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

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite astonished to hear that from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I do not recall being as idealistic as the member herself may once have been, to think that there was perfection to be found around us throughout our life, and I would not want to be accused of that. Obviously, we live in a democratic world where people disagree and people have many different degrees of idealism associated with their work.

However, I will say that more good has been brought by unions than just about any institution I can think of, over the last hundred years, in improving the lot of not only their own members but working people in society in general. Unions have brought about a great deal of progress and a greater sense of equality. Unfortunately, the government wants to put that backward instead of bringing it forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the members opposite have refused to explain the merits of Bill C-6.

In the last election campaign, I met one of my constituents with whom I exchanged tweets. He told me that he was disappointed with my position.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the current polarization of the members opposite, who refuse to talk about the dissenting opinions of their voters. They must receive them, just as I do.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear that the government members are picking and choosing things they think will continue to divide Canadians, not things that will bring them together and hopefully see a solution to this particular situation.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here, 43 hours later, because we fundamentally believe that we as people can work together. We believe that if you give people the time and the space they can come to an agreement. They can work things out, they can negotiate, they can see each other's points of view and find the common ground and find a solution. That is what New Democrats are about. We believe people can work things out if given the chance, if given the time.

Instead, what we have is the party opposite that believes in laying blame just on the workers. It believes in dividing, that there is an us and a them. There are these union bosses, or whatever they call them, and then there are the ordinary people, and then there are the Canadians versus the workers.

If we continue to divide people, we just get a society that is not going to be peaceful. We are really, at the end of the day, in it together. We want our young people to have a fair wage when they start working in the post office. They should get the $23, which is the starting wage of previous workers, rather than get $19. That makes sense because young people are just starting this. They want to start a family. They want to maybe save enough to buy a home. They should be given a chance to do so. Let them work it out in their unions.

We also believe that there should be safety in the workplace. It is difficult to carry 35 pounds of mail from time to time and they do get injured. We know that 1 in 10 postal workers are injured on the job. Some are injured very severely. Many are disabled. In fact there have been 6,335 incidents of injuries in the last year.

We also believe, and the workers believe, that they should be given the right when they retire to know precisely how much money they are going to receive, and that it is not determined by the market but determined by how much they have contributed and how long they have worked, so that their lives can be predictable, that when they are ready to retire they will be able to do so with some sense of security. That is not too much to ask for.

What the workers are saying is “Look, give us the 2% or 2.5%; the dollar amount is not huge given that the CEO of Canada Post on average in the last few years has gotten a 4% increase in each year”.

Canada Post would have given them 1.9%, but this legislation says “No, a 1.9% increase is too rich; give them 1.5%”.

We have tried to give the space for people to come together and work together, because fundamentally those are Canadian values. That is what Canadians want us to do. Canadians believe in sharing. They believe in coming together. However, I think this is a first major test for the Conservative Party since the election. It has failed. It has failed miserably in trying to bring people together. It has failed to find common ground, failed to bring labour peace. Instead, what do their members want? They want war. They want warring parties, us and them. They prefer to bully, they prefer to put the workers in a corner, bully them some more and then blame them for not working.

They want to work. They have been saying they want to work. They just need to be allowed to go back to work. That is why we have been saying that this Conservative Party, this government that appointed the board of directors of Canada Post, should pick up the phone, call the CEO, call the board members and say “Bring them back to work”.

Allow them back to work and then they can negotiate and talk some more. No, that is not what the government wants. it just wants to push the workers into a corner, bully them and lower their wages. What a sad, lost opportunity we are witnessing here.

During these 43 hours, there have been negotiations. The unions have been trying to come to an agreement, but that is not what the government or Canada Post wants. They want to impose a solution; they want to tell people what to do. They do not want people to work together. It is about rubbing salt in an open wound. It is about kicking people when they are down. It is definitely not Canadian values, and that is not how Canada should be governed.

Let me read a letter from a young person who lives in my riding. She said:

As a young worker living in Toronto, I struggled to make ends meet. Even though I gave up on my dream of a career in the arts to be “practical”, lived in a dirt-cheap basement apartment that was, frankly, quite terrible and didn't own a vehicle, I was unable to afford both my living expenses and my student loans. As a person with a prestigious degree and a full-time job, I was too embarrassed to look for help and went into default.

It took me a long time to work my way out of the financial mess I built for myself by trying to get the education I thought would help me succeed. Working a second job after you leave your full-time job and living below the poverty line with absolutely no savings isn't something I wish on any young person. I'm thankful we have public healthcare in Canada, or the situation for a young person in the same situation would be even more precarious, and in fact dangerous.

A young worker's basic expenses are not lower than anyone else's. He or she is entering a job market with less experience. Being young, unless you have the fabled “connections”, which most of us don't, means you fight harder to earn a spot in a competitive workforce as an unproven commodity. You are less confident and afraid to rock the boat with your employer, so you are vulnerable to harassment, abusive work conditions and inequality. Who wants to walk away from one of the first or only jobs they've held with the infamous “bad reference”? Who will be believed in a case of conflicting accounts, the experienced manager or a young person who hasn't made it through the trial period?

As a young worker, your time and energy aren't worth any less. Even with equal opportunities, you may find it difficult to gain the trust of many employers who may see the world very differently and place less value on your skills.

It goes on to say:

Let's not fragment our CUPW workforce and tell young workers they have to start the career race from the starting line that is far behind everyone else's. That's just not right. In many ways the postal service is a flagship, and our flagship is going to be flying a black flag for Canada's youth if this legislation passes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently and I have been following the filibuster by New Democrats quite closely.

Earlier the member of Parliament for Vaudreuil-Soulanges tipped the NDP's hand that it will be moving amendments with respect to the wage settlement. The NDP member for Trinity—Spadina, in her intervention just now, is suggesting that 2.5% a year is a fair settlement.

Because the union strikes provoked a lockout rather than a favourable settlement, can the member confirm, one, that the NDP will turn the committee of the whole into a bargaining session with its amendments; two, did the NDP consult with CUPW on the nature of its demands; and three, will the NDP seek a wage settlement of 2.5% a year for four years?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not up to me, nor is it up to members of Parliament across the way, as to what percentage it should be. I am not suggesting any percentage. I am saying that salary ranges should be negotiated between the workers and the management. I am not saying it should be imposed. I do not believe that a salary range should be imposed. It should certainly not be imposed in the way this was done, from the 1.9% that was offered to 1.5%.

If this member cannot justify why they would lower the wages of ordinary workers, I will not even bother trying.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, we have conducted this debate for a number of days now, and I want to read this email into the record. It came from a constituent of mine who wrote me on the first day.

He stated, “I have emailed my comments to many members in the last 36 hours.... That being said, after having watched many hours of the debate since last night, I have to admit that my position has changed tonight.

As a small business owner, I had felt this disruption was not good for business. However, knowing that the government has brought this on by locking workers out and could easily reverse this decision, upsets me. I feel misled about this issue by my government. My mail is tied up by the government. I am disappointed, very disappointed with this Conservative government.

Despite the hardships brought on by this, I can get my business through it. I can't speak for other businesses, but I will manage.

As of this evening, I now believe the government should end the lock out so the mail can move rather than legislating members back to work.”

Does the member agree that this debate is worthwhile and it is changing Canadians' opinions about the nature of this government and its relationship to—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let the workers work. They want to work, so allow them to work. As New Democrats have said, open the doors now. Let the workers in. Let them do their jobs. Let them serve the citizens of Canada and let the mail flow now.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I referred to the incredible amount of misinformation that the NDP has put forward over these last many hours.

In a recent intervention the member for Trinity—Spadina said this legislation would lower salaries and wages. Well, nowhere does it lower salaries and wages. It increases salaries by more than 7% over four years. I know many people who would be happy to have a guaranteed 7% increase. I know of small business owners who would be happy to have that 7% increase guaranteed over four years.

In the 50 hours we have been here, we have heard the same talking points repeated, with so much misinformation. Yet when the vote was held last night, only 70%, or less, of NDP members showed up to vote. Are they really interested in getting them back to work, or are they simply going through the motions of this charade?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the bill in front of me and it is very clear. Maybe the member has not read the bill. It is in front of me, and it talks very specifically about the new collective agreement. It imposes a salary range and it talks about when it would come into force. It would also fine the workers $100,000 for one day if there is an offence. This is a badly written bill.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague did, I too wish to thank you, and all of the speakers, deputy speakers and staff, including the staff on the Hill, for their patience and perseverance in continuing to make sure this democratic process continues and functions. My sincere thanks to you.

Similar to my colleague the member for Trinity—Spadina, who just spoke, I suppose it is my propensity as a lawyer to start with the legislation. I looked up the legislation that gives a mandate to Canada Post. It may be of interest to the House to learn what the statute provides for Canada Post in the way it is charged to deliver the service of providing mail service to Canadians.

How do we view this bill that the government has put forward in light of the legislative mandate to that institution? Under the object section of that legislation, it states in section 5(2):

While maintaining basic customary postal service, the Corporation, in carrying out its objective, shall have regard to...the need to conduct its operations in such manner as will best provide for the security of mail;

In other words, it is to give priority to the continuing functioning of the postal service and ensuring all families, small businesses, large businesses, the House of Commons receive their mail in a timely manner.

Secondly, they must give regard to “the desirability of utilizing the human resources of the Corporation...”, in other words the postal workers, “in a manner that will both attain the objects of the Corporation”, which is to ensure that we all receive timely, effective mail service, “and ensure the commitment and dedication of its employees to the attainment of those objects.”

A reasonable person would interpret that to mean that in establishing the delivery system and its salary bases, and in establishing the rules of operation for the workers, they need to make sure they have well-paid, healthy workers who will continue to deliver the function of Canada Post.

Regrettably the actions of Canada Post in locking out its workers, and the bill before our House, I would suggest go exactly against the purposes and intents of the legislation that Canada Post is operating under.

Clearly Canada Post has the power to open the doors to its institution. Clearly the government has the power to direct Canada Post to unlock the doors and continue the mail service.

Secondly, what has deeply concerned me and many of the members in this House, the public, and the constituents we are hearing from, is the tone set for this debate.

I am used to being vilified personally by some of the members across the way. In the last Parliament I was used to being vilified every time I stood up. The screaming and harassment actually encouraged me to speak out more.

However, what I do not have patience for is the vilification of my constituents, many of whom include postal workers. What I found particularly offensive in this debate is that I heard very few references from the other side about how we value our postal workers, how important they are to the continuation of the economic recovery of this country, and how every family member and every business in this country values those efforts. Towards the end of my remarks I am going to give some examples of the high regard my community holds their postal workers in.

Many have raised concern with the opening remarks by the Minister of Labour about setting the over 40,000 postal workers against Canadians.

I would really appreciate when the minister returns that she take back that remark, apologize, and commend the postal workers for their work by saying that postal workers are also Canadians and that we value their contribution to our society.

There is of course also the vilification of my fellow members of the official opposition, labelling us as communists, and labelling the senior union officers in the postal union as thugs. Only a few moments ago I had the opportunity of meeting two of those people and I could not meet two individuals further from that. I am advised that in the case of a lockout or a strike, they do not receive pay. That is hardly being a thug. They are not benefiting from speaking on behalf of their members.

I have been very disappointed by that language. Generally speaking, the dialogue has been what I would consider the type of dialogue that should occur in the House of Commons, but I found some of the language extremely distasteful, and regrettable for my constituents who have been listening.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The Minister of State for Science and Technology is rising on a point of order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I was waiting for the member to clarify the statement. No member on this side of the House made such a statement.

That was being read and was from a postal worker who called the union bosses thugs and was afraid of pushing for the right for a free vote on the offer. No member of this government used that term.

The member should apologize for yet again misleading the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I think the member's intervention is in fact on a matter of debate, although I think it is clear to hon. members that when this kind of language and these words are attributed to people or groups of people in this manner, it invariably inflames and, in some cases, can create disorder. It is a good idea to stay away from such language.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.