. I do not think the Canadian society denies this kind of uncertainty. We have much worse uncertainties in life than the results of wage bargaining, where the gap between an employer and the employee may become narrower through negotiation.

Up to now, her reasoning is very weak, but before the end of this debate and the final vote, she has an opportunity to come forward with something that I hope will be much more convincing, because Canadians deserve an answer and workers deserve an answer and this House deserves an answer.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7 p.m.

Conservative

Lisa Raitt Conservative Halton, ON

Madam Chair, I will just reiterate what I have been indicating with respect to the purpose of having the wages embedded in this act. Quite frankly, it is because it is a fair wage that has been negotiated. If members had been at the table and had understood the differences between these two parties in the past eight months, and had even understood the wide gap in differences in the number of disputes, and the quantum within the disputes, they would have understood why the government felt that it was very necessary to give certainty and include wage increases in the act.

The choice of those wage increases was based on what had been negotiated freely and fairly at the table with PSAC, the largest union we negotiate with. The increases are more than appropriate.

Finally, as well as being the caretakers of the Canadian interest with respect to crown corporations, the government has to make sure that the crown corporation itself, Canada Post, is held whole and has the ability to be economically viable in the future, in both the short and the long term. These are things that matter to Canadians, and that is why the government has acted in the best interests of all Canadians and the economy in general.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2011 / 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

Shall the amendment on clause 15 carry?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

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

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 15 carry?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

Can we apply the result of the previous vote to clause 15?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

I declare clause 15 carried.

(Clause 15 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27 ]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

(On clause 16)

I will read the Liberal amendment:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 6 with the following:

“provided for in subsection 14(1), and to give”

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Madam Chair, certainly in light of the last amendment being defeated, it is appropriate that we proceed with this amendment to strike the clause in its entirety.

As the Liberal Party has put on the record from the outset, probably the two most concerning aspects of the legislation are the final offer selection, and, with respect to salaries, the identification of salaries at a lower rate than had been previously bargained for and agreed to by Canada Post.

This section underlines just how the government has missed the mark. Of all the clauses in the legislation, this certainly speaks volumes about how the government has missed the mark.

To quote Einstein: “A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it”. Certainly we have seen, through this legislation, that the government has not avoided the problem, and through the defeat of these amendments tonight, is doing nothing to solve it.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. minister for her answer, but I want to explain to her why I do not think it is satisfactory.

The main point proposed by the minister seems fair to her, but she did not explain in which way the last offer of the employer is unfair. The last offer of the employer was more satisfactory to the employees. Perhaps it is because the employer, in exchange, received from the employees some compromises that the employer wanted.

The employer is being put in a situation in which it will perhaps not be able to ask for these compromises, or it will ask for these compromises but with a lower wage. This is definitely interference in the negotiations, which is not in the interest of the employer, not in the interest of the employees, and not in the interest of Canadians.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

Shall the amendment to clause 16 carry?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

Shall we apply the results of the vote taken on the previous amendment?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 16 carry?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

Shall we apply the results of the vote taken on the previous clause?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Denise Savoie

The amendment is defeated and clause 16 is carried.

(Clause 16 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27.

(Yeas: 158; nays: 112)