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

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

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.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, to begin with, I will say that the Bloc Québécois has also presented amendments. However, we knew from the outset of this debate that it was tainted for the simple good reason that the government is acting prematurely by introducing this special bill, which is obviously intended to muzzle the union and tie its hands.

The employees had in fact started to use pressure tactics. It must be understood that the pressure tactics were rotating strikes. Never, but never, was the public as a whole penalized, whether in Quebec or in Canada, for the short time the pressure tactics lasted before the lockout.

That is why, in my opinion and the opinion of everyone we have talked to, whether or not they support unions is of no importance. The customers as well, the people who, it seems, were sending a steady stream of email to the Conservatives, told us they had not been affected by the rotating strikes, except when the strike was at their location. But it was no worse than when there is a holiday. We had one recently, and unfortunately we were not able to participate in the festivities for the national holiday. But it is a holiday, which means there is no mail or postal services. The same thing happens when there are rotating strikes. So they could have continued the pressure tactics and, most importantly, the negotiations, without the apprehended disaster happening, the one the Conservatives have told us about throughout this long debate, involving another economic crisis. These were one-day, narrowly targeted strikes, in very different areas, from one day to the next, that lasted only 24 hours

The public as a whole, and the people I have spoken with specifically about this, never blamed the workers for what happened. Obviously it is never pleasant not to receive the cheque you are waiting for, and everyone is aware of that. That is why the government should immediately have taken a mediation approach, not picked up a bazooka to kill a fly. That is the big difference between the Conservatives' approach and the approach adopted by the various opposition parties who have spoken in this House.

From the outset, we knew the outcome that is unfortunately going to come about in a few minutes, after everything that has happened. As was the case for Air Canada, the government is once again acting prematurely. I do not think this was unplanned. It was entirely out of self-interest. What the government wanted is the outcome it is going to have: to come down squarely on the side of Canada Post. The shot has been fired across the bow of virtually everyone who works in the public service: watch out; unfortunately, the Conservatives have a majority.

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

Madam Chair, I note that clause 2 is a little more vague and open to interpretation, and allows for broader issues to be discussed than other clauses, and so I rise to say a few words.

To begin with, as the official opposition critic for labour and workers, I too would like to thank those employees who have worked so hard over the last few days to ensure the smooth running of the democratic process, and for making it possible to debate these issues in the House of Commons. I am referring to the security and restaurant staff, the pages and everyone who has helped us. Singling people out often means forgetting others, which is certainly not my intention. We would sincerely like to thank every employee.

[An hon. member]

No thanks to you.

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

That shows the arrogance of the Conservatives, “no thanks to you”.

I would like to stress the importance of this debate in the House of Comments and thank our new members. I wanted to thank the government for providing us with this forum. It has been a good training ground for new members. They have had an opportunity to deliver speeches and ask questions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

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.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of clause 2 will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

Order, please. As this is a different kind of vote, I should like to read the procedure. I should like to remind the hon. members that the voting will begin with the Chair asking those members who are in favour of the clause to all rise, row by row. As the Clerk counts the members on my right, they will sit down, row by row, followed by those members in the rows to my left.

The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote from the previous recorded vote to this clause, and we will follow that procedure through the rest of the clauses.