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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember over the years when the member for Ahuntsic was a member of the Bloc Party, which is not recognized here anymore, she and her colleagues would constantly demand that the federal government become more and more involved in the affairs of Quebec by way of sending more funding for this, more help for that. They wanted the involvement of the federal government. Now the federal government, through this legislation, wants to get involved in a way that will be for the good of all Canadians and end this postal strike. The member cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other.

It is curious. The member said that Canada Post must unlock the doors. Well, if Canada Post were to unlock the doors tomorrow, would the postal workers go back to full delivery and get back to the negotiating table with the promise of no more rotating strikes until an agreement has been worked out? Has the postal union said that it would do that? I have not heard that mentioned at all tonight during the debate.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind my colleague that I am still a Bloc Québécois MP; that has not changed. Second, I would like to remind my colleague that, for many years, the Bloc Québécois always fought against federal government involvement in provincial jurisdictions. When he says that we rose more than once to ask the federal government to intervene, I swear that I do not know what he is talking about.

We are asking that the federal government give Quebec what it is owed, whether it is the $2.2 billion we asked for and received—and hurrah, it was a victory—or the right to also work in French in federal institutions in Quebec. We will continue to put forward demands.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member posed a question to the Bloc Québécois member. He asked her if the postal workers would be prepared to return to work with no more rotating strikes, to deliver the mail and to negotiate a collective agreement.

Does the Bloc Québécois member recall the question I asked the Minister of Labour last week in the House of Commons? I informed the minister that the union had asked for that on one condition, which is in the legislation we are discussing: that Canada Post honour the expired collective agreement and that it restore the drug and disability benefits. If that were put in place, the union would return to the bargaining table and the workers would return to Canada Post offices to deliver the mail to Canadians.

Does the member recall that the question was asked in the House of Commons and that there was the assurance that everyone would return to the bargaining table?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. That is also what the unionized workers were telling me. They are acting in good faith and they are willing to return to the bargaining table. They would like to see the old collective agreement prevail until negotiations on a new one are complete. Unfortunately—and I want to say so in their presence—the government has taken advantage of the lockout by Canada Post to table this special statute. The workers feel insulted by all of this, because they were acting in good faith. Deciding to hold rotating strikes is a right; it is legitimate. People have the right to go on strike. They have the right to organize rotating strikes. However, the Conservatives waited for Canada Post to impose a lockout to do precisely what they are doing today.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time of the morning a few months ago, I would have finished delivering a little over half of my newspapers to my clients. I used to deliver Le Soleil; yes, I was a paperboy before I being elected to the House of Commons. At the time, I had 160 clients. However, I want to point out that today would have been a holiday for me. Delivering newspapers to 160 people, in all kinds of weather, year in, year out, makes me feel particularly qualified to understand the working conditions of our letter carriers. This makes me all the happier to be here in the House, despite the fact that we are celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day today. I have to mention that I am missing the celebrations on the Plains of Abraham, to which I was invited this year.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about unions, about their operating principles and their democratic principles, it is important to put things in their proper perspective and understand what they represent. Regarding the back-to-work legislation and the negotiations around it, there has been a lot of confusion and shortcuts and simplification, if not simplistic speeches made in the House. This prevents us from seeing the real situation for all postal workers, and the impact that the lockout and the threat of forcing workers back to their jobs may have on the Canadian population.

We have to start by understanding clearly that the union bargaining unit represents tens of thousands of people. When we look at an organization the size of the postal employees’ union, we have to understand clearly that these tens of thousands of employees are not all sitting at the bargaining table with management. Quite the opposite. The basic starting principle is several tens of thousands of members who organize locally, who delegate powers to an executive body, which itself delegates powers to higher bodies and then instructs a bargaining committee. This is a basic principle that we see in all kinds of organizations. These are widely accepted principles, operating methods that have been tried and tested, and rules that the postal union members apply and follow today. So there is no reason now to show them no respect by pointing a gun at their head to force them back to work without allowing them to bargain as equals with the management of the corporation.

Unfortunately, as we know, unions have a bad image among a certain segment of the public, among certain groups of people. We might even say certain elites who would like, at all costs, for them to disappear. After all, the freedom to organize and come together to achieve a common goal is a very widespread principle and operating method in our society.

Take the example of a large corporation, a company that is listed on the stock exchange, in which there are a number of shareholders, equivalent to the members of a union who have decided to pursue a common goal, and they delegate certain powers to a board of directors and to the management, to operate the organization I am describing. The difference, with a union, is simply in the details. The goals and the roles within a company are obviously different, but the basic principles are the same, and they are largely adhered to and accepted. I assume they are also largely adhered to and accepted by all members of this House.

We can look at this from another perspective. My late father, whom I talked about yesterday, was a member of a senior citizens’ club. There too, this is an organization with a democratic structure that is composed of its members and delegates certain powers. I remember very well how my father would give us reports at home about internal disputes, disagreements that happened. It is a very healthy sign that an organization is operating democratically when among all the members, people can say that they do not agree with how things are working and they would prefer them to work differently. Unanimity would actually be unhealthy. At its worst, it would be a sign of dictatorship.

We hear in the House that out of several tens of thousands of people, some union members are apparently complaining about the present situation and are almost calling for back to work legislation. I am sure that is so, but I hope someone will be able to produce concrete evidence of it rather than telling us things anonymously and secretly.

I feel I can say that because I have been a member of several democratic organizations. I have held various positions; I was treasurer, chair and secretary. For two years I was chairman of the parents' committee of the Commission scolaire de la Capitale. Somewhat like in the House, sometimes I heard outrageous statements and exaggerations, but I understood that in an emotional debate where the stakes are high and people have different opinions and different interests, sometimes things get out of hand. However, this absolutely does not discredit the union model, whose democratic functioning has been amply demonstrated. No one, absolutely no one, has been able to show the House a shred of evidence that a union structure is not a functional one or does not respect those principles just as well as a large corporation trading on the stock market, or a seniors' organization.

The fact that unionized postal workers gave their negotiating team a mandate to sit down with management in no way constitutes a problem, and it is totally incomprehensible that this government is so obstinately pursuing its efforts to introduce back-to-work legislation. All the more so since there is another principle that is very important to our freedom and to Canadian society, and that is freedom of association. In this debate we are holding right now in the House, these stakes are important for our society, as the decision that will be taken in the House is going to have an impact on our collective future. Indeed, if we deprive unionized postal workers of the right to negotiate, what is the next step? Are we going to deny them the right to associate freely, to defend their interests and to defend the need to deliver collective services?

In summary, it is very important that this bill not be passed, in order, at the very least, to allow our society to maintain forever the right to freedom of association and the right to negotiate. That is fundamental.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to again engage in this debate with the members of the opposition.

It is interesting that the NDP keeps making the case that this is unheard of, that we are breaking new ground. In fact the history of Canada Post indicates that sometimes the government has had to get involved when the parties have not been able to agree.

It is always a last resort. There have been eight months of negotiations. There was more than three months of work with a conciliator and more than a month with a mediator, and they have not been able to come to an agreement.

The last time this happened, in 1997, the then-Liberal government did bring a bill that set in place the wage rates moving forward. This bill has followed that structure. That is what we have done.

We want to bring stability. There are raises and there are protections for the workers. There is an opportunity for them to put forward their position to a mediator who will then select the offer from Canada Post or the workers, one or the other. That is what the government has put in place.

What we want is stability. We want the mail to flow. We do not want more rotating strikes. We do not want more harm to our community. We want to stand up for all 33 million Canadians, including those at Canada Post.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not want to approve of or comment on the past actions of the Liberal government. If the Conservative government chooses to learn a lesson there, that is their business, but I believe that we need to get back to the bargaining table. I would urge the government to stop pointing a gun at the union's head.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I am focusing on solutions.

Recently there have been challenges for organized labour in Canada, with Air Canada, Canada Post. In Greece, there have been demonstrations against cutbacks. In Spain, government officials are meeting to discuss labour reforms.

I am wondering what role the hon. member thinks globalization has to play in the challenges that unions face today and what actions the government might take to address this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

There is an opportunity to be had here and bridges to be built. Various countries around the world have very different practices. Union coverage and membership rates vary greatly. It would be very interesting to take the time to study it, to see what works best and to consequently make a proposal in partnership with the union members themselves.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is recognized that workers have the right to negotiate their labour contracts. Canada's courts have also recognized the workers' right to join with other workers to ensure that their rights and labour contracts are respected.

If draconian measures are imposed on the workers, what will the consequences be when these people want to ensure that their right to negotiate better working conditions is respected?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member.

There will be consequences. It is a question of taking away their right to speak freely, to make demands, to hold talks and to truly join forces for a common goal. We cannot back down on this if we want to keep our society from irreparable harm.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members in the House are tired at this point, but it is our duty to be here to speak on behalf of our constituents regardless of our opinion.

As this is my first moment in the House to be giving a brief speech, I want to thank the constituents of Edmonton--Strathcona for re-electing me and for having the confidence in me to represent their interests in the House.

As have all of my colleagues in the House, I too have received quite a few emails, and some letters too. I do not know if those came by passenger pigeon; I thought those went via the way of the dodo.

As members on both sides of the House have said, our constituents are deeply concerned that they are not receiving their pension cheques, their old age security cheques, their provincial welfare cheques, disability assistance cheques and so forth. We all share that concern.

And we all share the concerns of the various non-governmental organizations that our communities depend on. They depend on government cheques for grants and donations and the campaigns they run in order to gather funding.

I am gratified by some of my constituents who have raised concerns about the impact of the strike on their businesses but nonetheless they have congratulated me on my re-election. They respect my determination and principles, wish me luck and tell me to keep up the great work.

Those are the kinds of constituents I have in Edmonton--Strathcona. They understand that we deal with difficult issues. They understand that there are pushes and pulls between employers, employees and unions. There are those who are not necessarily for unions and would like to strike the unions down.

One of the things that has troubled me in this debate is the suggestion by members on the other side of the House that somehow we are doing something importune by continuing this debate into the wee hours. Let us remember that it is the government that is trying to force this legislation through in a rushed manner. We were forced to resort to mechanisms to represent our constituents and those who are going to be impacted by this repressive legislation.

I too share, with my colleagues from Jonquière—Alma and Scarborough—Rouge River, the concern about the suggestion that we on this side of the House only care about people who work in unions. There is a bit of hypocrisy there. There have been complaints that my fellow caucus members are not speaking to the subject of the legislation. At the same time they accuse us of only representing the interests of union workers. They cannot have it both ways.

As some members have reminded the House, we are talking about legislation that is going to affect the rights and privileges of union members, particularly union members who are postal workers. Therefore it is logical that if members are speaking to the bill then that is what they would address.

In no way does that mean that our members, or any member in the House, do not care about people who work in any place of employment, whether they are sole proprietors, lawyers in a law firm, surgeons or dentists, working in a corner grocery store or a large corporation, or they are miners or farmers. Surely all Canadians have rights and privileges, and we have the responsibility to protect those rights and privileges.

I would remind the House that we are discussing a particular piece of legislation that the government has tabled in the House. By the way, it was at the last minute and just before we were about to adjourn.

I am also deeply troubled by the suggestion that we are either for seniors or for private entrepreneurs, or we are for union workers. Surely our responsibility as elected members is to represent every Canadian equally and to make sure their rights and interests are protected.

I heard a lot of discussion in the House about protecting the rights of various members who run businesses themselves, but I have not heard a lot about the people who are working for those businesses and whether provisions are in place to protect the rights and interests of those workers.

As a number of members on my side of the House have mentioned, it is through the organized labour movement that we have the right to practise what some members in this House call family values.

What are family values? Surely it is the right for people to have time off from employment to spend with their children, with elderly parents, to visit them in their retirement homes, to travel across the country and visit cousins.

That is what these workers are fighting for: the right to have extended time off. It is my understanding that what is being proposed is to limit the time off from work. That does not sound like family values to me.

We have heard in the House over the past week about the reports of rising family debt. Yet, the proposal in the government legislation is to reduce the salary levels below even what the employer was offering. The result down the line is that we will have even more family debt. Surely every Canadian should have the right to a liveable wage.

If we do not ensure that the employers are providing a liveable wage, somewhere down the line the taxpayers will have to supplement that. That is why we fight for a liveable wage. People prefer to work hard and earn that liveable wage. They do not want to have to turn to one order of government or another to supplement them, or to turn to a food bank.

We have heard the discussions by some hon. members that even some of our veterans, who have served valiantly overseas in defending the freedoms of our country or other countries, are now having to turn to food banks. We need to make sure that all workers, our armed forces, RCMP, police officers, postal workers, nurses, have a liveable wage.

It troubles me very deeply. I am getting the sense that some employees should have rights and that some employees do not deserve those rights.

I want to give hon. members a concrete example of where unions have stood up for the kinds of workers that the government has been promoting: temporary foreign workers. In the province I come from there were tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers brought in. Who was looking after their interests? It was the unions that stood up and came to the forefront. They offered free legal assistance to these workers where the governments had dropped the ball.

Both orders of government dropped the ball on that. Who was looking after the interests of workers who were working for private businesses and big corporations? The government was not there for them; it was the unions that stepped up to the plate.

The unions had no interest in protecting foreign workers who could potentially replace their own members' employment, but they fought for proper inspections to ensure the rights of the temporary foreign workers were being respected. That is the value of the unions.

I have never been a member of a union. I have not done union work or labour work in my practice. That does not mean that I do not respect the work of my colleagues. I have great respect for my colleagues who have done this work. It is tough, hard, arduous work to be at those negotiation tables. It is a very valuable role to play, whether one is on the management side or the employee side. I think we should respect the advances that have been made in this country.

I have had the honour and privilege of working overseas in countries where we trade, and these rights and privileges do not exist. These are the kinds of countries where we are exporting products like asbestos. Daily I would go to my work and I would see the workers in bare feet going to construction sites. They were not provided with boots. They had no helmets, no proper clothing, no proper way to wash and no union protections. In fact in most cases, if they tried to unionize, they would be beaten.

We are very fortunate in this country. We are very fortunate that a lot of those who work in the unions have freely been offering their assistance to other nations to make sure they have the same rights and opportunities.

Why is that important? It is very important to an operation, whether it is a mine, a petrochemical industry or an agricultural operation, to have proper working conditions and health and safety. An organization has to maintain a healthy workforce in order to deliver its product.

We should be honouring these workers who are willing to stand up against a major employer. It is not easy to stand up to against a major employer.

I have to say that I find--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The member may know, despite some signals, that she has run out of time.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is not a union member but I appreciate her candour in what she said.

We have heard from a lot of union members and union leaders here tonight. We have heard from the member for Hamilton Centre , who was a union leader of the Canadian Auto Workers. We have heard from the member for Vancouver East, who was a hospital employees' union worker and leader. We have heard from the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who was a trade union representative.

We have heard from several union leaders. We will also hear from another union member because I have been a member of a union for 20 years as a professional educator. We have heard a lot about the democracy of the union and how members get together and vote and choose legislation. I want to challenge some of that. Many people who are members of unions are forced to join the union. To be a professional teacher in the public school system, I had to become a member of a union.

If unions are so democratic, why do they feel the need to force people to join? Who is standing up for the rights of the workers who do not want to join a union but are obliged to do so to work in their profession?