Jun 25th
- MP
conJun 25, 2011 5:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'AppelleThe motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 19 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8:10 p.m.)
- MPconJun 25, 2011 5:00 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
All those opposed will please say nay.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 4:50 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order, please. I am not cutting the hon. member off. I am trying to get a little order for him to conclude his remarks.
The hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso.
- MP
libJun 25, 2011 4:50 pm | Nova Scotia, Cape Breton—CansoMr. Speaker, in fact, we laid out and put forward our amendments in good faith and hoped that we could make an impact on this legislation. Obviously the government entertained none of them and so we are this situation. It is unfortunate, but at the end of the day I am happy not only to see that mail service will resume eventually, but that the workers are back on the job.
These workers have suffered over the last number of weeks and we have brought those stories to the House. I know a number of stories were shared about the inconvenience to Canadians, but think about the hardship the workers have gone through, those who have had medical benefits cancelled, have missed paycheques and have had to provide for their families and have been unable to work the last number of weeks. Therefore, understand that part of the lockout.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 4:45 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
Order. The hon. member still has six minutes left to conclude his remarks, so I would ask all members to come to order. The more disorder there is, the more time the member will have.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 4:45 pm | Nova Scotia, Cape Breton—Canso
Mr. Speaker, I stand to comment on the bill at third reading. I am quite confident, as we enter hour 58 of the debate, that there is not a whole lot of juice left in this orange. At the risk of saying something that may have been said earlier in the House, a risk which did not concern a whole lot of people over the course of the last 58 hours, I, too, on behalf of the Liberal Party want to thank the officials, our professional table officers and all the Hill staff for being around.
I really want to single out the pages who do a great service in the House. That just was not a politician being shameless and playing to the hometown crowd, I do it for a reason. They were supposed to finish on Thursday. As we know, the pages are salaried employees, so they have been here as volunteers for the last 58 hours. Therefore, I really want to thank them for that.
My comments will be brief. Again, as we had said, we put our points on the record. Early on we were very concerned, as a party, with the way the legislation was put forward. We felt it tipped the scales far too much in Canada Post's favour. For all those paying attention to the debate, we tried to reinforce the fact that this was a lockout. Knowing that this legislation was coming, gave Canada Post the upper hand. That was why we ended up in the situation in which we were. We felt the final offer selection did nothing to help the union in this situation.
We felt that amendments could have been put forward far sooner. We thought it would have been a much more efficient process to table those amendments and bring them forward sooner. Maybe if we would have put that time on the amendments, then maybe we might have had some of the changes for which we tried to advocate.
Therefore, we have a great deal of concern with the legislation and we will vote against it in the final round.
Again, I thank my caucus for the effort put forward. Our whip's office and leadership—
- MP
ndpJun 25, 2011 4:45 pm | New Brunswick, Acadie—BathurstMr. Speaker, they have no respect for Quebeckers, and from what I can see, they have no respect for you either.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 4:40 pm | New Brunswick, Acadie—Bathurst
That is not very polite. I do not think it is very polite to tell me to keep talking. I think I was doing well until I was interrupted.
The employees have the right to go on rotating strikes: the Minister herself said that she received only a few calls and emails. That is what she said in the House of Commons and to the media. One might almost think she was not satisfied and that things were not sufficiently stirred up, as if they had to be stirred up in order to pass a bill. The public was not complaining. I received no calls from people unhappy about the rotating strikes. But as soon as the lockout was in place, down came the hammer and the bill was tabled. We have worked hard all weekend, and I raise my hat to the members who remained in the House of Commons and fought all weekend to give the union and the employer the chance for further meetings. That is democracy.
I hope all Canadians are proud of us. The day we cease to have a Parliament, our country will become like those to which we send our soldiers to bring democracy. The House of Commons belongs to Canadians, and this is where the debate must occur. It has occurred, and we are proud of that fact. We gave the union and the employer the opportunity to meet. However, it is impossible to reach an agreement when the government gives the employer a better offer in a bill, which is completely undemocratic, in my opinion.
Perhaps the Conservatives consider today a funny day in history. They can continue to attack the workers. This government has just sent employers the message to not bother negotiating, because the government will solve their problems. It is inviting employers to turn to the government for help; it will pass bills that will never be in the workers' favour.
That is why I am asking what the workers ever did to this government. Why does it not like them? Why does it not like the people who have provided services to us for the past three or four days, the security guards, and everyone? The next time, it will be CBC/Radio-Canada, and then it will be CN. All of them will be paying at the checkout in the next four years under this Conservative government. Is that the kind of society we want? Do we really want to attack workers?
Even if it bothers the Conservatives, I want to thank the unions who work day after day and who have the mandate, under Canadian legislation, to represent workers. Political parties need leaders, but so do the unions. So let us respect our laws and our leaders, the people with the mandate to do things for the society. If the government did not want this lockout, all it needed to do was call Canada Post to get the locks taken off the doors. It would have been easy.
The public will see that the Conservatives are wearing big smiles on their faces today. On the one hand, 33 million people were affected by the lockout, but so were the 45,000 postal workers because of this government. Who will it be next time? Perhaps it will be citizens, seniors, the disabled or the workers. And it will be because of the Conservative government.
We even asked the Prime Minister to suspend the House of Commons for one day, for the Quebec holiday, Saint-Jean-Baptiste day. Once again, he said no. Just for that, he should be ashamed. He has no respect for Quebeckers. Does he not like Quebeckers, as one of my colleagues just said? He does not like the workers, but he likes big business.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 4:30 pm | New Brunswick, Acadie—Bathurst
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin, once again, by thanking the employees of the House of Commons. I thank them for the work that they do for Parliament, the seat of democracy, and the place in which democratic debates take place. I would also like to thank our security guards, who worked very hard. I thank our employees, from every political party, who have spent many hours and days here, in Parliament. I thank our pages, who have worked here day and night in the service of members of Parliament. Thank you all so much.
I just thanked our employees. The bill that was debated and adopted a moment ago has to do with the postal workers who deliver our mail day in and day out.
It is not pleasant for anyone when things grind to a halt at Canada Post. The Canada Post Corporation is a crown corporation that is required to provide services to all Canadians. It is unfortunate that a debate had to be held on the future of workers, their pension funds, their salaries, and their working conditions. The government tried to suggest that we were somehow against small and medium-sized businesses, but that is not true.
There are, of course, small and medium-sized businesses in my riding. If these small and medium-sized businesses were not there—I am referring to the shops, restaurants and small factories that provide a multitude of services—in what kind of world would we be living? It would be crazy to think that anyone could be against our small and medium-sized businesses. I can assure the hon. members that whatever the Conservatives would have Canadians believe is simply not true. Small and medium-sized businesses apparently account for 75% of jobs in Canada. This includes our own family members. Some of us have brothers and sisters who own small businesses. How could anyone object to that?
I myself worked for several years for a big company called Noranda Inc. The Conservatives would have hon. members believe that I had no respect for Noranda Inc. My only comment was that if the company made a profit, it should share it with the workers that made it possible. That is all we asked.
The mail carriers participated in the bargaining process, however the minister remarked in her speech that negotiations had dragged on for eight months without an agreement being reached. If negotiations went on for eight months with no agreement, then clearly the employer, Canada Post, was partly to blame. Under Canadian law, workers have the right to unionize.
I will mention the case of certain women in my riding, Red Cross auxiliaries who worked for that organization under a contract from the government of New Brunswick. The government’s money had been disbursed to the Red Cross to permit it to do what the government did not want to do. The employees, the Red Cross auxiliaries who went to people's homes every morning to help seniors, were paid $4.25 an hour. After 2,080 hours of work, they received an increase that brought their wage to $5.35 an hour.
You can check the records. If these women working for the Red Cross were sick for more than 10 days, the Red Cross lowered their wage to $4.85 an hour. It’s shameful.
These women who went to work were not even entitled to statutory holidays. Did they not have the right to form a union to bargain and increase their wage to $7 an hour in an initial collective agreement which would grant them their rightful statutory holidays?
This is what the Conservatives are saying. They are giving the unions a bad image. It’s unfair. As for the women working in the fish processing plants at minimum wage, they are now up to $12 an hour. That was not thanks to the employer.
No one can stop me from standing up for the workers, the men and women, our fathers and mothers who have worked. No one can stop me from speaking up in House of Commons on their behalf. No one.
What the government is doing is no mistake. It has done this because it wanted to, rather than having faith in bargaining and the collective agreement. Why table a bill that offers less than the employer was prepared to give the employees after they tried to exert pressure by organizing rotating strikes?
- MP
conJun 25, 2011 4:30 pm | Ontario, Haltonmoved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. After all it has been approximately 57 and a half hours since we commenced the introduction of this legislation.
The position of the government has always been very clear that the best agreement is the one that the parties reach by themselves. However, in the case of this union, CUPW, and this organization, Canada Post, that was not a possibility.
Over the past 57 hours, our government has explained the history of the dispute and the efforts we have taken to both conciliate and mediate it. We have also provided services continuously to the parties throughout this debate. As a final resort, we have had to introduce legislation that does two things.
First, it provides for a resumption of postal services so that those Canadians who have been affected, as well as small businesses and charities, can get on with their work, which will also protect the economy.
Second, we introduced this legislation to provide a fair and balanced process for the parties to reach the conclusion of this collective agreement.
The government was given a very strong mandate by Canadians to continue our efforts in this economic recovery. That is exactly why we have introduced this legislation at this time, to ensure the mail service continues now and into the future.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 4:20 pm | Ontario, Halton
moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
- MP
ndpJun 25, 2011 4:20 pm | British Columbia, VictoriaShall I rise and report the bill?
- MP
conJun 25, 2011 4:15 pm | Manitoba, Saint BonifaceMadam Chair, I am going to make a brief comment. Businesses and Canadians continue to be affected by this stoppage, this labour dispute. That is why our government has introduced a bill to restore the postal service.
As has been said before, the opposition has an opportunity to join with us and pass the bill today, as quickly as possible, in the interests of all Canadians, so we can do what is important for taxpayers.
I call on all of the opposition to support us and pass this bill immediately.
- MP
libJun 25, 2011 4:10 pm | Ontario, Ottawa SouthMadam Chair, I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleague, the House leader for the official opposition. His summary was only partly accurate. Canadians who have been watching for the last 40 or 45-odd hours have a right to be a little bit in despair. They have been watching carefully to see how this transpires, how this process evolves.
Canadians now know that the government had an opportunity to bring time allocation to bear in the bill when it was drafted. They know that the government could have solved this problem as of last Thursday. Canadians know this. Canadians are telling us this. Canadians also know that the government had no intention whatsoever of accepting any amendments presented by any party, and presumably from their own members who quietly, in their own despair, were trying to improve the bill.
We have heard from the NDP labour critic that this was an opportunity for his caucus to have a learning experience. Some learning experience. How to filibuster a bill 101. How to posture for the media 101. How to rack up expenditures for the Canadian taxpayers 101. If NDP members want to team build, they can leave by the back door of this building and climb the Gatineau Hills.
Many times throughout this debate, Canadians could have been forgiven for thinking they were hearing speeches in a union hall and not in the House of Commons. The government's behaviour has been no better. The government made a deliberate attempt to reform labour law by bringing the hammer down, by using a statutory instrument in an unprecedented fashion to bring in through the back door what the Prime Minister knows he could never get through the front door of Canadian citizenry.
Both leaders have fed the conflict machine called the media. In this, Canadians believe the leaders have been successful. However, the biggest loser here is the Canadian citizenry and here is why. Unionized or not, unemployed or employed, healthy or sick, retired or working, the Canadian citizenry has been stuck with the bill. Small businesses, seniors, waiters, drivers, teachers, bricklayers, are all being asked to pick up the costs for an unfortunate, unnecessary and irresponsible process.
I ask the leaders of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to go out to the cameras and tell the Canadian people exactly how much this experiment has cost them.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 4:10 pm | Ontario, Halton
Madam Chair, the act will come into force 24 hours after it receives royal assent.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 4:10 pm | British Columbia, Victoria
Shall clause 21 carry?
- MP
libJun 25, 2011 4:05 pm | Quebec, Saint-Laurent—CartiervilleMadam 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.
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 4:05 pm | Nova Scotia, Cape Breton—Canso
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.
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 4:00 pm | Quebec, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
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.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 4:00 pm | Ontario, Halton
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.
- MP
Jun 25, 2011 3:50 pm | Newfoundland, St. John's EastMadam 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.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 3:50 pm | Ontario, Halton
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.
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 3:45 pm | Nova Scotia, Cape Breton—Canso
Madam Speaker, we put forward this amendment because we think it precludes both the company and the union from bargaining. They will not be able to bargain for wages that are better than what is listed in clause 15. We think the amendment would speak to clause 15.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 3:45 pm | Ontario, Halton
Madam Chair, as we have indicated many times in the past 47 hours, the purpose of this clause is to recognize that the government has negotiated a set of wage increases with PSAC that are very fair and that have been bargained at the table. We think it is appropriate to include them in this act so there is no uncertainty for the worker and there is no uncertainty for Canada Post as to what the wage increases are. As I said, we believe these are fair.
Quite frankly it is not unprecedented that this clause be included in back to work legislation, for the purposes I just gave.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 3:40 pm | Ontario, Halton
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.
- MP
libJun 25, 2011 3:40 pm | Quebec, BourassaMadam 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.
- MP
ndpJun 25, 2011 3:35 pm | Ontario, Windsor—TecumsehMadam Chair, the reference is to lines 10 to 14, and not 13.
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 3:30 pm | Nova Scotia, Cape Breton—Canso
Yes, Madam Chair, that is lines 19 to 36 on page 4.
Our amendment addresses what has been talked about in several past amendments, the fact that final offer selection is of great concern. It is not a preferred way to go. Certainly the arbitrator will be handcuffed if the guiding principles in this legislation are held to.
When we see the reference to the arbitrator having to identify benefits that are consistent with those incomparable postal industries, that raises a flag, because there are no other comparable postal industries to Canada Post. It is unique in itself. There are private companies that provide very similar services, but they are not a national service provider. Certainly, if we are to apply that type of business model, then rural and remote areas that are not profitable will see no service. People in those areas will not be able to pay for the cost of those types of services. We are concerned that this compromise the unique nature of Canada Post.
As well, with respect to the short- and long-term viability of Canada Post, Canada Post has been a profitable corporation in recent years and we are not comfortable with that approach. We think it further handcuffs the arbitrator.
Finally, the taking the pension plan into account, as has been mentioned prior, we think what is at play is an obvious attack on defined benefits pensions in this country. This causes us great concern. That is the intent of our amendments and we would hope to seek support for those amendments.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 3:30 pm | Ontario, Halton
Madam Chair, we looked at the amendments that were presented by the then Liberal government in 1997, the guiding principles that were embedded in its back to work legislation for postal services. We actually improved on the language in order to ensure we had a decision in a short period of time that made sense to the parties. We also adjusted it to reflect the issues specifically in dispute with the parties today in recognizing how far apart they are, the viability and importance of Canada Post, as well as the importance and viability of the pension plan. The fact is it is the Canadian taxpayer who has the responsibility for any unfunded liabilities of the Canada Post pension plan.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 3:25 pm | Ontario, Windsor—Tecumseh
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.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 3:25 pm | Ontario, Halton
Madam Chair, it is important to point out that the concept of final offer selection is the most rapid and efficient one possible. That is why we have used it. Indeed that is why it was used in 1994 with respect to the west coast ports and in 2007 with respect to CN and the resumption of its service. This is not something new. Although I may not have the length and breadth of understanding of many years of the law, I certainly understand the most recent years of the law.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 3:20 pm | Ontario, Windsor—Tecumseh
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.
- MPconJun 25, 2011 3:20 pm | Ontario, Halton
Madam Speaker, this clause is there to ensure that certain powers in the code that would be contrary to the intent of this legislation are removed from the arbitrator's abilities.
- MP
ndpJun 25, 2011 3:20 pm | Ontario, Hamilton MountainMadam Chair, I thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
I am pleased to rise and speak in favour of this amendment. Our preference remains stopping the lockout and allowing the sides to return to free collective bargaining in accordance not only with the laws of our country, but also international conventions, UN resolutions and the long and proud tradition in most jurisdictions in the western world.
The union has offered, well before this legislation came forward, to return to work and bargain under the old contract. Instead, the government moved forward with this draconian and backward bill that would tie the hands of the arbitrator and damage labour relations both within Canada Post and across Canada.
The government has seen fit to impose a contract that is bad for our postal service and bad for the people who work so hard there to make it one of the best postal services in the world. The government tried to sneak in these objectionable terms quietly, hoping that the opposition would go quietly into the summer. It is basic to our democratic system that workers are allowed to engage in free collective bargaining.
We in the NDP are serving notice that we will not let the Conservative government quietly take away the rights of Canadians. We will not let it quietly launch an assault on the rights of working people to collective bargaining.
This amendment introduced by my friend and colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh helps untie the hands of the arbitrator so he or she can do the job he or she has been tasked with doing.
I am pleased to lend my support to this amendment and urge all hon. members to respect the working people and their constituents by supporting the amendment.
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 3:15 pm | Nova Scotia, Cape Breton—Canso
Madam Chair, without having the background in labour relations that my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh has, I know that we have voiced our concern with regard to final offer selection.
His background in regard to the process coming from the sports arena is absolutely right, but aspects of that have bled into public service contracts, where we have seen final offer selection on an issue-by-issue basis. There may be 10 issues listed, and the arbitrator can pick and choose the best offer from management or from the union people on an issue-by-issue basis. Even that would be less egregious than this particular approach to solving this problem. Certainly we have a great deal of concern with final offer arbitration.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 3:15 pm | Ontario, Hamilton Mountain
Madam Chair, NDP members will vote yes.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 3:10 pm | New Brunswick, Acadie—Bathurst
Madam Chair, I know it is also tiring for the member from Bourassa when we talk about workers. That is his problem. I understand that, but we have rules to follow, and I am prepared to follow them. I know he finds it tiring for us to be here, and I accept that. I accept the fact that in 1997, the Liberals also forced workers back to work with lower wages than the employer had offered. I accept that, and that is also tiring for them today.
I am asking the government to show respect for the arbitrator's authority in this clause. The arbitrator is a qualified person who will be appointed by the Minister, so let the arbitrator do his or her job.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 3:10 pm | Ontario, Windsor—Tecumseh
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.
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 3:10 pm | Quebec, Bourassa
Madam Chair, what is the definition of "relevant"? Are we going to keep going on and on and talk about everything or are we going to talk about clause 8 and the arbitrator? If they do not like themselves, let them sort that out in therapy, but we would like to know what clause 8 is.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 3:05 pm | New Brunswick, Acadie—Bathurst
What did they do to you?
What did they do? That is why the government is going to have to think about it. Is the government going to hit on the men and women, on all those workers, and all those who are coming up? People will remember that. Men and women who work hard see that their government, the one that has this big majority, this solid majority in the House of Commons, the members of the Conservative Party, will never speak for them in the House of Commons because they do not count. In all we have done since Thursday, they have never spoken for men and women, never.
What have they done for the workers? We have a bill that is less than we had—
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 3:00 pm | Nova Scotia, Cape Breton—Canso
Madam Chair, the Liberals will be voting no.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 3:00 pm | New Brunswick, Acadie—Bathurst
Madam Chair, the proposal regarding clause 8 seeks to recognize and respect the responsibility of an arbitrator. If a collective agreement of any industry, whether in the public sector or elsewhere, is violated, the parties can choose an arbitrator who, at the end of the process, will issue a ruling on the interpretation of the collective agreement.
I have never seen an arbitrator become involved in an arbitration process while knowing in advance what his decision would be. If that were the case, an arbitrator would not be needed.
The clause in the bill reads as follows: “The Minister must appoint as arbitrator for final offer selection a person that the Minister considers appropriate.”
If at that time the final offer is made automatically, the arbitrator is being told what to do. The arbitrator's job is to make that decision. The arbitrator is a qualified individual. He or she is an individual who the two parties decide on together, or the minister makes a decision as to who the arbitrator will be. The person that the minister or the two parties decide to accept has to be a qualified person who understands the subject and is able to make the decision.
That is why we said that the government should not participate in the negotiations by telling the arbitrator in advance what to do or not do. The arbitrator should make the decision.
Whenever the legislation provides that the arbitrator must make a decision on a final offer, the employer wins. One only has to look at the precedents to see that. Whenever such a situation occurs, the employer always wins. This is why we are saying that the clause must be changed.
The bill and even our amendment provide that “the Minister must appoint as arbitrator ... a person that the Minister considers appropriate”. If the person is appropriate, why tell him to select the final offer?
In the past, because of the final offer clause, the arbitrator has always sided with the employer. Once the employer has made its offer, the arbitrator examines the situation and finds that there is too much difference between that offer and the offer made by the union and the employees. The arbitrator must then select between the two offers, and he has no choice but to select a final offer, instead of using his judgment.
Whose judgment are we talking about? It is that of the arbitrator appointed by the minister. The minister has selected a qualified arbitrator. To tell that arbitrator in advance that he is not qualified is to insult him. The fact is that he is qualified to do the job. He must be able to be fair to both parties and to society. He must take everything into consideration.
This is why we are saying there is no possible negotiation between the two parties if the government gets involved in the negotiation process by introducing in the House of Commons a bill which says in advance that the arbitrator must select the final offer. The employer does nothing and does not have to negotiate, because the government is doing all the work for him.
Even this morning, the government advised the employer to go and negotiate in good faith. The employer replied that it no longer wanted to negotiate, because it was over. In fact, the employer went so far as to say that if it were to negotiate, it would offer less than what it offered in its last offer, earlier this month. It is obvious that any new offer would be less, because the government has already introduced a bill that also provides less.
That is why the Conservatives have got it wrong. Or they have not got it wrong and they intend to hit the workers. I have said this to them several times and they did not like it. What have the postal workers done to the government for it to hate them so much? Why do the Conservatives hate the workers so much that they are asking the arbitrator to select the final offer, which is lower than what the employer had offered?
That is why I asked, and I said it publicly. I will say it again: when a crown corporation makes a proposal of 1.9% and the government comes in and says no, it is not 1.9%, it is 1.7%, what have those workers done to the government that the government hates them that much?
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 3:00 pm | Ontario, Hamilton Mountain
Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 2:55 pm | Nova Scotia, Cape Breton—Canso
Madam Chair, the Liberal Party will oppose.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 2:55 pm | Ontario, Hamilton Mountain
Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.
- MPndpJun 25, 2011 2:45 pm | New Brunswick, Acadie—Bathurst
There is nothing wrong with commenting on people who are learning how to do their job. There is nothing improper about that. I am simply drawing members’ attention to one of the positive aspects of this debate. The government claimed that it did not interfere in the bargaining process. For better or for worse—and it was recorded—the postal union and Canada Post held discussions until almost midday. The postal union therefore had an opportunity to return to the bargaining table with the employer. One thing we did was to give the parties an opportunity to try and settle this labour dispute. That is what the Minister of Labour has always wanted. These people have to engage in a dialogue; we are not like the Liberals, who just wanted to stay home and allow this negotiation not to take place. That is what matters.
What have we accomplished? I will soon leave here proud to say that we saw things through until the end and did not simply stop because we wanted to go home because July is around the corner. We have worked hard and I want to thank all members on both sides of this House. That is democracy at work, and that is what we have just seen here. The representatives of the people have had an opportunity to express their views on a very important subject.
I want the record to show that taxpayers’ money was not spent needlessly. While chambers of commerce and all manner of organizations are there to protect employers, Canadians need to hear how important it is that workers have a fundamental right to be part of a union that represents them. The government referred to the unions as big bosses.
We shall talk about wages later, in the bill for the collective agreement. This is one of the government’s demands or proposals. How many members would like two different salaries the day they are elected to the House of Commons--one for newcomers and one for those with the most seniority? That is what the government wants now. It wants two wage classes, as if there were two classes of citizens. Are we prepared as members to pass a bill that would give newly elected members a lower salary than members who have been here for 15 years? We would never want to pass such a bill.
So let us respect the workers. The government has this opportunity. Let it at least give an arbitrator the opportunity to make a decision that is not dictated by the Government of Canada, by the Conservatives. Let the workers negotiate their collective agreement with the conciliators or the arbitrator.
Furthermore, the Minister of Labour should remember what her title is. She is the Minister of Labour, not the Minister of Industry. The labour minister is here to represent workers, not to table bills that offer less than the employer offers. The government says it does not interfere in employer-employee negotiations, yet it tables a bill which reduces wages and management's offer. If that is not interference, I wonder what is.
The Conservatives may believe this, but the citizens and workers of our country know that it does not work that way. Certainly they do not believe what the government is telling them, namely that lowering the employer’s offer is in the workers’ best interest and that it is not taking the employer’s side.
With the little changes we are asking, it is to be hoped that the government will have a heart, if only a little heart, for the worker’s lot. In their speeches through all the hours that have passed here since Thursday, not a single time have the Conservatives talked about the workers. They have talked only about other people, not the 45,000 postal workers who deliver our mail. They have never congratulated them. They prefer to say that 33 million Canadians need their mail. If they need their mail, then Canada Post should take the padlocks off the doors.
- MPlibJun 25, 2011 2:35 pm | Quebec, Bourassa
Madam Chair, I wish to say a few words after the night we just had. First, I want to acknowledge and thank all the House and security staff. I think they should be applauded for spending all this time with us. This whole filibuster has wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.
The problem with clause 2 is that we have a bad bill before us and there is also this ideology of the official opposition, which wants to drag things out, even though it knows full well that, given the government's majority, this legislation will inevitably pass.
As for us, we said from the outset that, in accordance with our role, we wanted to propose amendments in a constructive fashion, so as to show that we are able to respect the right of workers, while also respecting the citizens who want to receive their mail. We did not want to drag things on, and our action was not influenced by ideology, whether from the left or the right.
The problem with this whole issue is that I heard the minister say she would rather protect 33 million Canadians than 45,000 workers. However, these workers also happen to be Canadians. It is somewhat strange to try to divide people when we are supposed to find solutions. We could have saved a lot of time if, in the definition of “arbitrator”, the minister had allowed this arbitrator to have full control. Indeed, given his or her experience and expertise, an arbitrator is capable of finding a common ground for both sides.
We could also save a lot of time, knowing full well that the employer made salary proposals but that the bill includes lower salaries. That is totally ridiculous. Our television viewers, who now number more than four or five, will finally see how this whole thing will turn out. I find it rather sad that this House was used to wage a small war between the Conservatives' right-wing ideology and the NDP's left-wing ideology.
If we want to resolve the situation and abide by the Constitution of Canada, we have to be pragmatic. In 1997, I was on the other side of the House, and back-to-work legislation was introduced, but it was after a general strike, not a lockout. And here their slip is showing, since just before that we had Air Canada, and so we have the government's pattern right in front of us: it denies workers their rights, and very certainly, every time we have a little problem, its definition is going to mean that we will have back-to-work legislation.
This is a very sad day today. I hope that on Monday people will remember on both the official opposition side and the government side that a lot of people are going to be ill-served. We could have avoided this entire debate if things had been done properly.
- MP
ndpJun 25, 2011 1:15 pm | Ontario, Algoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMr. Speaker, the postal workers have been locked out. They are trying to be forced back to work. I would like my colleague to comment on that. Has she seen this before? How does she think they feel? This is similar to having a spouse thrown out by the other spouse and the police bringing the spouse back and saying he or she must be allowed to stay in the home.
I know the postal workers had indicated they were prepared to deliver the cheques to seniors and others. Did my colleague see in the legislation that the employers were able to lock them out?
- MP
conJun 25, 2011 1:15 pm | Ontario, CambridgeMr. Speaker, no member was mentioned. It is a public record that last night we had a vote. I urge all viewers across Canada to check it out. The NDP was missing 30% of its caucus. The member opposite--
- MP
conJun 25, 2011 1:15 pm | Ontario, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockCall in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 12 Next »
