Madam Chair, you will not be surprised to learn that, on our side, we do not share the minister's analysis, but out of respect for your function, we will still try to briefly talk about clause 2, which is the one we are supposed to be studying. At the same time, we would like to review what has happened over the past 72 hours because there is something fundamental about that.
The fundamental principle of acting in good faith underlies all work in matters of the relations between employers and employees.
Let me start with clause 2, which deals with the interpretation of the bill, and I will go in order. It says:
2. (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.
“arbitrator” means the arbitrator appointed under section 8.
We will have the opportunity to go back to this with our colleagues because we have some amendments to make.
Arbitrator means the arbitrator appointed under clause 8. That is a good place to start on our analysis of clause 2 for one good and simple reason. An arbitrator by definition is someone who will use his or her experience and ability to look at what is before him or her and come to a decision that is the fairest under the circumstances, based on all the information that is placed before the arbitrator. Interests of both sides will be taken into account and the fairest decision rendered.
The government across from us will allow no such thing. As we will see when we get to the clause, it is stacking the deck.
The conservative government has absolutely no intention of allowing an arbitrator to work freely and fairly under the rules. I know what I am talking about because twice in the past 72 hours we thought we were on the verge of a negotiated agreement. The minister must be extremely tired, because we heard her say in the past few hours that she never talked to us. The fact is we did talk to each other. I talked to her and my colleagues also talked to her. We did so through her staff and we tried to ensure that what is provided under clause 2(1) concerning the arbitrator would respect the tradition, the rules and the right to collective bargaining between employers and employees.
In recent weeks, similar strategies have been decried, condemned and blocked by the courts. Again this week, a binding ruling was made against the same Conservatives. In that case, the judge went through every section and paragraph and condemned the Conservatives' blatant lack of good faith in a situation very similar to the one with which we are dealing.
Good faith is the basis of all work that gets done in matters of labour relations. This week we had a devastating decision against the Conservative government from the Federal Court, in a fact situation quite similar to the one that presents itself here today. In paragraphs 86 to 92, we realized rather quickly that the government was again repeating the behaviour that was denounced by the Federal Court. This is the basis for labour law. This is the basis for collective negotiations.
As we will see, the bill contains what we call an orphan clause. It would reduce, by 18%, the entry salary and we would wind up discriminating against younger people, because they would be the majority of the new hires. We are told that this is just the way it will be in the world run by the Conservative majority.
In the same way, back in the 1960s, we would have been told, regarding a collective agreement that had one wage scale for men and a lower one for women, that this was just the way it was. One wage scale for older workers and a lower one for younger workers is just the way it is in the Conservative universe. A clause in a collective agreement that said once a woman was expecting a child she would lose her job, 50 years ago, that was just the way it was. Today, the Conservatives are trying to turn back the clock in matters of rights, and that is what we are standing up against.
Staying with our analysis of clause 2, the next definition is of “collective agreement”. It means the collective agreement between the employer and the union. In this case, we give the expiry date of the previous one.
I will state this in French. A collective agreement is supposed to be a convention agreed to by the employer and the union. One can see why they need to be reminded of that, because the bill does not allow any convention or agreement whatsoever. The conditions are being dictated by the government which, as we know, imposed a lockout. The government is preventing employees from returning to work. The Conservative government and Canada Post are working hand in hand to undermine labour relations. We also had proof of that over the past 72 hours. They blame the employees and they attack them after kicking them out. They point the finger at them and tell them there is a problem in that they are refusing to work, therefore making special legislation necessary to force back to work employees who want nothing more than to work. But it is the employer that padlocked the doors.
Let us read the next definition in clause 2:
“employee” means a person employed by the employer and bound by the collective agreement.
That is an interesting notion, being bound by an agreement collectively arrived at between employer and employee. When we respect every clause of the legislation, we withdraw conforming ourselves to the Charter of Rights and the Labour Code. We withdraw part of our work because we are trying to negotiate. The service was not interrupted, except when the employer locked the workers out. That is where the problem started.
The employer is the Canada Post Corporation. I can assure you—and my colleagues and I experienced this during the past few hours—that when we and the union were supposed to be told about the result of negotiations and discussions with Canada Post, there was interference on the part of the government.
There is no distance whatsoever on the part of the government, that is trying to send a message to all public sector unionized workers, if not to all employees in Canada, by telling employers not to worry, that the usual rules don't concern it. They can be suspended as it pleases, it will come forward to adopt new laws to repress the rights of their employees; it will stand up whenever there is an issue, and always in favour of management.
That is the Conservative reality.
“Minister” means the Minister of Labour.
We are talking about the Minister of Labour. The very title is supposed to suggest equality among the parties. Instead, we have a new minister of management.
We have a minister of management.
Everything is in favour of management. Even when her closest associates, who are supposed to be able to represent her, caused things to move forward a little, on behalf of the government, she disavowed the work they had done. Her associates were thrown under the bus. The small steps that we thought had been made have been completely forgotten, set aside by the minister and her government because it was out of the question for the employees to gain anything at all at the end of this exercise. The Conservatives are going to use their majority to try to crush people, but there is a little surprise waiting for them. The message they are putting out has indeed been understood by the workers' movement everywhere in Canada. The government should hear the clock ticking. It is congratulating itself today. Let it rejoice, but I can guarantee that the men and women who work throughout Canada, and those who have been fighting for their rights for generations, have understood what is going on very well. Like us, they are going to stand up to the government every time it tries to use such tactics in the future.
Finally, clause 2 states that the union concerned is the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Union means the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to use the time at my disposal to express our appreciation and congratulations for the honesty, integrity and good faith demonstrated by the entire union team. In recent days, they made every possible effort to come to a negotiated settlement. Their efforts were thwarted by the Conservative government's clear intention to attempt to crush them.
That comment remains relevant in the discussion of clause 2 because the clause and its definitions lay out the approach to labour relations that we can expect in the next four years. In those four years, people all over the country will know that they now have a clear choice. Some people will suppress their rights, even rights recognized in subsection 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as freedom of association, guaranteed by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions that culminated with BC Health Services, Fraser and the decision we had this week. But one political party will stand up for the rights of Canadians and of workers, and that is the New Democratic Party.