House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 50% of the vote.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
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.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Madam Chair, I will propose that all four of these NDP amendments to clause 11 be dealt with at once.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Madam Chair, the reference is to lines 10 to 14, and not 13.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
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.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Madam Chair, I am going to defer.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Madam Chair, just briefly, sections 60 and 61 of the Canada Labour Code provide authority to the duties and powers of the arbitrator. The attempt by the government, as drafted now in clause 9, is to limit the discretion and authority of the arbitrator.
I'll just mention one item. More specifically, because of the way clause 9 is drafted now, it does not allow the arbitrator in any way to conduct mediation. Anybody who has been involved in labour relations for 50 years knows the value of that tool to arbitrators. It oftentimes speeds up the process, makes it less costly, and most often achieves the result that we always want in labour management relations, which is that the parties reach a settlement themselves as opposed to, as in this case, having it thrust upon them because of the way it is drafted.
The only other point I would make is that it also allows the arbitrator to look at various methodologies in terms of when he or she is conducting the arbitration process. This provision as it is now, and the rest of clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11, will restrict the arbitrator to only using the final offer selection process, again severely limiting the arbitrator's ability to do the job properly.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 25th, 2011
Madam Chair, that statement from the Minister of Labour really shows a lack of understanding of how the system works, not just in Canada and not just at the federal level, but in every province and territory in this country.
The reality is that the final offer selection process was developed in professional sports in the United States. That is where it came from, so it is no surprise that the government is particularly interested in it. It worked there. One would have one employee, or maybe two to three, and a very narrow range of issues that had to be dealt with. Final offer selection worked quite well and still works quite well in those circumstances.
It is an absolute failure in a situation where we have a large workforce, as we do here, with 50,000-plus employees, members of the union, and then as well, because there are so many people, a large number of complex issues.
I will ask members to pretend that they are the arbitrator. One gets a list of 10 issues from the employer and a list of 10 issues from the union. One has to choose all 10 from one and reject all 10 from the other. There may be a great proposal from the employer on the pension issue, a lousy one on the wage issue and a lousy one on pay equity, but it is all or nothing. That is what the arbitrator has to do because of this clause and a number of the others, clauses 9, 10 and 11 that are forthcoming. That is why we made a series of amendments to give the arbitrator discretion.
Again, we have seen the way the government has attacked our judiciary to try to take away judicial discretion. It is doing exactly the same thing here. The bottom line on this is that the government is taking away that discretion and narrowing the ability of the arbitrator to do his or her job. The end result, and this is what all of the academic studies have shown where final offer selection is used, is that it benefits the employer to the detriment of the employee.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 24th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the House, and anybody out there who is watching, that I am not allowed to give opinions any more. The Law Society of Upper Canada has told people like myself who have withdrawn from practice not to give opinions.
Having said that, the reality though is that I do not think the current law would be unconstitutional. In the case of the decision that came out of British Columbia, the government there was tearing up a contract. There is no contract here. That is obvious. It has expired. That is the difference in that case.
I do not see a constitutional argument here at all or a Charter of Rights and Freedoms argument.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 24th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I know he is a new member of the House, and it is probably not fair for me to say this to him so I will say it to the two ministers who are here.
I would suggest to the member that he walk across the chamber and tell those two ministers to do their job. He should ask them to go to the Prime Minister and tell him to pick up the phone, call the CEO of Canada Post, and tell him to unlock the doors, honour the collective agreement, and go back to the negotiating table. If he wants to get something done and he wants it done right now and he wants to get those workers back to work who want to work, that is what he should do.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act June 24th, 2011
That heckle is typical of the attitude of the government. It is typical of the ignorance that t shows. Members opposite say on this one that they should have signed the agreement, but what about the other clauses that are very much against the interest of the union membership.
From a profitable corporation they are asking for clawbacks of a significant nature, changing the collective bargaining arrangement that has some clauses that have been in place for over 20 years, and over a series of collective agreements during that period of time. In spite of their profitability the government is saying it is going to take that away and they are going to lose some of the benefits.
We could go down the list. There are a number of them that Canada Post has asked that of.
I want to deal with another issue with regard to the bill and why it is just bad legislation. This bill, as opposed to using the traditional mediation-arbitration clauses as contained in most back-to-work legislation, has completely done away with that in Bill C-6 and replaced it with final offer selection.
In the last two to five years in Canada and in the United States, we could go back and find studies, decisions by labour boards and decisions by courts that have said that the use of final offer selection works fine when you have a professional athlete, when you have a very small workforce. It does not work, and it has been shown repeatedly, when there is a large workforce and a complex collective agreement.
That is what the government is trying to force on the parties with this legislation. Final offer selection almost always works to the benefit of the management side. The government knows that. It has decided that as a policy. In all back-to-work legislation we are going to see from the government it is going to enforce that in every single one of them, in spite of those decisions from the labour boards and our courts.
The hoist motion is very appropriate here. I would urge all members of the House to support it when it comes to a vote some time in the next 24 hours.