Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Cape Breton and I have also been listening to the comments coming from the Conservative benches, in particular the Minister of Labour, who somehow managed on three occasions in her speech to misconstrue the entire situation by calling it a strike rather than what it is, which is a lockout. I do not know if that was wilful ignorance or a lack of experience in dealing with these kinds of things. We here on the New Democratic benches have a lot of experience in this.

Is the very reason that we have these labour laws in place not because some time ago when there were many strikes and many disruptions employers asked for some sort of fair negotiating practice alongside working people? To undermine this process takes us back to a time when we had more strikes, more disruption of services and they destabilized the very economy that Conservatives seem to care so much about but do so little about.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when I posed the question to the minister, she referenced the fact that the lockout was triggered by rotating strikes.

There were 25 different places where these strikes took place. It tied up a minimal amount of mail over that period of time. It had limited, if any, impact. It allowed the workers to get their message out.

It was looked upon as if rotating strikes were illegal in this country. We know they are not. They are long accepted. They are a legitimate process. They have been used on a great number of occasions in various labour disputes. It was not a fair assessment to put them in the light that this was a radical tactic that was assumed by the union and that this would throw everything into peril. It was not a fair rendition of exactly what was taking place. It was heavyhanded on the part of Canada Post to come in with a lockout.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso and the House for allowing me to share his time.

First of all, I acknowledge that, from time to time, there may be circumstances when the government and Parliament must intervene to put an end to a strike and force a return to work.

In my time as an MP, I have participated in such debates on a few occasions and have had to vote on the issues. There was mention of 1997, the last time there was a postal strike. That is one case. There was also the strike affecting grain producers in western Canada who were unable to deliver their products.

However, this is not the only means the government can use to help. I will give another example of parliamentary intervention. After the 2008 election, the government was faced with a situation that I will talk about later. The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. A few days later, OC Transpo, Ottawa's public transit company, went on strike. The strike lasted 53 days during the winter. It was very difficult for the people of our city. When Parliament resumed in January 2009, I asked for an emergency debate at the earliest opportunity. The Speaker at the time scheduled a debate for the next day because Parliamentary staff had to be able to make arrangements to return home in the evening.

In the meantime, knowing that there would be a debate in the House the next day, the two parties, which were at serious odds and very far apart in their respective positions, agreed to go to arbitration. The strike was settled.

The government can also intervene by using its moral authority, by debating, as we are doing at present, but not by making threats.

Let me set up the backdrop to this situation. I want to go back to the 2008 election. Those who were here and everyone in Canada will remember that, following the election, the government was supposed to provide a fiscal update. When the government provided the House with the update, it added certain elements that had never been discussed during the election. One of those elements was to suspend the right of public servants to strike. Parliament had recognized that right to strike in the 1960s under the leadership of Lester Pearson. The right to strike has never really been misused in Canada, but it did strike a balance between management and the union's need to assert its rights. Without notice, the government was proposing to suspend public servants' right to strike.

The three opposition parties at the time agreed to say no, and that lead to the prorogation I talked about earlier. The government did not change its mind, at least not at the time.

Here is another factor: a few days ago, an Air Canada union went on strike after an agreement could not be reached. Everyone agreed that Canadians who use Air Canada had not suffered very much because of that strike—as there are other ways to fly other than Air Canada. In less than 24 hours, less than a day after the strike began, the government still tabled back-to-work legislation. The legislation did not have to be considered because an agreement was concluded. That being said, like anyone with a background in labour, I am sure that negotiations are attempted once it becomes known that back-to-work legislation is planned.

The third factor in this backdrop is the current Canada Post situation. Following unsuccessful negotiations and its members' overwhelming vote, the Canada Post union decided to launch a rotating strike that affected local mail delivery. However, the union members and representatives agreed to deliver cheques to those who needed them at all times. They still showed some flexibility.

On June 9, they proposed going back to work if Canada Post agreed to restore the clauses that were in the old collective agreement. But Canada Post did much more than just refuse; it put the locks on the doors and imposed a lockout, while negotiations were still under way. That is unheard of. While the negotiations were still under way, the government showed up with a bill to force workers back to work after a lockout. That makes no sense.

This backdrop is very worrisome for anyone who believes in the legitimacy and legality of the right to strike. We are in a situation where a right has been recognized in this country for decades, a right that has its place, a right that creates problems for the employer whose workers are on strike or for the people who use and need the services in question. There are other considerations, however. There is the essential nature of the service affected, but that is not what we are talking about. I think it is understood that this situation is disruptive to business owners and perhaps charitable organizations. But by its very nature, a strike must cause disruption in order to bring pressure to bear at the bargaining table. That is what the union was trying to do and what Canada Post never wanted. We are all aware that Canada Post has just one shareholder and that is the Crown, in this instance, the majority Conservative government, which acts for the Crown.

This backdrop is very worrisome for anyone who believes in upholding rights that have existed in a nation decade after decade, Parliament after Parliament. That is why—as the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso mentioned—we are going to propose certain amendments; this is a draconian piece of legislation and needs to be less rigid.

As I said, we accept that there may be times when the government can and must take action, but this is not one of them. As the leader of my party noted, the government is wielding a club or a hammer, and is coming at every problem as if it were a nail. This is not the way to resolve problems, this is not how society evolves, and this is not how one shows respect.

I hope that in its desire to take action, the government will take people's rights into consideration. Our record on that score is an honourable one. There have been significant advances in the field of labour rights in this country. The circumstances here are unique, as is the backdrop against which these events are unfolding. We have a government that, when it was in a minority position, talked about suspending the right to strike. We have a union that decided to strike and that was ordered back to work by the government less than 24 hours after walking out. Now, we have a government that tabled back-to-work legislation even while the parties were still at the bargaining table, because the employer locked out all of its employees. I hope that everyone who is listening to these proceedings recognizes that this situation is extremely disturbing.

And, here, I think the government needs to show some flexibility and make some concessions to find a solution, preferably a negotiated settlement. Let us get back to the bargaining table—the union has said it is ready—and ensure that mail gets delivered in the meantime.

To conclude, only once all of the truly genuine, frank and honest attempts have been made and failed, only at that time can we fathom the government returning to Parliament. Nothing is keeping the government from bringing Parliament back this summer. Right now we are being called on to sit for 48 or 72 hours. Instead of doing that, they could ask the union and Canada Post managers to reach a settlement through negotiations and, when that happens, everyone could work with the best deal and in a better environment. But if that is not the case, things could be quite challenging at Canada Post for some time to come.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member and for all members of the opposition about how they are characterizing the debate.

This came to me shortly after I delivered a speech this afternoon. It says:

“I am a letter carrier and so is my spouse. We have four children. Please pass this legislation as soon as possible. This is not what we wanted, not what we expected. We never wanted a strike. We feel that we were deceived and misled by our union about the power given to them with a strike mandate. There have been four more offers from the company since the original offer that we have not been given the opportunity to vote on. A lot of us feel this way, not just my spouse and I”.

How would the member respond to letter carriers who feel they should get back to the job? That is what we are about to do from our government side.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond simply by repeating what I have said before: a strike causes disruption. That is what a strike is meant to do—disrupt things and put pressure on the employer to bargain at the bargaining table. That is why they are used. Not everyone who was asked their opinion was in favour of striking. Only about 90% were. So I imagine that the person who sent the message to the hon. member was part of the group that did not want to strike. I have no problem believing that. It could also be said that a large number of Canadians did not choose this government.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier for his comments. I just read his parliamentarian file, and I see that he has been in Parliament for over 16 years, since 1995. As I am a new member, I would like to benefit from his parliamentary experience. I am certain that he was politically astute before he came here, and I would like to know if he knows of any government that ever acted with so much contempt for workers?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. I began my speech by saying that I recognize there can be circumstances in which the government must in fact take action. As a member of Parliament, I have been called upon on several occasions to vote on this type of bill. I mentioned the situation that occurred in 1997. However, the current situation and that of 1997 are not really comparable. So, to answer the hon. member's question, I would say that I do not believe that other governments have behaved in this manner. I am not talking about the 1800s, but in modern times I do not believe that there has been a government that created or tried to create a situation so worrisome to Canada's workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and I remind the member that there were eight months of negotiations. The Minister of Labour made every effort to bring the two parties together.

The member referred to the rotating strikes, which effectively had a devastating impact on Canada Post and the company responded with a lockout. The two parties are clearly not coming together and they are not going to come to an agreement.

The major stakeholder is not the union, it is not management; it is the people of Canada, it is the economy of Canada and it is the families of Canada. This situation has to come to an end.

Why will this member not support the government's back to work legislation?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can repeat the same gibberish as much as he likes but it does not change the way things really are. I said what I said and I believe it to be true. Just because the government is telling people stories and saying it has done everything it can to resolve the situation does not mean that people are going to believe it. This is what the government is doing, through its bill: it is supporting a lockout. That has never been done and we should not support such a measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition provide his remarks on this legislation. I have a lot of respect for him. I actually agree with many of the sentiments he expressed, although I disagree with some of the specifics about which he also talked.

Notwithstanding some of the perhaps intellectually disingenuous conclusions and analogies made in parts of his speech, his speech underscored that as Canadians, regardless if we are members of the NDP, the Conservatives, Liberals or whichever party, there is much more that brings us together and unites us than divides us.

Today we are discussing Bill C-6. The bill is intended to bring together Canadians in the united cause of getting their mail service back. I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services in Canada.

Our government believes that parties of all labour disputes should be allowed to find their own solutions. Most of the time this happens. Our government does not take back to work legislation lightly. Back to work legislation is a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted. Unfortunately, the two parties have not been able to reach an agreement, despite being at the negotiating table since last October.

This is not the first time Canadian citizens and businesses have had to suffer the effects of a work stoppage involving postal services. In fact, I remind my colleagues that in 1997, back to work legislation was used to resolve a dispute at Canada Post. This legislation also included guiding principles and wage rates.

Our government does everything possible to help the parties in a labour dispute resolve their differences without a work stoppage. However, I will spend a few minutes reviewing the impact of Canada's postal system on our country's business sector.

When people consider the importance of Canada Post, they often think in terms of individual Canadians, as they should. Canada Post is an iconic Canadian corporation. It unites Canadians from coast to coast to coast, whether urban or rural, in houses, condos or apartments. Be it families, seniors, students, kids or their grandparents, Canada Post is a uniting force in our country.

Canada Post also has a significant number of businesses that it affects in various industries across the country that rely on traditional mail services to fulfill their commercial undertakings and achieve profitable results.

Although Canadian businesses are recovering from the setbacks faced in the 2008 recession, we are still in a fragile state. We only need to look around the world to see how fragile the situation is. Though Canada has exited the economic downturn stronger and faster than most of our companions in our—

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could confirm for me whether quorum is present in the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see quorum. We will let the Minister of State for Transport continue.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not fault the NDP member for having a problem with the numbers. That is not uncommon with the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The Minister of State is in the middle of his speech and I would ask that the chamber at least stop the additional noise and we will allow the Minister of State to continue.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are more interruptions than there are members in the House, perhaps. However—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the government stayed in the House, there would be enough people and we would not have to call for a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I do not know that this is a point of order, but we will take that in stride.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member across the way indicated there were no Liberals in the House. I can assure the member that there were at least two Liberals, which is just as many as there were New Democrats. It is not that difficult to count.

To have a quorum, is it just a quick count, or is there a need to identify the members who are present when a quorum is called?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is really not a point of order, but to answer the member's question for the benefit of other members, there needs to be 20 members present in the chamber to maintain quorum.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one Liberal member is half as many as there were in Manitoba before the last federal election. I think the hon. member will appreciate the significance of the number one.

It is a very serious issue when Canada Post has a work stoppage. There are, as I was saying, many iconic images about Canada Post and how it affects individuals. I want to take a moment, though, to reflect on the effect that Canada Post has on businesses.

Many industries still rely on traditional mail service to fulfill their commercial undertakings and to achieve profitable results. Although Canadian businesses are recovering from setbacks in the last recession, we only need to look around the world at the various challenges other countries are having such as sovereign debt crises, be it geopolitical. Many things could cause Canada a lot of grief.

Let us not create challenges within our own country. This is what we are trying to avoid when we bring forward back to work legislation. Our goal is to help Canadians achieve their full potential monetarily, individually and personally. As a result of the demands of the new world economy and efficiencies, Canada Post Corporation is implementing a major infrastructure renewal program.

The member for Winnipeg North, who intervened earlier, will know that one of these great new facilities is in Winnipeg, on the boundary of our ridings. These infrastructure renewal programs help Canada Post achieve efficiencies and become more competitive.

Infrastructure renewal projects are expected to bring around changes that will improve the corporation's efficiencies and its flexibility. The government expects that these changes will also result in benefits for Canadian businesses through more expedient mail delivery, as well as new types of services.

Businesses, especially small business, will continue to rely on traditional mail as an important channel of communication, marketing and delivery of parcels. In fact, Canadian mailers can depend on Canada Post to account for more than 500,000 jobs and Canada Post is the largest enabler of remote trade and commerce in the Canadian economy. Although parcels can be delivered by private courier companies, Canada Post is often engaged to provide the last-mile delivery outside the Montreal-Windsor corridor and other major urban centres.

The number of Canadian businesses that customers of Canada Post rely on is impressive. The corporation has reported that it has about 100,000 commercial customers, over 5,000 of which do more than $50,000 worth of business over a 12-month period, a statistic that clearly demonstrates the importance of Canada Post to small business and the corporate situation in Canada.

Canada Post has 60% of the market share of the business-to-customer market among businesses of less than 10 employees. This work stoppage is hurting these small businesses. In fact, a local small businessman in my riding contacted me today, requesting that this legislation be passed immediately because it is damaging his business.

As much as the postal service is important to businesses, it is equally, if not more, important to Canada's charitable sector. National charities like the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Alzheimer Society, just to name a few, rely on mail to receive more than $1 billion in donations each year.

The current work stoppage is having a material effect on this important segment of Canada's society because 25% of all fundraising is received in late spring or early summer.

We cannot let this interruption of businesses and charities continue.

Many businesses are turning to alternative modes of communication as a result of the present work stoppage. However, there are some for which there is no alternative. There are small businesses without the ability or technology to conduct their business online. Some small businesses are using other courier companies to deliver their packages but are finding that they have to pay more than when they used Canada Post. This is also affecting the corporation's own profitability and competitiveness.

Most small businesses and charities still rely on Canada Post for billing purposes and fundraising. This work stoppage is drying up their cashflow. These additional costs are hurting our own small businesses which, in turn, hurts the Canadian economy.

In short, mail is an important enabler of Canadian commerce and it is now being threatened by this work stoppage.

At this point, there is no one in this chamber who would not have preferred that Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers had negotiated a collective agreement that each was comfortable with. But we must face facts: They are not able to resolve their differences. The impact on our country is mounting. Now the government must act. It must legislate the parties back to work. They cannot reach a negotiated agreement, so an arbitrator will be chosen for them.

As I said, there is a mounting impact on Canadian businesses, individuals and governments due to this mail stoppage. I am also concerned about the impact this will have on Canadian taxpayers.

First, the threat of strike action and the reality of rotating strikes raised significant uncertainty about the mail delivery in Canada, and now the situation is affecting individuals and every Canadian family. Couples wonder when their wedding invitations will make it to their loved ones. Grandmothers cannot send birthday greetings to their grandchildren. Students are waiting for course material and university acceptances. Canadians and their families want to share in the Canada Post experience. We all remember getting that handwritten letter from a loved one or that first letter from an employer or that first paycheque after a long couple of weeks of work.

The advancement of telecommunications has caused Canada Post to lose letter volume. This is true for postal services throughout the world. The combined loss of mail volume and growth of Canadian communities causes a great burden for Canada Post. There have been 200,000 new addresses added each year. Direct mail delivery has become more costly as a result. Add to that the mail customers that will never return to Canada Post as a result of this mail stoppage. I worry about Canada Post's ability to remain in the black.

Parliament established expectations for Canada Post through the Canada Post Corporation Act and the Financial Administration Act. Canada Post is to provide universal service at affordable rates while remaining financially self-sustaining. It is expected to earn a return on equity, to pay a dividend and to operate without reliance on government appropriations.

We are in a situation that is very serious. Canada Post is unable to deliver the mail. We can look at the months of negotiations and the tireless efforts of the labour minister to bring the two parties together. We can also look at individual families from coast to coast to coast, urban and rural, apartment dwellers, condo dwellers and homeowners. We can look at every corner of Canadian society. When we do, we see that Canada Post plays a role.

Our economy is in a fragile state of recovery. Canada Post's involvement in the Canadian economy involves hundreds of thousands of individuals and companies, and billions of dollars in transactions. The situation at Canada Post is unsustainable. The government must act in a timely and thorough manner. It is not the preferred course. Back to work legislation is the last resort but at this point it is the only resort.

I call on all members to stand up, not for Canada Post or the Canadian Union of Public Workers, but to stand up for Canadians so that Canadians can get their mail. The back to work legislation would allow that to happen and it would allow Canada to fight a good fight in the world economy and allow for economic recovery.

Together we can make this happen and we need to do it in a timely manner.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about the serious situation. He talked Canada Post being profitable. We know it is profitable and it will be even more profitable. Given the technological changes that are going through, it will have a profit of an additional $250 million.

How serious is it that we are dealing with this issue today? It is very serious. I have a colleague from Newton—North Delta who will actually forego her 40th wedding anniversary and her husband's 60th birthday. I have another colleague who will be thanking all of her volunteers on this issue,. I can say that this it is very serious.

The minister talked about the economy. I have an email from a constituent of mine. Basically she talked about the economy, because she has not been able to get her vulnerable persons cheque from the RCMP, and she applied in March 2011. She is about to lose everything she owns. Why is the economy not important on this issue but only on the issues that the government wants it to be, like taking the rights away from workers?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the preamble to the member's question, I point out that Canada Post has assets of $7 billion or $8 billion, in that range. It is in the black, and the range, I think the member suggested a higher number than it actually is, but even if we used the member's numbers, the return on investment is not a very high number by any stretch of the imagination, and anything that is in the black at present is being reinvested in appropriations in the infrastructure that I have talked about.

That is now all in jeopardy because of this work stoppage. Canada Post has lost over $100 million since these rotating strikes began. Canada Post is in a very serious situation. The future of Canada Post is in jeopardy and that makes it very difficult for the very people who that member claims to support. If the NDP were really genuine about that situation, it would support the government's back to work legislation. It is very simple.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister said that this was a work stoppage. Many of his caucus colleagues prefer to call it strike. The reality is that it is actually neither in the sense that it is a lockout, and there is a significant difference.

I believe that cabinet was aware of the lockout that Canada Post was putting into place. Does he believe that Canada Post did not tell the government about putting into place a lockout? Was the cabinet aware before Canada Post put it into place?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all crown corporations are am's-length from government. They are run by a board of directors. They have a management team. The management team makes decisions regarding the day to day operations of any corporation. The government does not get involved. As minister responsible for Canada Post, I do not get involved in the day to day operations of the corporation.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's speech and found him to be very reasonable and very convincing.

What I find very unreasonable is the NDP turning its backs on the tens of millions of Canadians across the country who are not at the bargaining table but who are suffering material damage because of this strike.

I do remind members of the NDP that these are the Canadians who elected them and yet they are turning their backs on them tonight.

I would ask the minister to please comment on this.