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

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over these past hours I have been listening very carefully to all sides of this debate. It is a very sad day for Canada when we see the suffering that is happening outside of these walls, out on the streets in our cities and rural areas across this nation, because the mail is being held up. Businesses are being hurt. In here, everybody knows, as Canadians know, that the reason this is happening is that the opposition is putting in place every roadblock possible. In fact, one of my constituents called and said, “This is going to be a fine example of what an opposition could do if it ever got into government, and it never will.”

I think we need to be very cautious and start thinking about Canadians. Pass Bill C-6 and do not allow the committee of the whole to go on and on, because Canadians are watching and they are very intelligent. The only thing that has been paid attention to is political agendas from the opposition, not the good of Canadians. I made that statement because Canada is at risk in this economic downturn.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. We of course can select the information we put before the House. Some members chose to put forward those kinds of remarks and I think they are regrettable.

Also, I think the title of the bill now before us for debate is a bit of a misnomer. It is called “An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services”. One would have thought that what the bill was provided for was to unlock the doors of the postal service. Instead, the choice is to continue to point fingers at the postal workers. Of course, we are on a weekend so we do not have postal delivery, but on Monday, the reason why there may or may not be continuation of service is that Canada Post has locked out the workers. I find the naming of the statute rather peculiar.

It also appears to pervert the very role of arbitration, which is to bring together the parties and have a determination made in a fair way and in fairness to both sides. As many colleagues have pointed out, including the colleague who spoke before me, what the government has done is step outside of what has already been negotiated and agreed to in imposing lesser benefits to the workers.

A lot of my colleagues have also raised concerns with the effect of the bill before us, in that it creates a double standard and hypocrisy. In the wake of the $40-billion deficit created by this government, in the wake of the gift of raises to senior staff, and in wake of deeper tax cuts for major corporations, therefore leaving less revenue available to care for seniors and to provide advanced education, affordable housing, and affordable child care, many of these postal worker families are already hard-pressed. What this legislation will do is make sure that the next rung of postal workers will be even more hard-pressed and will join that class of citizens who are in debt.

In many ways, it is a manufactured crisis. We have been following a number of situations throughout North America and across the western world where we in fact have a manufactured crisis. A lot of Canadians are concerned about the manufactured crisis in health care when in fact, if our governments would intervene, we could solve access to health care, access to child care, and equitable access to advanced education.

I just want to share with the members some of the feedback I have received from my constituents. As there is limited time, I will provide one of the most heartwarming stories that was passed on to me.

One of my constituents phoned my constituency office and decried the action taken against the postal workers. She talked about last winter. We had a record snowfall and cold temperatures, and then a huge melt, with ice and major water to walk through, and still those postal workers continued to deliver the mail. She was particularly heartened and almost in tears at the fact that her postal worker kept in touch with a senior neighbour who was not picking up her mail and then managed to get neighbours to intervene. The woman was really ill and they were able to intervene.

We are talking about human beings here. They are not just numbers. They are real people who deliver an incredible service to fellow Canadians. I think that should be kept front and centre in this debate.

[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, I am pleased to have an opportunity--on Thursday afternoon, June 23, 2011, according to the calendar right in front of me--to speak to the House and to Canadians who may be watching.

We do have, I think, an obligation to explain to Canadians why we are here. Why are we here on a Saturday afternoon after two days of debate? The calendar says it is June 23. It is a technicality, because we have been talking since then.

It is important to know why we are still here. We have to understand what this debate is all about. It is called Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. However, it is very much a misnomer. There is no need for legislation to resume and continue postal services. The postal services are run by the government through a crown corporation.

It does not take three days of debate in the House of Commons. It does not take legislation. It does not take the kind of legislation we have here. All it takes is a phone call.

The Prime Minister needs to pick up the phone, phone the CEO of Canada Post Corporation, and say take off the locks. The postal workers want to work and deliver the mail. We do not need to be here to do that.

This legislation must be about something else. What is it about? I think Canadians are wondering what it is about.

It is a Saturday afternoon, and the post is not delivered on Saturdays or Sundays anyway. It will not make a difference if we are here one or two days. We are here trying to solve a problem. However, the government has decided they want to manufacture a crisis for a particular purpose. What is that purpose?

Parts of that purpose can be found in the legislation, but parts of it are coming out in the debate over the last couple of days. We can hear the kind of message that government members and the government itself are trying to send.

The parliamentary secretary for the Prime Minister talks about union bosses and thugs. That is part of their message. Their message is anti-union: oppose the organizations trying to improve the lot of workers. These are “special interests”, supposedly. The Minister of Finance says that is what they are.

Let me speak about some of the special interests of the postal workers. I saw a message from one of our staffers that reminded me that if we think this is just about postal workers, we should think again.

Does anybody in this country think that we should not have maternity leave, for example, or that maternity leave is a bad thing? Where did it come from? The first maternity leave in Canada was negotiated by the postal workers with Canada Post Corporation. It is now the law of the land. Everybody takes it for granted. Where did it come from? It came from workers seeking to improve the rights of women in the workforce through collective bargaining. That is where it came from.

At the time, I am sure members opposite would have voted against it in the House. That was “special interests”: we need legislation to stop this kind of collective bargaining from going on.

That is the kind of attitude we are seeing expressed over here.

I heard a member yesterday get up and read with approval a message from a constituent complaining about how these postal workers are looking for better conditions when they have decent jobs with pensions. She was talking about her grandson, who considered himself lucky to have a job for three days a week.

I feel sorry for a person who believes that. I feel sorry for someone who feels they are lucky to have a job three days a week in a country like Canada, one of the richest countries in the world. I feel sorry for someone who feels that way.

The member opposite is now talking back. The member opposite, instead of saying that he too feels sorry, says that these people, the postal workers, should also feel lucky to have jobs.

I am sorry, but that is not good enough. But that is part of the message the government wants to send to the people of Canada, that they should not expect to improve their lot in life.

The government wants Canada Post Corporation to impose a two-tier system. New hires would be paid less than the people who are already there. New hires would not have the same kind of pension protection as the people who are there. There will then be two groups of workers inside the post office. That is the kind of system that is being encouraged by the government. The minute the post office is closed the government brings in legislation that not only deals with the manufactured crisis like we have but imposes a rate of wages less than what the profitable corporation had on the table.

We have a system of free collective bargaining in this country. We are supposed to have an opportunity for bargaining in good faith by both sides in a collective agreement. Bargaining in good faith means one side puts an offer on the table that it is prepared to abide by and the other side bargains back. It is a democratic process. The postal union has a mandate from 97% of its members to bargain a collective agreement. That is the kind of process that goes on in this particular organization.

A negotiation process was going on. Canada Post Corporation made $280 million in profits last year, which it turned back to taxpayers. It was prepared to put an offer on the table to its employees as part of that process. The government said it would impose a wage less than the one this profitable corporation offered. What is that about? Is that about the resumption of postal services? No. That is about trying to send a message to Canadians telling them not to expect to be part of this country's prosperity, not to seek a wage increase because the government will legislate it down.

One of my colleagues talked about the CEO. The CEO of Canada Post Corporation makes $350,000 a year. Apparently he received a 33% bonus last year. He also has an automatic 4% wage increase every year. There is such a thing as sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander, but what we have instead is the government encouraging an increased wage gap. The wealthy CEOs and the higher ups get their wages increased but the people working at the bottom get their wages decreased. The government will make that gap different in one of the most prosperous countries in the world. That is wrong, but that is the message the government wants to send.

That is what this legislation is about. We are here to fight against it every step of the way.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to speak to this critical issue that is before the House of Commons. Like my colleagues, I have taken my place here to represent my party during this historic debate; however, I found that even when I am not here my TV is on and I am listening with continued interest to this debate.

My New Democratic colleagues have defended with passion the rights of workers. While we are debating back-to-work legislation that impacts on our postal workers, the core of this debate has to do with the government's pro-corporate and anti-worker attitude. The Conservative government initially undermined the collective bargaining process by making it clear early on in the process that it would not hesitate to legislate workers back to work. It brought in legislation when Air Canada was in the midst of negotiating with its workers, and it did so again a week later with Canada Post. This is not about protecting the economy, as they like to pretend, this is about undermining the collective bargaining process and reversing the gains workers have made over the years.

The bill before us is nothing short of an attack on workers. Conservative members may rise and pretend to care about workers. But the truth is Bill C-6 is not about resumption and continuation of postal services, it is really an assault on collective bargaining. No one in this room denies there is an impact on people and businesses, however, the fact that Conservative members insist on denying pension cheques are not being delivered because of the lockout is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.

Do they actually believe Canadians do not know the difference between a rotating strike that ensures critical mail is delivered and a complete lockout by the company? Who are the naive members of this House? My constituents understand the difference. In fact, all northern Ontarians understand the difference. Northern Ontarians have the right perspective on this government's horrible piece of legislation.

As I have noted previously, many generations have made their living as miners. They have been proud members of the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Auto Workers union. I am a proud member of USW Local 6500, having worked at Inco for 34 years. I proudly held many positions in my union. Whether as a shop steward or as a picket captain, I took my responsibilities seriously. Health and safety were foremost in our thoughts because our work was so dangerous, however, these standards came about because the workers organized and pushed the government to introduce health and safety standards.

We know this Conservative government has always had a fundamental dislike for workers' rights because they have always placed corporate profits ahead of decent wages. CUPW has taken a responsible approach. The union believes in a modern postal service that is universal, public, affordable and green, that maintains, improves and expands services and promotes economic growth in our community.

Between 1997 and 2000, Canada Post has recorded over $1.6 billion in net profits. Since 1997, Canada Post has paid over $0.5 billion to the federal government in dividends. Throughout this time Canada Post has been among the most trusted and self-sustaining public institutions in the country. Why? Because postal workers have done their job. They have delivered the mail on time all the time. They have been professional and have worked to keep the public's faith in our public postal service.

Instead of standing up in this House and congratulating the workers for their dedication to public service, we have the Conservative government attacking their rights. Again, I feel that I need to remind my Conservative colleagues across the way that with respect to strikes we have never taken a strike vote lightly.

In 1978 and 1979, my union spent nine months on the picket line. I was married with two young children. The strain on our family was severe, but at no point did my wife complain. At no point did I waver in my determination to fight for our rights. At no point did my brothers and sisters at USW Local 6500 complain. Why? Because management was unwilling to bargain in good faith, which is exactly where we are again today.

I have mentioned before how this legislation is contrary to the International Labour Organization convention. It contravenes the fundamental right of all workers to organize and bargain collectively.

New Democrats believe that this legislation is a clear signal about where the Conservatives intend to take labour relations in this country. Conservative members have refused to acknowledge that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been trying to bring proposals to the bargaining table and address health and safety issues around Canada Post's new sorting machines and delivery methods. And, contrary to the myth being perpetrated by members of the Conservative government, CUPW has also offered proposals for innovation and expansion of the public postal service.

Canada Post's focus on concessions has made it impossible to negotiate. Back-to-work legislation is unjust and unnecessary. It is quite clear to us on this side of the House that the government lacks a true understanding of the impact of wage rollbacks on the economy as a whole. After all, these workers are not sending their wages and pension benefits to banks in the Bahamas or Swiss secret accounts. They are spending that money at businesses in their communities.

Decent wages help the housing sector, the retail sector, the transportation sector, and help create jobs and spur the economy. They also lead to increased tax revenues for the government. It is basic economics.

Northern Ontarians understand the value of good wages. They understand the value of a defined benefit pension plan. They understand because they experienced firsthand how good wages and good pensions benefit their communities.

Canadians across the country are watching this debate. They are watching with great concern how the government is undermining the only process unions have to negotiate fair wages and pensions. This renewed trend by the Conservative government runs contrary to the values of Canadians. It runs contrary to the values of my constituents.

I will be here, alongside my NDP colleagues, fighting for the rights of workers against a government that is blinded by ideology and influenced by corporate donors. This bill is a black eye for Canada, but it is not too late for this legislation to be amended. We just need the government to have an open mind and negotiate in good faith.

I would like to share with the House some of the emails we in the NDP have received supporting our stance and the CUPW workers. I will not read them because there are too many.

If the government was really interested in delivering the mail, all it has to do is unlock the doors. If the doors are unlocked today, the postal workers will be back to work Monday morning and the mail will be delivered, as they have done over and over again.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair earlier when people thanked the Speakers in this place for the duty you are performing for this House. I want to thank you for the many hours you are putting in.

I am rising once again to address the Conservative government's back-to-work legislation. From what I have been hearing from Canadians from coast to coast, they are waking up to what they consider the absolute abuse of power to be found in Bill C-6. The good people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek know me well, and they will tell members that I have a fundamental and profound belief in the rights of all Canadians, rights that are guaranteed by our charter.

Because of my career in the labour movement, in which every post I held for 28 years with the labour movement was unpaid, the rights of workers to be represented by a union of their choice and for free collective bargaining is especially important to me. That is the one and only way Canadian workers can improve their collective well-being.

Before I go further, we have heard all the talk about big labour bosses and whatever. We have never heard Thomas d'Aquino called a big labour employer representative. Why the language thrown at people all the time?

Another fair question to ask would be, just what has Canadians' membership in a union done for them?

Canadian workers have seen advances in health and safety protection. They have seen improvement to their hours of work. They have had their deferred wages invested in workplace pensions, and of course increases to their pay. We had one member talking a moment ago about how there are few pensions in Canada, as if it is a good thing. It is a terrible thing.

One of Canadians' charter rights is to collectively bargain with their employer. In this House, during this debate, the members of the Conservative Party love to throw around what they consider slights: “big labour”, or “big labour bosses”, or “friends of big labour”. They do so with a disdain that can only come from lack of knowledge. I will give you one example. I am sure most of today's non-progressive Conservatives have not only forgotten this but perhaps even their new members may not even know it. It will probably be a surprise to the younger members that one of their own groups of base supporters were the very same people who started the modern-day labour movement.

It happened in 1946 in cities like Hamilton and Windsor. It took the returning veterans from the Second World War who took to the streets of those communities, demanding fair wages and better and safer working conditions. In Hamilton, workers and veterans fought side by side in the streets, even on the waters of Hamilton harbour, for collective bargaining rights and the right to form a union. These were the very same veterans who had fought the Axis powers to a standstill. Then they had to come home and fight corporate Canada, with the same view of protecting their rights and improving the lives of all Canadians, as they had just done overseas. These brave souls were the same people who lived by such creeds as “an injury to one is an injury to all”. These veterans now turned trade unionists lived by the philosophy as well that what they asked for themselves they wished for all.

That philosophical view of how to better their lives and the lives of working Canadians 50 years ago led to a grassroots prairie political party, made up of farmers, clerks, church ministers, and workers of all stripes in the CCF, to come together with those veterans turned trade unionists and other labour activists to form the NDP, a party I have been a proud member of for 35 years. So this government should have little doubt as to why our party, the NDP, will always come down on the side of the working people of Canada.

I mentioned in my opening speech in the hoist motion my history in the Hamilton labour movement and the position my local membership of Bell Canada workers at the CWC chose to vote me into, that took me into the broader Canadian labour movement via the Hamilton and District Labour Council. It was at the Hamilton and District Labour Council in the late 1970s and early 1980s, along with the member for Hamilton Centre, that I learned of the struggle of the 1946 strikers in Hamilton and Windsor.

I heard directly from those old timers of their sense of shame and humiliation upon returning to Canada from defending their country. They could not get decent-paying jobs, nor the respect of employers, until they finally stood up to them in 1946.

My own father worked as a section man on the Canadian National Railway. He was a low-paid labourer, and in New Brunswick in the late 1940s or 1950s, it was a secure position that he valued. I remember well the buttons he used to wear on his cap that showed he had paid up his union dues. He was a member of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers, CBRTGW. It was that union that struck CN in the 1950s to get their workers, and ultimately all Canadians, the 40-hour work week.

One of the phrases that came out of the late 1970s that epitomizes much of the way I look at the world is “Question authority”. In fact, I first noticed that on a bumper sticker on a car of a delegate at the labour council.

Questioning authority has never been more important than it was in the 1970s in northern Ontario. Miners went on strike because of the extremely poor working conditions in their mine. That strike led to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 70. That gave workers the right to do what should be obvious: the right to refuse unsafe work.

Questioning authority is exactly what the NDP has been doing in these long hours of debate. We are questioning the authority of this labour minister and this Prime Minister, because, to be clear, in our view they have overstepped their authority with Bill C-6.

I seriously doubt this will come as much of a surprise to most Canadians, who have seen this “my way or the highway” approach regularly from this government. Particularly, the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservatives already know this government has taken positions on foreign affairs and in other areas that not only surprises them but greatly concerns them. They know the shifts of policy that have taken place have led to a loss of respect for Canada in Europe and much of the rest of the world. Now, in our own country, once heralded around the world as protector of human rights and people's rights, we have the spectacle of the Canadian government prepared to shut down the collective bargaining rights of the workers at Canada Post.

I would suggest that this would lead Canadians to ponder the obvious question: who is next?

For the record, I would like to make an observation. On a recent vote on the NDP hoist motion, our good friends in the Liberal Party of Canada switched sides on that vote and cast their lot with the Conservatives. I am sure there will be a cheer that comes from the other side of the House. The workers of Canada in the last election finally came to understand the fairweather friend the Liberal Party of Canada truly is, and the result was that Canadians significantly reduced the Liberal Party caucus. Older Canadians had known for a long time that the Liberals could not be counted on to go the distance in protecting their rights, because sooner or later they would have to choose between Canadian workers and their Bay Street friends. The history of that choice is very clear.

The NDP, on behalf of Canadian workers from coast to coast, calls on the Conservative government to simply pause to reflect on the fact that they have overstepped in this case. The posties are not your enemy. Canadian workers are not your enemies, so do not treat them as such. Use your position as the Government of Canada to further improve the lives of Canadian workers. Do not trample on their rights. Assume the responsibility of your role as protectors of the Constitution of Canada. Work with the NDP. Amend this bill. Restore the balance to labour relations for Canadian workers and end the lockout. Let us put the workers back to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, one of the Conservatives’ arguments has been that it was necessary to consider the economic stakes associated with the labour dispute at Canada Post. I am in complete agreement with them that this is something very important. What I deplore, on the other hand, is that in the context of the debate they have not taken the time to explain the full details of all the ins and outs of this economic damage. They have been content with generalities, with simply spouting slogans and constantly repeating the same questions. This is deplorable.

I will modestly attempt to put all the economic impacts of Canada Post’s activities and the stakes of this dispute into perspective. First, I must say that I have had a longstanding interest in economics. I have read some classics in the genre and particularly admire the work of the Canadian-born American economist, John Kenneth Galbraith. Mr. Galbraith began his career as a member of President Roosevelt’s team during the depression of the 1930s. He was on the team that created the New Deal, and made his contribution to correcting the problems arising from the Great Depression. Next, he took on certain responsibilities during World War II, and studied the effects of the Allied bombing on the German economy. He also looked into wage and price controls in the context of that conflict. So in the postwar era he was someone with the right experience to develop a highly articulate economic philosophy that could clarify the issues and the ins and outs of the decisions made by our governments, our companies and individuals themselves.

One of the conclusions he reached was that any very large consolidated company has almost total control over both its activities and its prices, and hence over its fate and its future, as is not the case for the small company or the single individual who is at the mercy of economic ups and downs. What is interesting is that it is clear that Canada Post has virtually total control over the price of its products, which are offered to all Canadians. This possibility does not prevent it from offering its products at prices which are very low relative to other countries in the world, even though it is a crown corporation. Clearly, the fact that it is a public, crown-owned corporation is an advantage.

Mr. Galbraith examined the role and the importance of the various economic players. He came to the conclusion that the state, in its interventions, had a place comparable to that of any company. Where he was much more far-sighted was in giving a central place to the human being as an economic player. It must be said that he was not the only expert to come to that conclusion.

Mr. Galbraith then wanted to understand what the effects of the major economic decisions made by the entire population of a country might be. He observed that, for every dollar given back to the wealthiest people in a country or an economic unit, through massive income tax cuts, for example, that dollar was unfortunately not reinvested in the economy. Those people did not need the extra dollar, and so they hoarded it; in other words, they took it out of economic activity, and eventually that can lead to stagnation. On the other hand, when that dollar was given to the middle class, and particularly to the most disadvantaged people in our economy, it was immediately reinvested in the economy, since those people could not hoard it or save it, because they had urgent need of it.

Mr. Galbraith then came to the conclusion that investing in the population was basically the best engine of economic development, as many countries in the world have in fact proved.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, was a professor of moral philosophy, and his magnum opus has been widely quoted virtually everywhere. Unfortunately, it has been quoted wildly incorrectly. All Adam Smith did was observe the cruelty of life in his day. He did not make laws or principles to be applied from that; he simply observed that without safeguards and regulations, unfortunately, human beings were the playthings of the interests of the powerful.

The conclusion he reached was that it was very important to have economic ethics, to guide all the players and, ultimately, the state, should these players fail to behave properly.

It is rather unfortunate to see the ideas of such great men taken hostage to justify ideas and policies that may be harmful to all Canadians.

I am now going to change subjects. Let us come back to the present day and apply the ideas of great Canadians to the subject of current impacts and policies, Bill C-6 being basically one more step, one way of diminishing our quality of life.

Charles Sirois, whom I quoted earlier, said this a few months ago:

We can decide to dig holes in our subsoil and pump out all the natural resources we have. We can decide that this is what will secure the future of our children and grandchildren.

However, in his opinion, the consequences of that choice will be:

Perhaps we will not be in a state of complete poverty, but we will also not be wealthy; that much is obvious. And we will not be part of the movement that can be observed all over the world, where genuine value is created through creativity and innovation, and putting them to use.

I would note that Mr. Sirois is the chairman of the board of directors of CIBC and the former chairman and CEO of Teleglobe, a company with communications systems covering the entire world.

A few days later, Mr. Stephen Jarislowsky, the great Montrealer and renowned investor who founded his business in 1955, was concerned about the boom in company acquisitions in the natural resources sector. He saw nothing logical in this, on the contrary. He compared the situation to the real estate bubble in the United States. The $1300 price tag on an ounce of gold a few months prior was, in his opinion, an unfortunate harbinger of things to come. An ounce of gold now costs almost $1600. At the same time, the TSX plummeted. These were all signs that our economy was shrinking.

All the while, the government claimed that everything was fine and dandy. That attitude is bizarrely reminiscent of the Conservatives in the 2008 campaign. Blinded by their blinkers, they were alone in failing to acknowledge the threat of a looming recession.

A quality postal service is essential to support the creativity and innovation that Mr. Sirois was referring to. As I said earlier, it is vital for the millions of small and medium-sized businesses that rely on these postal services to run their operations.

Bill C-6 is further evidence of the Conservatives weakening our economy and refusing to acknowledge the fundamental role that human beings play in any healthy economy. Standing up for the general working conditions of workers is of paramount importance to ensuring a future for our children and our grandchildren. I make this statement unequivocally, with evidence to back it up.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was reported on the news this morning that this debate has been going on in the House of Commons for close to 50 hours, and that this was a record. I would have liked to see us agree on a settlement after going at it for 50 hours. What has happened between Canada Post and CUPW is a complete failure. When parties are unable to sit down and negotiate and when a dispute results in a strike or lockout, I call that a failure.

As parliamentarians, we have decisions to make. I am aware of what is happening in the world today. Wages are being eroded and small and medium-sized businesses are having problems. I am also well aware of what workers are experiencing. They are the ones whose wages are being eroded and who are living in uncertain times, facing the possibility of a two-tiered system. Our job is to come up with a solution. As our slogan so aptly states “Let's work together”. If every person was willing to give a little, then we would be able to find a solution, instead of imposing legislation that comes down hard on people.

Bill C-6 will impact people's everyday life if adopted by the House. The workers are the ones who will feel the effects. As parliamentarians, we must also think about that. We pass legislation and that is the end of it. However, these workers will have to live with the consequences of this legislation for four years. This bill will help to create an unhealthy climate. No other outcome is possible when a lockout is ordered, when a strike is called or when strikebreakers are called in. I have experienced these situations firsthand and the climate is most unsettling. One can feel the tension in the cafeteria. Disputes arise among workers, harassment occurs, undue pressure is brought to bear, scuffles break out and verbal assaults take place. What will happen next?

The number of workplace accidents will increase, because employees will be angry and will work faster. They will fall and injure themselves. The problem of workplace accidents will then need to be addressed. Workers will file grievances, because they will be dissatisfied and unhappy. More money will be spent and the climate will deteriorate even further. One can imagine what this will mean for managers and for employees forced to work in these conditions. For four years, the situation will be unmanageable, akin to conditions at the Tower of Babel. What can we do to help these people?

As parliamentarians, we have to find a solution to allow the workers to go back to work. We have to work together, democratically, without imposing legislation. We could force the two parties to sit down, negotiate and find a solution. But we are forgetting that even after we have passed a law, life goes on. And so we have to think about the people involved. We cannot get along amongst ourselves, so how can we impose legislation on people who are not getting along either?

And so I am asking that we amend this bill, in order to get the parties to negotiate within a certain period of time, with the help of an arbitrator or a mediator. As I have said before in the House, the workers, the employer and society are going to have to pay the price for sick leave, work accidents, an unhealthy work atmosphere and the grievances that are going to follow in the wake of this. We could even see another conflict break out when the agreement expires in three or four years.

Consequently I am asking the Conservative government to put water in its wine and amend Bill C-6 so that this law is not rammed through, doing damage to everyone and making people angry. I am aware that things aren't going well for anybody. If we want to do this, we can do it together, and if we can't agree, this too will have failed. Bill C-6 will go through, but we will not have solved the problem. Yes, the workers will have returned to work, but we are going to create a whole other set of problems. This is not right, not logical, and not the kind of work we should be doing. Our work is to rally a strong and united country, where people work for good wages and live in decent conditions, with fair pensions.

And insofar as the two classes of workers or the “orphan clauses” are concerned, obviously it is not very pleasant in a factory or an office when one employee has this while another employee has that, and another employee does not have this or that. You can just imagine how difficult that is going to be to manage later. Think about the quarrels and the work atmosphere this could bring about. We have to look at the human side of the equation. I know that there are going to be decreases in salaries, but these people are not cattle. They are workers who pay sales taxes and income taxes and who keep Canada's economy going.

I want to say it and repeat it, and I will beat this drum until the last possible minute in the House: this bill needs to be amended.

We have to come to an agreement and force the two parties to sit down. We need cut-off dates to make sure there is a positive outcome so we can overcome this impasse and so everyone will be a winner—the government, Canada Post and its workers. That is how we will get out of this crisis. We must not create a climate that would be unfavourable for us. People will be up in arms and we will pay dearly for it once again.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn to kill 10 minutes, so I am going to set about doing that.

We are all getting tired of hearing the same questions and answers back and forth. We all know we are engaged in this process to allow the parties to continue to negotiate in the absence of the draconian and heavy-handed imposition of the terms and conditions of their settlement as found in Bill C-6. However, it has been a useful exercise in the sense that over the course of 36 hours, as we get more physically exhausted, members on that side of the House are getting grumpier and are starting to reveal a little more about who they really are and what their real agenda is.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments talking about the future and really that distant future. I am actually a surgeon by training and this bill does not need the three, four or five days of labour; it needs a C-section. We need to move rapidly and ensure that we do things for Canadians and for Canadian businesses today.

Based on a few of my concerns from things that were raised earlier, I wonder whether the members opposite read the Bill C-6 clauses with regard to wage increases as outlined in the bill in clause 15. We are here supporting our strong, stable national majority government and my rural postal workers would like to know whether the member will agree that there are increases outlined in Bill C-6, clause 15.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people in my riding of LaSalle—Émard and tell them how it feels to be away from my riding to discuss issues that are very dear to me. I would imagine that every member in the House feels the same way. I want to repeat how incredibly proud I am to be part of a team that is standing up to protect the fundamental rights of workers.

The legislation put forward by the government, Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, could, in the short term, achieve the goal of getting postal service back on track. But the long-term impacts of passing this legislation are still unknown. The reason the members of the official opposition are so vehemently opposed to this bill is that they believe it will have far-reaching long-term consequences.

What bothers me about this bill is that the conditions of the new collective agreement have been decided in advance. The government is putting shackles not only on the workers, but also on the employer and on the arbitrator who will have to decide the matter. What worries me about this bill are the long-term effects of the conditions being imposed, a concern that has been raised articulately and exhaustively by my colleagues. The conditions being imposed will lead to reduced incomes and a lower standard of living for the middle class. And that includes working conditions and future pension benefits.

In the long term, this measure will jeopardize the economic recovery that is so important to the current government, as well as Canada's future economic stability. Even more troubling is the fact that this lockout and this bill will only serve to poison labour-management relations. These conditions create a two-tier system of new hires versus existing employees, something that goes against the values of fairness that Canadians hold so dear.

Canada Post is part of our daily lives. It is a public service that ensures mail delivery to every community across this beautiful and vast nation of ours. Unfortunately, the lockout and Bill C-6 send mixed messages. The job actions taken by Canada Post management—service interruption on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the lockout—were a draconian response to the rotating strikes initiated previously. The government responded by introducing Bill C-6.

What message is the government sending to Canadians? First of all, they are being subjected to the effects of a lockout, and small and medium-size businesses are suffering financially. Unfortunately, the long-term impact of this government's actions will be the erosion of the very notion of public service. Why do we need public services like Canada Post? Because they provide an affordable service that meets the needs of all Canadians, regardless of where they live across the country, from coast to coast, from the far north to the south.

The Public Service is also a large employer, one that offers interesting working conditions for its employees and provides them with a standard of living such that they can help the country's economy to flourish. It is also important for us to remember that as Members of Parliament, we are part of the Public Service, in that we serve all Canadians, regardless of where they live.

I am disturbed by the fact that this government is trying to turn us into a society where the legitimate right to collective bargaining to secure attractive working conditions will be denied and where collective rights will take a back seat to economic interests.

I am proud to be part of a team that stands united in its opposition to Bill C-6, which threatens the right to freely negotiate a collective agreement.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the members opposite are all in fine form this morning. I am also pleased to see so many ministers here. It is comforting to know that the government truly wants to end this crisis in an honourable way.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say that he went to his riding and that people support him. Oddly enough, I just read in the newspapers that 53% of Quebeckers support the NDP. Our popularity is up again in the polls. With these polling numbers, not a single Conservative member would be elected if there were an election tomorrow.

I am here to defend the rights of postal workers and indeed of all workers. They government wants to dictate the collective agreement for postal workers. The government is not even giving the two parties the chance to negotiate.

It is odd that this government—which wants to redefine the role of government and wants a government that does not intervene as much in public affairs—has used this sledgehammer to meddle in the first labour dispute involving a crown corporation. It did not use this level of intervention to prevent the devastating crisis we were forced to endure because of all kinds of speculators in 2008. The government did not intervene then. But when postal workers want to preserve the gains of past generations, maintain their buying power, it quickly intervenes to keep them in line.

Perhaps the Conservatives are telling themselves that their actions will disrupt the labour movement, that they will scare the postal workers and other workers who are fighting to maintain their buying power. But they are wrong.

I know that many members on the government side hate unions, and they candidly admit it. They do not like our country's labour laws. They do not like the right to freedom of association; they do not like health and safety laws; they do not like minimum wage legislation. I know that some members opposite firmly believe in the invisible hand that guides the economy, the one that pushed us into the 2008 crisis and that is currently pushing countries like Greece, Spain and Iceland towards bankruptcy.

It is up to the general public and us to repair the damage that this hand, insensitive and unqualified to make society more fair, has wrought on the savings of small investors and families. The people are the ones suffering from the financial sector's lust, those small investors who lost $40,000 billion during the crisis. But the government did not intervene then.

Canada Post is telling its young employees that it can no longer ensure that the current pension plan will be available for future generations. That is strange, is it not, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary? Canada Post can no longer guarantee pensions for future generations. Yet, our companies are making record profits year after year. Our banks are making record profits year after year. Canada Post Corporation is also making profits. So why reduce benefits for young workers?

I feel that if we cannot understand the Conservatives' objective, the objective of these ideologues, we cannot understand the situation. It is incomprehensible that a crown corporation making $281 million in profits is asking young workers to accept lower wages and no guarantees in terms of pension plans. Where is the logic in that?

On this side of the House, we believe that pension plans are essential and that all Canadian workers should be able to have a pension plan to help them to live their later years in dignity and get out of poverty. The mere $1.68 a day that this government is offering is not going to help our seniors get out of poverty.

On this side of the House, we do not believe that the unions are too big. On the contrary, we believe that they should continue to grow and that more unions are needed. More unions should be created in our businesses and throughout the world to provide balance and ensure that the wealth that is generated benefits everyone, that it is redistributed.

A recent study showed that the purchasing power of the average Canadian worker increased by $1 a week over the past 25 years. People are not idiots or fools. They know that, today, it takes two salaries to support a small family. Even with those two salaries, they have difficulty buying essential commodities and paying for heating and electricity. Meanwhile, billionaires in Canada and throughout the world are growing richer. It is not normal to live in such a society. Our role, as members of the NDP, is not only to tell the government that we do not agree with Bill C-6 and the hypocritical role that it is playing in this dispute, but also to help all workers maintain and improve their working conditions.

On this side of the House, we do not believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand. We also do not believe that Canada Post negotiated honestly and in good faith. It negotiated in such a way that the government was able to introduce Bill C-6. Coming out of the election, the Conservative Prime Minister said that he was satisfied with the result because, finally, the debate would be clear. For once, I agree with him. It is true. The debate is very, very clear.

On this side of the House, it is clear. The NDP wants postal workers to maintain and improve their purchasing power, working conditions and pension fund, and it wants the young people who are hired by Canada Post to have the same conditions and benefits that have been negotiated over the years.

On this side, we want Canadian workers to have access to job security, and real protection against unemployment and illness. Clearly, our objective is not to produce more billionaires, but to increase the number of families that do not live in poverty. That is our vision for the future of Canada, and each time the government attempts, by various means, as it is doing with Bill C-6, to weaken the work world, we will be there.

Soon, we will have third reading of the bill and we will introduce amendments. I hope that the hours we have just spent here will lead the government, in good conscience, to find an honourable solution to this crisis. Each amendment could be discussed endlessly, but we will be here. We must find a solution to this crisis. I encourage the members opposite to reflect, in good conscience, and to find solutions.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in the debate on Bill C-6. We are now in almost the 39th hour of debate on the bill. There are about 46 hours left before mail service could resume on Monday morning. The government does not have to pass this bill to have that service resume. In fact, Canada Post workers have volunteered to go back today. They could go back within the hour if Canada Post, with the support of the government, would take the locks off postal stations and post offices around the country. We could have our mail resumed and postal workers could go back to work if the locks were taken off. We still have lots of time to encourage the government and Canada Post to do what is right and resume our postal service.

I represent the urban riding of Parkdale—High Park. It is a riding with a lot of small businesses and a lot of seniors. Our community cares a great deal about our postal service. It supports it and understands the importance of it.

There is a postal substation in my riding on Keele Street near where I live. I make a practice of going in there periodically and thanking the people who sort our mail and the people who deliver our mail. I know I speak for our community when I say we appreciate their hard work and their efficient service. We get our mail on time every working day, and they do an excellent job.

We have had some demands in our community. There was the threatened loss of a postal outlet in the junction in my riding. After huge community opposition to the closure of that postal outlet, we were successful in keeping it.

There are some new condo developments in my community. The placement of post boxes seems to be lagging behind the condo development, so people in the condo have to organize and push to get a post box.

People support their postal service. They care about it and they are concerned about it.

Our postal service is a success story. Our postal service has pumped profits and taxes into government coffers for more than 15 years. We have one of the best postal systems in the world. It is good value for money. We pay 59¢ for a letter, which is among the best prices in the industrialized world. Our postal service is fast and efficient.

Canada Post does have a top heavy management structure with 20 VPs, as my colleague from Vancouver has pointed out, who I am sure are generously paid. It also has the best paid CEO among any Canadian crown corporations, who receives huge bonuses.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which represents the people who work at Canada Post, has managed to negotiate, through very hard work, a decent wage for the people who work there. It is not exorbitant. It is in fact the average industrial wage for difficult work. Letter carriers are out in all seasons. We get a taste of that during elections when we go door to door, when we run up and down stairs and are out in all kinds of weather. We get a little taste of what letter carriers face day in and day out every day of the year. They do an excellent job. They make an average wage and they get benefits and pensions.

I have been contacted by many members of my community who expressed concern because Canada Post has locked out its employees and not allowed them to deliver the mail. I have also received a lot of support for the work that their elected representatives across the country are doing to try to pressure Canada Post and the government to resume the postal service.

I want to just read one letter from a constituent. She says:

I am writing to you today with a story about my family.

My aunt Diane works at the post office on Eastern Avenue in Toronto. She's locked out and on the picket line in her pink baseball cap. I called her last week and she explained to me what was happening.

“This isn't for me,” she said. “Myself, I'm looking forward to retirement, but we're sticking up for the future”. She explained the big issues in negotiations that concern her. The top three are an attack on pensions, two-tier wages,

which means lower wages for new hires

and outsourcing sick time.

I should just insert here that in fact because letter carriers are out delivering mail in all kinds of weather, their injury rate is actually quite high. It has one of the higher rates of injury in workplaces in Canada.

Canada Post wants to move from a stable deferred compensation of defined-benefit pension, to the crapshoot of defined-contribution pensions. This puts old people at the mercy of the stock market.

We have seen how reliable that has been for people.

My aunt is also out because of the corporation's efforts to create two-tier wages, with new hires making much less than their co-workers. These are co-workers doing the same jobs, on the same equipment. Says my aunt—“Young people today don't deserve good jobs? Says who? I know how hard it is for you guys to find good full-time work with benefits, and that just isn't right”.

Finally, workers at Canada Post don't want their sick time controlled by an outside insurance company.

I'm proud of my aunt. She sorted social assistance and pension cheques as a volunteer. I'm also very proud of her for sticking up for good jobs for young people. I know she doesn't want to be out on the line in the heat and the rain, but I'm behind her all the way.

So—I know the [Prime Minister's] conservative government talks about family a lot. And what do families do? We look after our elders. We look after our kids. We take care of each other when we're sick. These sound a lot like the issues postal workers are concerned with, like pensions for old people, good jobs for young people, and provisions for sick people to stay home and get better. Frankly..., going after my aunt doesn't seem very family-friendly of our government. Could you please talk to them about that?

Yours...Jody Smith.

I want to thank Ms. Smith for her excellent letter. I am so pleased and proud that she, as a constituent of mine, took the time to write.

I have to ask myself, and it is a question really to the hon. members opposite on the government side: Why would they go after hard-working Canadians like Jody's aunt Diane? Why would they go after hard-working Canadians? What is behind this? Why are they attacking the hard-working Canadians who have built Canada Post to provide such a fine service for our country? Is it because they want to privatize Canada Post? We know in other countries, for example, where the postal service has been privatized it is a very different situation. The mail is much less reliable, but also the jobs are very different. These are not the kinds of jobs I described earlier where people have an average income with benefits. They are usually part-time, independent contractors, which is kind of a way for an employer not to be responsible for any benefits or any injuries if someone gets injured or ill.

I wonder why they would want to undermine the success story that is Canada Post, because they are certainly undermining it by poisoning the labour relations climate. I appeal to the members opposite. Let us work together. We are here. We have all been sent here by our constituents. Let us work together. Let us take the locks off the doors at Canada Post. We have 46 hours that remain before Monday morning. My constituents in Parkdale--High Park, and I believe all Canadians, want to get this great mail service at Canada Post moving again. Let us work together and get it done.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I do take issue with what the member had to say and I want to be very clear. The Minister of Labour and this government are acting in the public's interest on the Canadian economy and for Canadians to get mail delivery restored.

There were a couple of questions that have been raised with respect to Bill C-6. This member raised them and some others throughout the morning have raised them.

With respect to pensions, I encourage the member opposite to take a look at subsection 11(2)(a):

(a) that the solvency ratio of the pension plan must not decline as a direct result of the new collective agreement;

The fact is that this legislation includes guiding principles to provide direction to the arbitrator that the desire of the government is to see that no increase in the unfunded portion of Canada Post's pension plan moves forward. Our government's desire is to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not left with the bill for Canada Post's pension plan.

The second issue I raise, and I ask the members to take a look at, is the wage issue as it has been noted with respect to two-tier wages. Again, I would like the member opposite to explain to me exactly where those two-tier wages are. I do not actually recognize them in this legislation.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, where are we now? That is the question on everyone's mind this morning. What facts have been established thus far? What facts do we agree on?

The first thing we agree on is that Canada Post management decided it did not want to negotiate the renewal of its employees' collective agreement because it felt that the workers' demands would compromise the growth of Canada Post, keep it from reaching targets, harm its competitiveness and derail attempts at streamlining. In the face of this refusal to negotiate, the workers decided to put pressure on their employer, Canada Post. In addition, these pressure tactics, rotating strikes, were not intended to disrupt services offered to customers but simply to disturb Canada Post management's peace of mind.

As in all collective bargaining, pressure tactics are intended to force a compromise, to highlight the importance of employee co-operation to ensure that the company is operating well. And it has been established that the employees' union had more than 9,000 workers on standby to ensure the continuation of essential services. These employees, conscious of the needs of the customers who are dependent on Canada Post's services, did not want to harm the public, neighbours, friends, business owners, family members, etc.

It has been established that the impact felt by Canadians since the start of this dispute was not caused by Canada Post's employees, but by the actions of its management. We have said it often enough that no one can deny it any longer: things started to deteriorate for the public when Canada Post management declared a lockout.

This measure, which is hardly novel, is different because it affects a sector of the public that is dependent on postal services, which have a near-monopoly. It has also been established that the government acted hastily by intervening in this dispute, by appointing itself judge and jury, when there was no indication that the situation was degrading to the point of immobilizing the postal service. Again, there was no indication, before the lockout or before this bill was introduced, that public services would be compromised.

For days the government has been saying that Bill C-6 was necessary. Day and night we have demonstrated, and we will continue to demonstrate, that this is untrue. The government is content to repeat, like a broken record, that the collective agreement expired eight months ago and that the situation could not continue. Do eight months of negotiations, if they can even be called that, really represent a critical delay given that the employer was not even co-operating?

Many examples of past negotiations to renew expired collective agreements show that a delay of eight months is nothing out of the ordinary. In Quebec, we have seen much worse without the government getting involved. Take, for example, Quebecor and the Journal de Montréal dispute. The lockout lasted over a year—not just several months; over a year.

The government claims that the difference is that Canada Post offers an essential service. That argument does not hold water because, and I will say it again, the unionized workers at Canada Post planned to have 9,000 employees available to work and provide services. Unionized City of Montreal employees, police officers, firefighters and other professional bodies offering truly essential services have been negotiating for over a year without a collective agreement. Eight months is not enough; it is not a justification and it does not threaten the delivery of essential services to the public.

Eight months of negotiations do not justify the government's intervention, particularly when the unionized workers have committed to continue providing services. Eight months is not even a significant precedent, never mind a length of time that requires government intervention.

These are the arguments that the government has been presenting for days to convince us to allow Bill C-6 to pass. These arguments do not hold water and the government and the opposition parties both know it.

So what is the truth? What is the justification for this situation? What is the government's plan?

The government is saying that it wants to find solutions. So why does it not tell us the truth, show us its plan and Canada Post's plan, and tell the House today the real goals of this charade?

Is the government allowing this exceptional process that is keeping us in the House for a historically long period simply for ideological reasons, or does the government have a larger motive? I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is not making the Canadian public go through this simply to satisfy its ideology. That would be too sad. But if that is not the reason, then what is?

Since September 2010, there have been discussions in England about the future of the Royal Mail. The government is talking about rationalization and the possibility of privatizing the postal service because it is losing money.

In Germany, 20% of the postal service was privatized in order to pad the coffers of the government corporation that was losing money. In Belgium, postal services were privatized because they did not make the desired profit. In Denmark, postal services were privatized because their performance did not live up to expectations. It was the same thing in Finland. Even Japan is currently considering privatizing its services.

However, Canada Post has generated a profit of $1.7 billion over the past 15 years. Then why are we having this debate today? Why are we taking our cue from countries with services that lost money when not only does Canada Post make attractive profits, but it provides exceptional service for less than what is charged in Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, England, Japan, Australia and the United States? Why are we attacking Canada Post workers when, unlike all the postal services I mentioned, our crown corporation's performance is exceptional?

Should we not instead be thanking and recognizing these employees who make Canada Post successful? Is the real issue the fact that, in this wave of privatization across the globe, Canada Post is one of those rare, profitable public corporations and this makes it very appealing to private investors?

Can the government state today in the House that it is not subjecting Canadians to this ordeal simply to pave the way for the possible sale of Canada Post? Can the government state that it is not doing all this to break the union, lower wages, increase profits and make the product more attractive for private investors?