This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
Lisa Raitt Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Some hon. members
Nay.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Ms. Denise Savoie in the chair)
The Chair NDP Denise Savoie
Order, please. I would like to open this session of the committee of the whole on Bill C-6 by making a short statement about the proceedings.
This is the first time many hon. members will be participating in a debate like this, and I would like to explain how we are going to proceed.
The rules of debate are as follows.
No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes at a time. Speeches must be strictly relevant to the terms of the clause under consideration. There is no formal period for questions and comments. Members may use their time to speak or to ask questions, and the responses will be counted in the time allotted to that member. Motions do not need a seconder, and members may speak more than once. Finally, members need not be in their own seat to be recognized, just to make my job a little easier.
The committee will now proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill.
Before we begin, I would like to ask those members who have amendments to please bring them to the table.
(On clause 2)
Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Labour
Madam Chair, today I am here to address the committee of the whole regarding the Government of Canada's proposed legislation, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.
Before I start, I would like to sincerely thank my parliamentary secretary, my colleagues and all of our staff for their exemplary efforts. I am once again reminded of how strong a team we are on this side of the House.
This extraordinary bill has been introduced in the House as a result of an unresolved labour dispute between Canada Post and more than 50,000 employees of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers urban operations unit. Now that the work stoppage has continued, regular postal service has ceased. Canadians are turning to Parliament for a solution. That is what I am here to talk about today.
Context is important so that the extraordinary measures in the bill can be better understood. Let me start with three important points.
First, a reliable postal service without interruption is an important part of what keeps our economy running smoothly.
Second, when that service is interrupted, or when the reliability of that service is put into doubt, it does more than just create an inconvenience. Costs are incurred, and they are paid by Canadian families and Canadian businesses.
Third, many months have passed since this labour dispute began and there is no end in sight at which the parties can reach a settlement on their own.
Given these facts, Parliament has an obligation to act and to do so in the best interest of the Canadian economy.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Madam Chair, in your opening statement, you told us that you would strictly apply the rule of relevance. The minister is supposed to be discussing clause 2, but she is just making a general introduction.
The Chair NDP Denise Savoie
I thank the hon. member but, as all hon. members know, clause 2 is quite broad and it can include these types of comments.
Lisa Raitt Conservative Halton, ON
Madam Chair, after so many hours of listening intently to the debates from the other side of the House, I thought it would more than appropriate that members would take the next 10 minutes to understand.
The important part here is that Canada Post is vital to the economy. It is indeed one of Canada's largest corporations. It is a $7.5 billion company, employing some 70,000 people right across Canada. A vast majority of them have union representation. Canadians rely on the services of Canada Post for many reasons.
Canada Post sorts and delivers 11 billion pieces of mail every single year. It remains a vital part of how we stay connected to one another as a country, but it is also important as a business in Canada. It helps companies grow. It plays a key role in how bills gets delivered and paid on time and ensures that parcels reach their destinations.
Canada Post is an integral part of what keeps Canada in business and puts money in the pockets of many citizens. From the small business owners who invoice and get paid via mail to the companies that rely on the mail to issue bills, process orders, and receive payments, this is a service that matters a lot. Similarly, for taxpayers waiting for a tax or HST rebate to arrive or for citizens in rural and northern communities who rely fundamentally on the mail for many of their essential services and communications, Canada Post is a vital service.
For months, Canada has been dealing with uncertainty surrounding postal services. The collective agreement covering the union, the largest bargaining unit at Canada Post, CUPW, expired earlier this year and parties began their talks back in October of 2010.
In spite of there being both conciliation and mediation assistance, an agreement has remained elusive, and as of May 25 the parties acquired the legal right to strike or lock out. That presents a risk not just to mail delivery service but also to the good health of Canada's economy on the whole. That is a risk that Canadians simply do not want, nor is it one that they should have to endure.
The work stoppage at Canada Post is expected to have an immeasurable impact on our economy, resulting in losses of about $9 million to $31 million per week. Every day that means more jobs at risk, more productivity lost, more challenges for businesses, and more uncertainty for consumers.
My third point is that every other avenue has been tried to bring a full and lasting resolution to this dispute. Quite frankly, the time has come for Parliament to do the right thing and intervene. Consider how much has been done over the last eight months by the Canadian Government in order to resolve this dispute.
On October 4, 2010, notice was served by the union on the employer to commence collective bargaining, and they held negotiations from October to November. In January of 2011, the union filed a notice of dispute and asked Labour Canada for help in conciliation, and a conciliation officer was appointed at the end of January.
Through February and March, the conciliation officers met with the parties. On April 1, the conciliation period was extended further to May 3 in order to allow the parties to continue. During that time, the conciliation officer met with the parties.
On May 3 they were released from conciliation and on May 5 a mediator was appointed. Throughout the month of May and into June a mediator from the labour program's Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service met very frequently with the parties. Unfortunately, despite all of these efforts, the parties were unable to come to an agreement. Even as recently as eight o'clock this morning attempts were made to help the parties reach a deal and they bore no fruit. Something needs to be done and that is why we are now acting with this extraordinary measure.
The act itself provides for the resumption and continuation of the mail service by Canada Post. It brings an end to this growing uncertainty that has characterized much of the dispute itself for many months. The act also imposes a four-year contract and new pay rate increases. That will mean a 1.75% increase as of February 1, 2011; 1.5% as of February 2012; 2% as of February 2013; and 2% as of February 2014. It also provides for final offer selection, which is a binding mechanism on all outstanding matters.
Furthermore, and most important, in making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided for specific principles, the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility for both short-term and long-term viability, and competitiveness of the corporation itself. They will maintain the health and safety of its workers and to ensure the sustainability of the pension plan.
The terms and conditions of the employment must also taken into account a solvency ratio in the pension plan that does not decline as a direct result of a new collective agreement and that Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates, operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.
In other words, it is a decisive approach and it is aimed at resolving this labour dispute.
Some may argue that collective bargaining is a process that has to be left to run its course, no matter how long it takes. However, the facts tell us that the parties in this dispute have tried again and again, month after month and no agreement has been reached and, indeed, there is no agreement in sight.
So what is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a solution before we act? Well, we cannot wait until our economy is damaged, until jobs are lost, until businesses and families are actually hurt. Not only is that unreasonable, it is actually unfair to Canadians. They did not ask for the labour dispute and they should not have to pay the price for this and for having it dragged on as long as it has.
Canadians are counting on their government to provide mediation, conciliation assistance, and we did that when the parties were unable to reach a solution. Now it is up to the Government of Canada to act in the best interests of all Canadians and of our country's economy.
As I said before, this is not the Government of Canada's first choice in how we would like to see this labour dispute resolved, but this choice is the necessary one. All members of the House should join me in giving the proposed legislation the support that it deserves.
The Chair NDP Denise Savoie
The exception to the rule of relevance that I cited in the case of the minister's speech applies as we discuss clause 2.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Outremont.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Madam Chair, you will not be surprised to learn that, on our side, we do not share the minister's analysis, but out of respect for your function, we will still try to briefly talk about clause 2, which is the one we are supposed to be studying. At the same time, we would like to review what has happened over the past 72 hours because there is something fundamental about that.
The fundamental principle of acting in good faith underlies all work in matters of the relations between employers and employees.
Let me start with clause 2, which deals with the interpretation of the bill, and I will go in order. It says:
2. (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.
“arbitrator” means the arbitrator appointed under section 8.
We will have the opportunity to go back to this with our colleagues because we have some amendments to make.
Arbitrator means the arbitrator appointed under clause 8. That is a good place to start on our analysis of clause 2 for one good and simple reason. An arbitrator by definition is someone who will use his or her experience and ability to look at what is before him or her and come to a decision that is the fairest under the circumstances, based on all the information that is placed before the arbitrator. Interests of both sides will be taken into account and the fairest decision rendered.
The government across from us will allow no such thing. As we will see when we get to the clause, it is stacking the deck.
The conservative government has absolutely no intention of allowing an arbitrator to work freely and fairly under the rules. I know what I am talking about because twice in the past 72 hours we thought we were on the verge of a negotiated agreement. The minister must be extremely tired, because we heard her say in the past few hours that she never talked to us. The fact is we did talk to each other. I talked to her and my colleagues also talked to her. We did so through her staff and we tried to ensure that what is provided under clause 2(1) concerning the arbitrator would respect the tradition, the rules and the right to collective bargaining between employers and employees.
In recent weeks, similar strategies have been decried, condemned and blocked by the courts. Again this week, a binding ruling was made against the same Conservatives. In that case, the judge went through every section and paragraph and condemned the Conservatives' blatant lack of good faith in a situation very similar to the one with which we are dealing.
Good faith is the basis of all work that gets done in matters of labour relations. This week we had a devastating decision against the Conservative government from the Federal Court, in a fact situation quite similar to the one that presents itself here today. In paragraphs 86 to 92, we realized rather quickly that the government was again repeating the behaviour that was denounced by the Federal Court. This is the basis for labour law. This is the basis for collective negotiations.
As we will see, the bill contains what we call an orphan clause. It would reduce, by 18%, the entry salary and we would wind up discriminating against younger people, because they would be the majority of the new hires. We are told that this is just the way it will be in the world run by the Conservative majority.
In the same way, back in the 1960s, we would have been told, regarding a collective agreement that had one wage scale for men and a lower one for women, that this was just the way it was. One wage scale for older workers and a lower one for younger workers is just the way it is in the Conservative universe. A clause in a collective agreement that said once a woman was expecting a child she would lose her job, 50 years ago, that was just the way it was. Today, the Conservatives are trying to turn back the clock in matters of rights, and that is what we are standing up against.
Staying with our analysis of clause 2, the next definition is of “collective agreement”. It means the collective agreement between the employer and the union. In this case, we give the expiry date of the previous one.
I will state this in French. A collective agreement is supposed to be a convention agreed to by the employer and the union. One can see why they need to be reminded of that, because the bill does not allow any convention or agreement whatsoever. The conditions are being dictated by the government which, as we know, imposed a lockout. The government is preventing employees from returning to work. The Conservative government and Canada Post are working hand in hand to undermine labour relations. We also had proof of that over the past 72 hours. They blame the employees and they attack them after kicking them out. They point the finger at them and tell them there is a problem in that they are refusing to work, therefore making special legislation necessary to force back to work employees who want nothing more than to work. But it is the employer that padlocked the doors.
Let us read the next definition in clause 2:
“employee” means a person employed by the employer and bound by the collective agreement.
That is an interesting notion, being bound by an agreement collectively arrived at between employer and employee. When we respect every clause of the legislation, we withdraw conforming ourselves to the Charter of Rights and the Labour Code. We withdraw part of our work because we are trying to negotiate. The service was not interrupted, except when the employer locked the workers out. That is where the problem started.
The employer is the Canada Post Corporation. I can assure you—and my colleagues and I experienced this during the past few hours—that when we and the union were supposed to be told about the result of negotiations and discussions with Canada Post, there was interference on the part of the government.
There is no distance whatsoever on the part of the government, that is trying to send a message to all public sector unionized workers, if not to all employees in Canada, by telling employers not to worry, that the usual rules don't concern it. They can be suspended as it pleases, it will come forward to adopt new laws to repress the rights of their employees; it will stand up whenever there is an issue, and always in favour of management.
That is the Conservative reality.
“Minister” means the Minister of Labour.
We are talking about the Minister of Labour. The very title is supposed to suggest equality among the parties. Instead, we have a new minister of management.
We have a minister of management.
Everything is in favour of management. Even when her closest associates, who are supposed to be able to represent her, caused things to move forward a little, on behalf of the government, she disavowed the work they had done. Her associates were thrown under the bus. The small steps that we thought had been made have been completely forgotten, set aside by the minister and her government because it was out of the question for the employees to gain anything at all at the end of this exercise. The Conservatives are going to use their majority to try to crush people, but there is a little surprise waiting for them. The message they are putting out has indeed been understood by the workers' movement everywhere in Canada. The government should hear the clock ticking. It is congratulating itself today. Let it rejoice, but I can guarantee that the men and women who work throughout Canada, and those who have been fighting for their rights for generations, have understood what is going on very well. Like us, they are going to stand up to the government every time it tries to use such tactics in the future.
Finally, clause 2 states that the union concerned is the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Union means the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to use the time at my disposal to express our appreciation and congratulations for the honesty, integrity and good faith demonstrated by the entire union team. In recent days, they made every possible effort to come to a negotiated settlement. Their efforts were thwarted by the Conservative government's clear intention to attempt to crush them.
That comment remains relevant in the discussion of clause 2 because the clause and its definitions lay out the approach to labour relations that we can expect in the next four years. In those four years, people all over the country will know that they now have a clear choice. Some people will suppress their rights, even rights recognized in subsection 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as freedom of association, guaranteed by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions that culminated with BC Health Services, Fraser and the decision we had this week. But one political party will stand up for the rights of Canadians and of workers, and that is the New Democratic Party.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Madam Chair, as you indicated from the outset, clause 2 certainly gives one a fairly wide range of topics to touch on.
Over the course of the last number of hours and day this debate has gone on, we have been able to put our concerns with the bill out in the public eye and have articulated the position of the Liberal Party of Canada.
We believe, and have stated from the outset, that the legislation was heavy-handed. We thought the legislation was restrictive and would handcuff an arbitrator to come forward with a more fair and reasonable deal for workers, and we identified that throughout the course of the debate.
After listening intently to what has gone on over the last number of days in the debate, I do not know if there was much more said at 4:15 this morning than was said at 1:10 Friday morning. That is why we had called for amendments early and why we had asked to present amendments early. We articulated our amendments early on in the debate. I felt at that time that, as opposed to this bill as we might be, we all have a basic understanding of mathematics in this caucus and we have a pretty good idea as to what the outcome will be. We would have preferred to have the amendments tabled but we have presented our amendments and we look forward to the chamber ruling on them.