Bill C-6 (Historical)

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services

This enactment provides for the resumption and continuation of postal services and imposes a final offer selection process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I completely understand the question and what record the member is referring to. He has made an observation on legal comments by a chief justice, and I am not in a position to take issue with his arguments.

We most certainly do respect the fact that freedom of association is constitutionally enshrined in this country, and we do believe that the freedom of collective bargaining flows from that enshrined right.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a labour lawyer for 16 years and I also read a lot of cases from the Supreme Court of Canada. I would beg to differ with that last comment, that freedom of association does include the right to free collective bargaining.

As a matter of fact, one should read the Supreme Court of Canada case in the HEU decision, where the Government of British Columbia, a Liberal government made up of Conservatives, actually interfered in the collective bargaining process, interfered in a contract and ripped up negotiated settlements. It interfered, much like this government is interfering in the collective bargaining process, by trying to write a collective agreement for the parties and directly interfering in the free collective bargaining process. I would dare say that violates the Supreme Court of Canada dicta that I have read.

I wonder if my friend could comment on that.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the question that the member opposite had asked previously is really more a question of relevance.

In my speech, read from notes as it may have been, I did remind the members opposite that we are in fact here dealing with a lockout and not a strike, raising the relevance in fact of the question.

In response to my colleague who is requesting a comment on this from me, I most certainly do believe that from freedom of association and the Constitution enshrinement of that freedom flows the right to free collective bargaining. Part and parcel of free collective bargaining is the right for workers to withhold their labour, which is in fact the right to strike.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member for Beaches—East York to the House of Commons. I think he did a pretty good job.

The issue this evening is Bill C-6. The fact is that after eight months of negotiation the two parties were not able to come to an agreement. There was a strike that went into a lockout. Canada Post is not providing the services that Canadians want, demand or need. The economic recovery is fragile.

Will the opposition party pass Bill C-6 in a timely manner so that Canadians can get the mail they expect when they expect it?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite refer to the issue of eight months of efforts to resolve the collective agreement. If the member had listened to my speech, he would have heard that it is no surprise to me that the parties were unable to resolve that dispute in light of what has happened here. The very point of my speech was to suggest that under the labour relations regime, free collective bargaining depends on predictability and the predictability of the parties having to solve this dispute among themselves through the labour relations regime.

The intervention of the government into this collective bargaining dispute and previous interventions of governments into labour disputes have removed the predictability of collective bargaining and made it very easy for employers to sit back and wait for governments to act in the fashion that they have done with Bill C-6 before us tonight.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage in debate on this bill and the motion to take some time to consider more fully the implications of this bill. I think six months could be time well spent.

I think, had the government thought a little more about the implications of this action, it would not have gone down the road in such a headstrong fashion to trample on the rights of these workers.

I have heard a few themes throughout the day from members opposite. One of them is about big bad unions. They have talked about unions as if they are the devil incarnate. They have talked about them as if they were just plain bad.

I cannot comprehend this because I am sure there are a lot of women and men in their communities, in their constituencies, who through a democratic vote have decided to participate in a union, who have entered into a workplace where a union has been in place. Those constituents have realized a decent working wage, health benefits and perhaps a pension plan, if they are fortunate to be part of the 30% of Canadian workers who are lucky enough to participate in pensions. In other words, they are people who are benefiting from the rights and opportunities of bargaining collectively, of working together, of coming together to have some control within their workplace over wages, benefits and working conditions.

I do not see why any member of this House would want to argue against that. It is as though because people are in a group somehow that is negative as opposed to its being positive to be individuals. How could that be? That simply does not make any sense.

If members took the time to actually look into what kind of an organization a trade union is, they would actually recognize what I know having been a union member, that a union is one of the more democratic organizations in our society. The leadership is elected, not unlike political parties. Decisions and proper process of how that organization runs are set out in bylaws for all people to see. It inevitably has a constitution, which controls how that organization runs. The finances of the organization are completely public. The decision making within the organization is completely public. It has regular general meetings so that all members of the union can participate in the day-to-day activities of that organization.

Because I have been involved in unions for many years, I know for sure that if one member is not happy with how that organization is being run, he or she comes to a meeting, the second Wednesday of every month or whatever it is that the particular union membership decides is going to be its regular meeting time, and the member has an opportunity to stand on the floor to raise those concerns. That is the way unions operate. When it comes to how the unions spend the dues, how they decide to prepare for bargaining, that is all decided by union members.

It is not unlike some other organizations, like political parties, where not everyone who is a member wants to participate in the day-to-day activities, and sometimes members are not happy with how things happen and they grumble and gripe about the decisions that are made but they are not prepared to take a couple of hours on the Wednesday night to go out and participate in those decisions. That happens. However, the important point is that decisions are made by a majority, just as they are in our elections, and the rest of the members of the group or of the constituency live with those results.

I will not speak for any other party in this chamber but, just like our party, the union does not represent just the people who vote for it or the people who participate in it. The union represents all members because its mandate is to be responsible for and to act responsibly on behalf of all the members of the union, to bargain better wages, better working conditions, and to act constructively on behalf of all members whether they participate or not.

I can understand to some extent, given the way the government has acted, that it may not understand that. What I tend to hear is that the government seems to think that if a particular jurisdiction does not have a Conservative member, then that jurisdiction is not going to get the goodies. If people do not have a government member elected in their particular province, then they are not going to see the kind of spoils of the electoral competition that others would. I would say that is completely wrong and our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has said on many occasions that our responsibility here is to look after the interests of all Canadians, and that is exactly what the NDP caucus has been doing.

That is exactly the role that is played by unions in our society in Canada. It has been for 150 years. Unions have played an important role throughout this country in ensuring we have good social policy. That includes things like our pension, the Canada pension plan; employment insurance; the labour laws that ensure there is a standard work week and that people are not having to work seven days a week, that we do not have child labour, that we have some basic human rights in the workplace, that we have general health and safety, that people are protected and that they have the right to refuse. All of those basic protections that exist in all workplaces have largely resulted from the work by unions, and they have been doing that for 150 years in this country.

Again, I say to members opposite that I urge them not to think so negatively about unions and to recognize that, in fact, they consist of men and women and families who are out there working hard, trying to make their workplace better, trying to ensure they can provide for their families and working every day, tirelessly, to build their communities and make the lives of all Canadians better.

I must say further how concerned I am with a couple of other things that have been repeated by the government. There is this idea that the negotiations have gone on for eight months and that suddenly that is too long. I have been involved in public sector negotiations that have gone on for a couple of years, undoubtedly as a result of problems with both the employer and the union; that have gone on because of circumstances within a given jurisdiction. However, the parties keep negotiating. They keep working away. The parties continue to work to solve problems. Just because it has gone on for a certain period of time and the parties are beginning to apply some pressure to each other does not mean it is time to shut it all down, that we decide time is up and we are going to end this by stepping in. It is also setting a standard that is inappropriate. It is not up to the government to be setting that standard. It is for the parties to decide.

In this instance, we know, if we have been paying any attention at all to the debate and to the interventions by the NDP caucus, the official opposition, that what transpired here is that the parties were having trouble coming to agreement on a number of issues and that the union instigated one of the tools in its toolbox, and it has a number of them. One of the union's tools, the ultimate weapon, is the right to strike. It did not use that, for whatever reason. I think it was largely because the union itself recognized that it was the ultimate weapon and it did not want to shut down postal services in this country completely because it understood that they were at the early stages in negotiations and the parties were still far apart. Therefore, there needed to be some efforts to bring the parties closer together, so the union began to employ tactics that were more subtle and it engaged in slowly rotating strikes.

We have heard from a number of our constituents. We have heard it here. It is in the record. Members opposite have been reading from their toys about communications they have had from their constituents where the constituents said they did not have a problem with the rotating strikes, the strike action that was happening. They did not have a problem with that, but they did have a problem when the crown corporation decided it was going to padlock the doors.

That is when postal services completely ended. That is when the bills and the cheques stopped moving for the small businesses that everybody on the government side seems to talk about. That is when they were shut down, not when the union was employing its tactics. Postal services were shut down when management stepped in and put big padlocks on every single Canada Post workplace in this country. That is when things shut down. We have heard that again and again, so we understand that is what happened.

One would think that the appropriate response to that shutdown would have been to take the padlocks off, open the doors and let the workers go back in and deliver the mail. Would that not have been the solution? Would that not have been the best way to do that?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I would remind all hon. members that when people have the floor they have the floor. Some commentary takes place in this place, but it would appear we are going to be here for a long time so I would ask the co-operation of all members to respect their colleagues.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I did not hear anything coming from the gentleman. I do not mind a little noise. I appreciate that because it is important.

Canadians have told us that the decorum of the House important. I know members of the official opposition are paying close attention to what Canadians said in order to conduct ourselves in that manner.

Let me get back to what I was saying. If Canada Post is causing the problem by having locked all the doors, then we would think someone in the government, the Prime Minister or the minister responsible, would pick up the phone and would tell to the head of the crown corporation, who earns about $650,000 a year, to take the locks off the doors, that we want to get the mail running, that our businesses, our communities, our charities and other organizations are dependent on the mail service.

However, that is not what the government does. I just do not understand. I am from Nova Scotia. We do things in a much more simple way there. We just get it done.

Maybe I am not paying attention. Maybe the government has other motives. I do not know. It is not like me to impugn the motives of the government, but one has to wonder. If the easy solution is to take the locks off, which is pretty simple, then why has the government come in with this big honking sledgehammer, bringing it down on the backs of working people?

Why is the government doing that? Why would we not think that this is just the first group, the first salvo? The government has come forward with legislation which imposes a collective agreement and a wage rate, which is less than the wage negotiated by the parties. It has set conditions for the arbitrator, for the final offer selection, which will have real implications on the solutions that will be found to deal with the issues of the pension.

I read the bill, and I am quite concerned about the parameters that it puts on the kind of solution that could be found for the pension.

Again, the government is setting the parameters and conditions. It is telling the arbitrator, whoever that person might be, how he or she will go about finding the settlement.

Why is the government doing that? I do not know. Whose rights are next? Which organization or which group of people, which group of Canadians is the government going to point its finger at next, deciding it is its turn? That is my concern. That is the concern of working people across the country. It is not only working people, but representatives of other groups that the government does not necessarily support.

Some members opposite and in the corner have asked why the NDP members are talking so much. They want to go home. They have things they want to do this weekend. They want to play some golf. The members of this caucus are going to speak up on behalf of working people. That is why we are doing it.

Two days ago the member for London—Fanshawe brought in the resolution about raising seniors out of poverty. Who stood up in the House and argued for that? It was the NDP.

In the campaign, who talked about affordability issues? Who talked about strengthening and expanding the health care system in our country? Who is trying to reduce the costs of drugs for seniors? It is this opposition party.

That is why we are doing this. We are doing this to speak up on behalf of people who are under attack by the Conservative government.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, which is probably a good thing, but the hon. member opposite indicated that there was a right to strike. Just for the record, I do not believe that is correct. I believe there is a right to bargain and bargain in good faith.

Why are all members of the House here? There seems to be a simple answer. Recent polls indicate that 70% of Canadians support back to work legislation to end this costly, disruptive, crippling work stoppage that is presently going on.

Could the hon. member opposite explain to all members and to all Canadians why his party is not on the same wavelength and in agreement with the Canadians who want Canada Post to get back to work and who want this work stoppage to end? Why do we have all this rhetoric about all the wonderful things the NDP has done? Let us get the right thing done and get people back to work.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to this place, and as I carry out my responsibilities in the House, before I stand to speak about an issue, I do not check to see what the latest pole indicates. I do not check the wind to find out what is going on.

I look into my heart and I ask myself if there are people under attack, or people who do not have a voice or people who are vulnerable. Those are the ones for whom I will speak up.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's statement and I especially appreciated his comments about the democratic principles on which unions are founded. I think this is an extremely important point worth making.

We do not talk enough about the fact that abuse is heaped on unions for truly debatable reasons.The inner workings of a union are completely disregarded.

I would like my colleague to tell us how a union lives up to its democratic principles and how it operates in the same way that companies do when they hold shareholder meetings. They talk about defending a company's right to conduct business, whereas we are defending union rights.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I spent many years as a part of unions, working for them and studying them. It amazes me the process that those organizations go through, oftentimes to the peril of the leadership, but they do these things because they are democratic. People have the opportunity to participate in decisions all the way along.

I appreciate having this opportunity, but the Canadian unions such as the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which represents the workers at Canada Post, are involved in solidarity efforts with its sisters and brothers in the southern hemisphere for workers' rights and human rights for those who live nowhere near Ottawa or Canada. They and their members believe in the principle of solidarity of human rights and protecting working people around the globe.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite, a fellow Nova Scotian. I grew up in a community not unlike his. There were a lot of coal miners and unions and they did a lot of good work.

NDP members have wrapped their arms around working people. I have heard numerous references throughout the debate this evening to working people. I have a very simple question for my colleague from Nova Scotia, who has a fine bit of that maritime lilt and lots of great rhetoric and fiery emotion and passion tonight.

I assure him that there is no ownership in working people in any party in the country. A lot of working people are being affected by this strike, which he will be the first to admit. Small businesses, seniors, individuals count on the mail every day for their very livelihoods and those of their families, to receive EI cheques, something very fundamental to a lot of people in Atlantic Canada.

I very sincerely ask the member opposite this. What does he say to those working people and how long should this dispute have gone on? As a former union member, he has probably been involved in similar situations where these long, protracted disputes cause tremendous hardship on all sides. Eight months is a very long time. We are hearing that a lot of union members themselves are anxious to get back on the job.

How long and what about the working people suffering as a result of the strike?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the minister lives in an important part of the province of Nova Scotia that has a long and proud history, not only of work but of labour relations, trade and so on.

We are not claiming to be the only ones who represent working people. All we are saying is that members should open their ears, talk to their constituents, working people who vote for them such as union members. I know the people who vote for the member opposite. They are union members as well. They have some rights and interests and they are being harmed.

The minister knows I come from a proud small business background in the valley, the Conservative valley, I might add. Therefore, I am very sensitive to the desires and concerns of the small business community. That is why I saying the government should take the padlocks off those doors and let the postal service resume. Get those guys back to work. That is all it has to do. The government locked the doors. Get them back to work.