Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

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

Madam Chair, I will propose that all four of these NDP amendments to clause 11 be dealt with at once.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Therefore, may I dispense with reading these amendments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Moved by the member for Windsor--Tecumseh:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:

“(2) In making the decision referred to in subsection (1),”

That Bill C-6 in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 37 to 41 on page 4.

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 5 with the following:

“paragraph 10(1)(a).”

Debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh on these amendments.

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

Madam Chair, we have heard the argument from our Liberal colleague from Cape Breton—Canso as to why we should be making these changes to clause 11. It very much restricts the arbitrator. As I have said before, Clause 11 is a continuation of that restriction on the arbitrator. It takes away the arbitrator's discretion, making it impossible for him or her to do an adequate job.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the same result as on the previous amendments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendments negatived)

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska reads as follows:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 4 the following:

“ (1.1) Despite paragraph (1)(c), in order to settle any matter remaining in dispute, the arbitrator may make a decision that reconciles the final offers if the arbitrator is of the view that proceeding in this manner would be more equitable.”

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

Madam Chair, my comments are in support of the amendments proposed by my NDP and Liberal Party colleagues. I hope that this will help the Conservative government understand that there is a serious problem with this bill.

The new clause that you just read, Clause (1.1), will ensure that the arbitrator has some leeway in his role. It is as if the Conservative government wanted to hire referees, like those from the National Hockey League, for example, who would always lean a particular way, depending on whether, for example, the hockey managers want to see more violence or not, based on what the spectators want.

The problem is that when the arbitrator is appointed, he will have to follow criteria that are so specific that the scales will inevitably always be tipped in the favour of Canada Post.

Under the bill—and this is the issue that needs to be addressed—the arbitrator will be forced to choose between the employer’s final offer and the offer made by the employees. It will not be possible for the arbitrator to engage in any mediation, or to single out specific terms, which would have obviously result in a superior agreement.

As I remarked in my speech, all of this will undoubtedly create a very toxic work environment when the employees return to work; that is, if the arbitrator is forced, based on the terms of the bill, to chose the employer’s offer.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the arbitrator is not obligated to choose one offer over the other, but rather to reconcile them. It is a question of compromise. I hope that the amendment is adopted.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, as I indicated earlier, this precedent was used in the 1997 legislation, which was the last time we endeavoured to order back to work legislation for postal service. In that case it was mediation arbitration and, indeed, it took two years for any kind of collective agreement to be reached. We have learned from that lesson. That is exactly why we have included this method of arbitration to be the final offer of selection.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like theMinister of Labour to clarify one point.

I was a member of the House of Commons in 1997 and I am now holding Bill C-24. According to clause 11 of this bill, contrary to what the minister has said, the arbitrator did not have his hands tied. I quote from this clause:

[It is necessary to establish an] agreement resolving the matters in dispute between the employer and the union arrived at before, or pursuant to, mediation;

They did not say it had to be the employer or the union. The arbitrator’s role was truly an arbitrator’s role. The arbitrator did his work and found grounds for agreement between the two; it was not one or the other.

I would like the Minister to explain to me how and where this was done, and so clear this up. For the Conservatives are working on just one side, instead of working to find an agreement between the two parties. I want this to be clear. Not only are we going to support the amendment, as we supported our amendment and the NDP's amendment, but at no time in 1997 were the arbitrator’s hands to be tied, except on the wage issue, of which we will be able to speak again later.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, as I indicated, we used a precedent, but we improved upon the precedent. The improvement was that we would have final offer binding selection.

The ironic thing is that it seems to be the same old same old when it comes to improving on the bad decisions and the bad law-making of the former Liberal government.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare this amendment defeated.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendment negatived)

There is one final amendment to this clause, moved by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 5 with the following:

“selected by the arbitrator or the decision made by the arbitrator under subsection (1.1).”

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

Madam Speaker, we have moved this amendment, which refers to amendment BQ-1 and gives the arbitrator full freedom to act, simply as a matter of consistency.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

As this amendment is consequential to the previous amendments, we will simply apply the results of the previous amendment vote.

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 11 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 11 agreed to)

[ See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 12)

I assume we can apply the results of the last clause to this one.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 12 agreed to)

[ See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)