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

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. A number of speakers here are worried that the agenda is much larger than the legislation may suggest. In reply, I would have to say that this may well be evidence of that.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can stand and say that I am a union member because I negotiated collective bargaining agreements for the doctors, so I understand all about this. We were emergency workers so we could not go on strike. We had a difficult time negotiating. I understand the need to have a fair process but I have a suggestion.

We Liberals have been getting up and asking certain questions about coming to solutions, and it is not because we mind the time. I am a doctor. Staying up for 48 hours is not a big deal for me. This is something I have done all my life. I am not worried about the time spent here.

What I am concerned about is that I do not know where we are going. I would like some resolution. For instance, we, as Liberals, would like to support this process. We believe the government's bill is draconian and we agree with the NDP on what they need, but we do not want to hear all the spinning and the rhetoric. We would like to find a solution and we have solutions. I would like to see us get this done.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat what many before me have said. We have put forward the solution, which is to end the lockout.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members of Parliament are saying that some people did not vote to join a union, that they were forced to join. Could the member explain the difference between that and the present situation in the House of Commons where the Conservatives have a majority with only 40% of public support and plans to pass a bill that 60% of Canadians do not want?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is the ongoing dilemma, which is why we are here until the wee hours of the morning. Our responsibility is to oppose the government when we think that it is proposing legislation that goes against the interests of the broader public.

The big issue here is what the public interest is. Is the public interest to protect an employer against the employees? Is it to protect some people who are discouraged at not receiving their mail? Is it the right to a fair wage? What is the public interest? Surely we have a responsibility to think of all people in Canada.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I spent the whole night wondering what I am doing here. Yes, there is Bill C-6, but what is really keeping us here is an ideological barrier, and this barrier is not created only by this side, by a fanatical group of unionists. Personally, I have never been part of a union. Unions defend perfectly legitimate rights. I do not understand why we are discussing this.

When a very sincere young woman stated her point of view with some emotion, I saw some of the members opposite laughing. To me, this is serious. If this were really a serious issue for them, they would not be laughing. If they want to make people laugh, they are already off to a good start. Look at what they did when things were not working at Canada Post: they closed the doors. If the statistics are not good, they eliminate the survey. It is raining in Saskatchewan, so they fire the weatherman. That is the type of logic we are seeing.

I am from Quebec and I should be at home celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, but I believe in one thing. The reason why I ran for a federal party is that I believed that it was possible to do something positive with the rest of Canada. I told myself that, in this great country, there were certainly a sufficient number of people who were interested in doing something positive. However, what I am finding out from seeing the members opposite turning around and talking to each other, is that they are ignoring the members on this side of the House. If they do not want to listen to me, then they should listen to Laurence Cannon, who was the only Conservative member who had anything intelligent to say the night of the most recent election. He realized that his party had become a regional party. If the Conservatives do not know what a regional party is, they need only look in the corner of the other side of the House and they will see two members of regional parties.

There is an expression that says, “He who laughs last laughs best.” They can continue to laugh for four years but things may not seem as funny to them then.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about honouring the process. We have been honouring the process for eight months. We have been trying to get a resolution, encouraging a resolution, offering conciliation and mediation services, but we also on this side of the House believe in honouring all Canadians.

We have a strong mandate to protect Canada's fragile economy by continuing forward with our recovery plan that was voted for by all regions of Canada on May 2.

Canada Post estimates that it is losing $25 million per day during this work stoppage. Since opposition members are not okay with bringing workers back to work through legislation, should we assume then that they are okay with taxpayers covering the cost of the losses of this crown corporation for an undetermined amount of time?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

There is unanimity in this place about the seriousness of the interruption in postal services. We are all suffering because of it. We are waiting for important mail from our constituents, personal bills, and so forth. Some people are waiting for cheques that they need to survive. Everyone agrees that we must find a solution. However, we must agree to reflect on and listen to viewpoints that are different from our own. It is in this way that we will move forward and find solutions.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague why tensions have been rising at the bargaining table. Does he think it is globalization, pension shortfalls or the sluggish economy that have put pressure on employers to cut costs? I wonder whether he thinks these factors will cause lasting problems for unions and, if so, what might be done. I am trying to focus on solutions now and in the future.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we should not reintroduce globalization into this matter.

What is happening is that the government is taking rather radical action that will have very serious repercussions. It must be doing this for a reason, but obviously it will not tell us why. However, it will make excuses. Excuses are made to justify one's actions, whereas reasons are kept hidden until the end. That is the difference.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that these measures against Canada Post workers are part of a broader agenda, an agenda leading to privatization, an agenda that could affect not just Canada Post, but also essential services and other crown corporations in our country?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that some parts of Canada are very right-leaning.

I advise my friends opposite to monitor the situation. Perhaps one day their party may be called the Wildrose Alliance of Conservatives, or something like that.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you might indulge me for one moment, this is my first time rising to speak on a debate, so I would like to thank the good members of my riding of Burnaby—Douglas for electing me to this place. I would also like to thank my family, who supported me all the way through the election, as well as my lovely wife Jeanette, who has been by my side right through and still may be watching me on CPAC from B.C.

I would also, if I could, beg your indulgence for one more moment. My brother-in-law is very ill, and my thoughts are with him tonight. So if I am a little rattled, I am thinking about him.

I found this debate over the course of last night and this morning fascinating. I am not from a union family. I have been a short time in a union. However, to hear the passion that has been spoken on both sides of the House I think is a credit to the House. It is fantastic that we can come to a place like this, that we can express our opinions and debate each other, most of the time in a civil way. I think the decorum that has come to this House is really something we should all be proud of, and I hope we can keep it up, even though we are dog-tired.

As I said, I am not from a union family at all. In fact, my father is a management consultant. He has worked for very large companies, such as IBM, Westinghouse, and a lot of others. My own experience in life has been through private and public sector work.

One thing that is of great concern to me is what events like this do to the morale of large companies, of large organizations. I am very concerned that the tug, the pull, the struggle between the workers and the management is going to cause long-term damage to a very important Canadian institution, whatever the outcome. I hope that comes into the conversation at some point, the long-term impacts this will have.

I am not from a union family. I am not in the private sector. I am in the public sector, a university professor. What I do, essentially, is public policy analysis. That is my thing. So I feel a little over my head when I hear all the terms and phrases, conditions and ideas that are being used here. However, I have learned a lot, thanks to the contributions from both sides of the House.

What I am trying to figure out is what the problem is here. In public policy analysis, what we do is try to identify a problem first, work through a number of options, come up with viable solutions, and then try to implement those solutions.

From what I can see here, the problem that is facing the government, and indeed the whole House, is the problem that workers have been locked out from Canada Post.

This has been a gradual escalation. There have been tensions between the workers and the management. This has gone on for some time. There were rotating strikes. From what I can understand, there was not a full strike. Then the management decided to lock out the workers.

There has been some dispute in the House as to whether it has been a strike or whether it has been a lockout. So just to make sure of my facts, I decided to go through the various news sources to figure out whether it is a strike or a lockout.

I started with my favourite source, which is the National Post business section. It does say, indeed, that this is a lockout, that the employer has indeed locked out the employees.

I went to the business section of The Globe and Mail, and it indeed says it is a lockout as well.

I went to the CTV News website. It says it is a lockout.

I went to CBC News, both radio and television. They are saying it is a lockout.

So from what I can understand, the problem that is facing the government is that a crown corporation, which is at arm's length from the government, has locked out its employees.

I was struggling for a while. I thought maybe it was a strike and maybe the government is portraying the facts as they should be. I thought maybe this is a strike and this is the problem why the government is moving so quickly to force this measure through the House. But indeed it is not a strike. It is a lockout. I think this side of the House has tried to make that point time and time again. I think it is time we should recognize that this is what we are facing here, and that is indeed the core of the problem that is facing both the government and us here on this side of the House.

What we are debating here this morning is Bill C-6, an act to provide for the resumption of postal services, restoring mail delivery. There is a lockout at Canada Post, and the government has decided to force the workers back to work. That is the government's policy solution.

I have been puzzling through the discussions that have been going on in this House. I have been puzzling through the explanations as to why this is occurring, the effects this is having, and trying to decide whether indeed this is the best solution.

In public policy, there are essentially nine instruments that any government can use, or perhaps a combination of these instruments, in any kind of policy situation. They can be put in any kind of order, but how I like to organize them is in order of coercion. I like to organize them in a sense of how much muscle the government has to use to get its will through.

The first thing that—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I realize, members, that there may be a changing of the guard happening at the moment, but there is an awful lot of noise in the chamber. I wonder if we could let the member for Burnaby—Douglas continue with his remarks.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In public policy we have essentially nine instruments that any government can use to solve any policy problem. Sometimes a combination of the instruments is used. I will just walk through these, because it is really what the government should be considering as it goes through any policy problem, including this one.

The first instrument that the other side of the House would probably favour in most circumstances is a market solution. It is the least coercive solution, where the government is hands-off and lets the parties solve things.

The second has a little bit more coercion. It is something called the symbolic gesture. The government might strike a commission to look into the situation, and the commission might make a report that is non-binding. The government is making some kind of expenditure, but it is not binding in any kind of way.

The third is exhortation, or asking people to do things publicly. The government could have asked the two sides to come together and make a solution for the good of Canada. Again, it is expending money, but it is not actually doing anything forceful at this point.

The two next ones would be tax expenditure. The government could kind of give people a break on taxes. I do not think that is applicable in this situation. You could do public spending: you might be able to supplement one of the sides to make up for the problems they are having.

Another instrument might be regulation. Again, that is a non-forceful way of regulating how the two bodies would talk together.

Another solution might be taxation.

Public ownership would be to totally reabsorb Canada Post back into the government.

The last one, of course, is a state of emergency. A state of emergency is perhaps the most draconian thing a government can do. What they can do is basically force parties back to the table in this situation.

What is strange to me is that a government that professes to be non-coercive and professes to say that market solutions are the way forward in most situations in fact has gone to the other end of the scale and used the most coercive measure possible to try to end this lockout.

I am quite puzzled by that. I do not understand why this has been the policy instrument the government has chosen to use in this situation. Perhaps it would have been better to leave the parties to work these things out on their own. Not forcing them back to work would definitely be preferable to the current Bill C-6 that is before us.

In closing, I have enjoyed the debate. I look forward to future debate on this. It is a great pleasure to stand and speak in this House.

Thank you very much.