Mr. Speaker, I have been here since this morning, listening to both sides of the debate. It has become very clear to me at this time that some people, particularly on the other side of the House, probably need to take a course on labour relations. What I am hearing right now is that, for our fellow citizens, we should force the employees back to work immediately.
People need to understand the essence of the problem. At present, a crown corporation has decided to impose a lockout based on indirect advice from the Minister of Labour. Whether we are talking about a crown corporation or a private company, the economic power is always on the side of management, which has a business to run. The union, however, represents its members, who are trying to provide for their families. Parliament has adopted the Canada Labour Code, which sets out rules for both sides but which limits the employers' power in order to ensure greater equality in the balance of power when it comes time to negotiate. These negotiations are absolutely essential since they provide a good balance of power so that a fair agreement can be reached.
That is, for the most part, why Canada has unions in the first place. We know very well that in non-unionized companies, the workers do not even have the minimum protection provided by law. The regulations tend to favour management, especially when it comes to salary.
In the past, the crown corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers enjoyed more or less equal power. We now have a government with a slim majority, for which less than 60% of Canadians and 20% of Quebeckers voted. The President and CEO of the crown corporation felt completely at liberty to impose a lockout so that the government could then intervene, once again in favour of management, placing the employees in an absolutely untenable situation.
Let us not forget that collective bargaining is based on good faith. The union was prepared to keep its pressure tactics to a minimum to allow the mail to continue being delivered. It demonstrated flexibility and was even willing to renew its previous collective agreement until the parties could agree on the outstanding issues. Canada Post would not listen, and after the Minister of Labour interfered in the process, bargaining in good faith went out the window yet again and was completely forgotten. The corporation obviously wanted the government to intervene from the start and gave it the means to do so.
What bothers me a great deal about this back-to-work legislation is that it sends a clear message to all the other Canadian corporations, big and small. They are essentially being told that they just have to arrange for a lockout, create an impasse and the government will come to the rescue by giving them the tools to reduce the power of the unions and crush the workers. It is a bad message for all Canadians, especially those the people across the way represent and we represent.
Let us be clear. If we allow this power to be transferred to the employer, not only for Canada Post, but for all corporations, then we are minimizing the power of the workers. This could lead to reduced salaries for unionized workers and workers in other economic sectors. We will end up in an even worse situation than we are in now, where real salaries have not really changed at all since the free trade agreement was signed with the United States in 1988.
At present, Canadian workers earn, on average, about the same amount. Their purchasing power has not increased, even though the gross national product—what Canada produces and posts as profit—has increased considerably since that time. Once again, this bill sends a message that the workers will have to be satisfied with crumbs while the power of management will continue to increase, without regard for negotiating in good faith.
This bill shows a lack of respect, especially for the negotiation process, Canada Post workers and all Canadian workers, whether or not they are unionized.
The members opposite claim that it is for the sake of the economy and that we must not endanger the current economic recovery. This economy does not consist solely of business and private enterprise. It cannot be measured by profits alone. It must also be measured by purchasing power. Canada Post workers are consumers, and any reduction in their purchasing power, whether in the public, parapublic or private sector, has repercussions in the other sectors. In the end, contrary to what the members opposite would like us to believe, this bill will not help the economy, but will instead hurt the rest of the economy.
In my opinion, this bill is fundamentally unfair. If the government wanted to take advantage of the power that comes with a majority of the seats, it could have done so in a way that was much less unfair to Canada Post employees.
This bill has to do with forcing workers back to work and with arbitration. This means that a single person chosen by the government will decide on the offer that best meets the needs of Canada Post. We can already guess which offer will be chosen. But this bill also imposes an income scale that was not negotiated and, as mentioned by some of my colleagues, is lower than the employer's final offer.
I remember that the latest offer made by the employer was an increase of 1.9% in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and 2% in 2014. I also remember that the inflation rate is currently 3.3%. That is much lower than the increase in the cost of living, and this final offer will result in decreased purchasing power for the workers. Not only did the government decide that this was unsatisfactory, but it also included an income scale in the bill that is even lower than that in the final offer. The bill offers 1.75% for 2011, 1.5% for 2012 and 2% for 2013 and 2014.
I heard the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain say that this bill was fair and reasonable for the two parties. Once again, if the government wanted to impose a bill using the majority it was granted by a minority of Canadians, if it truly wanted to propose a fairer bill, if it wanted to force a return to work that would benefit both parties, it could have chosen other options.
As I mentioned, the union at Canada Post was prepared to agree to renew the collective agreement. That could have been included in this bill. The government could have chosen to put an end to the lockout without affecting the right to strike. Before the lockout, people were still receiving their mail. The union used part of its right to strike to put some pressure and force Canada Post to return to the bargaining table.
The bill could have put an end to the lockout and ensured that all Canadians would receive their mail again, without affecting Canada Post employees' right to strike. That was not done.
As I mentioned, the government could have chosen not to interfere with salaries. The government chose not to do that.
The government also could have eliminated the orphan clauses. These clauses mean that a new hire at Canada Post would earn up to 18% less for doing the same job as a unionized employee who has been there for a certain number of years. Orphan clauses have been criticized in Quebec and in Canada for being fundamentally unfair and for violating basic rights. But the government decided not to prevent Canada Post from going in that direction. The bill could have done so, but it does not.
The bill also could have resolved the issue of pensions. There are some very profound differences on the pension bargaining table. Canada Post wants to put an end to the current plan, but still make it available. This would mean a defined benefit pension plan for existing employees and a defined contribution pension plan for new employees. Once again, that is something fundamentally unfair and dangerous for workers. The difference should be clear. Defined benefits provide economic security and provide an adequate income during retirement. Retirees are then able to spend this money and keep the economy going.
What the government is saying to new, younger workers at Canada Post is that the previous generation had it easier. It was not so easy, because that generation had to fight for those rights. The previous generation would have all of these benefits, but the new workers would be forced to subscribe to a defined contribution pension plan. At the end of the day, all of the financial risk would fall on them. They would have to pray that, when they retire at the age of 60 or 65, it is not in the middle of a recession so that they are not forced to work until they are 65 or 70 in order to receive their full pension, which would be lower because of the economic crisis. That is the difference.
With a defined benefit pension plan, the employee knows how much they will receive upon retirement, based on the number of years of service and the salary earned. The defined contribution system puts all the risk on the new employees' shoulders. These employees are dependent on the ups and downs of the financial market and they will have to pray that there is not a crisis when the time comes for them to retire.
The government is proposing a bill that sides with the employer. It could have proposed something better. It could have encouraged the two parties to settle this. The postal union was ready to renew the previous collective agreement. The union showed a willingness to bargain in good faith, accepting that technological adjustments will be needed to help Canada Post face the future. The union was clear on the fact that it would be necessary to restructure Canada Post, just not in the one-sided manner that has been proposed.
It is often said that there is less mail. My colleague from British Columbia said that there is slightly less mail than before but that the difference is not that significant. According to the numbers, mail volume has dropped by 7% since the economic crisis began—mostly because of the economic crisis—compared with about 11% for hours worked. That means that our workers have been more efficient in terms of productivity. That brings me to another point that was brought up by the government and the third opposition party and its leader. They seem to be saying that we are against profits.
Canada Post made $281 million in profits and paid out up to $2 billion in dividends to the Canadian government. That is good because it benefits the overall public and Canada Post, which can use those profits to reinvest, restructure, move ahead and renew itself. But do not forget that some of those profits do not come just from selling stamps.
It comes from better investments. It also comes from the fact that the employees are more productive. The productivity of the Canada Post employees should be reflected in a compensation system that translates into higher incomes and salaries. That is not what we are currently seeing. We get the impression that these people think we are against making a profit. That is not true. We want Canada Post to continue being profitable, but we also want the employees who are making Canada Post profitable to be able to benefit from those profits, to be able to share in the benefits of a good organization and greater productivity.
That is not what is being proposed in this bill, which imposes a salary scale that is lower than what the rate of inflation might be. We will have a bit of time left to debate these issues later.
I would like our friends in the government to take a bit of time to try to explain to me why they feel this bill is so important at this stage, when the bargaining could have continued and the union could have kept up its rotating strike, which had a limited impact. The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain was talking about his constituents who had been deeply affected by this. I think that Estevan and Weyburn in his riding had not gone through a rotating strike yet. There had been no impact on his riding yet.
I would like to know why this was the only avenue they had to offer. Why not simply remove Canada Post's right to resort to a lockout, and allow the union to continue doing what it was doing? Why was it necessary to offer wage increases that are lower than the ones that were offered by the employer? I need to know. I need to understand why. No one has explained it to me yet.
I would like to know why the government has given itself the power to force employees back to work under this law? Why did it not use this as an opportunity to stop Canada Post from imposing two different pay scales, one for existing employees and another for new employees, regardless of the work they do? New employees' salaries are going to be reduced by 20%. Why could a provision not be included in a bill that is supposed to be fair and balanced? Why could the government not prevent the crown corporation, Canada Post, from forcing employees to sacrifice a long-standing right, for which they fought hard and into which they have been paying for quite some time? Why could the old system not continue? The union itself proposed leaving things as they were and using a separate mediation process to address the employer's questions and concerns and making the necessary adjustments.
Why is the crown corporation not prohibited from forcing employees to contribute to a defined contribution plan rather than a defined benefit plan?
These are all questions that I would have liked to hear addressed this morning, but the only thing I am hearing, and pardon me for saying so, are the same platitudes and the same old rhetoric about the economy. Yes, the economy is important to Canadians, but we also need to think about the contributions made by the workers, most of them unionized, and the non-unionized workers who will be affected by these salary reductions. This will also push down wages, which will have a negative impact on the economy.
I would like to have some answers to these very important questions by the end of our debate. Until we get some answers to these questions, I think the NDP's position is clear.
