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

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do have to make a couple of observations.

The member talked about the nine ways in which these kinds of things can be solved. I will not list them all, but it seems to me that the government has utilized about eight out of nine. The only one that we have not used is a commission. Maybe their answer to everything is a royal commission.

The member talked about solving it quickly. Well, it seems to me that we have been doing this for at least eight months. So I am not sure what his definition of quickly is either.

The member talked about what events like this do to the morale of companies, large and small, or people. What I would suggest it does is it undermines the confidence of companies, it undermines the confidence of business in Canada. It seems to me that in the current situation we are facing, with the economic recovery and so on, what we need most of all is confidence.

I would like to ask my honourable colleague to address the impact of what is going on right now on the confidence of companies, big and small, the confidence of Canadians to know that government, or somebody, is standing up for their future in solving these kinds of things, using eight out of nine of the instruments that the member mentioned. When does this end? We need to move forward. We need to get on with this, because it is having an impact on companies, large and small, and Canadians of all stripes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

There is another thing that has been puzzling me through the debate that is related to the question. Canada Post is a crown corporation. It is supposed to be at arm's length from the government, yet there is this kind of grey area. We are not sure when the government is involved in running Canada Post and when it is not involved.

We have heard that the government has been trying for eight months to strike a settlement to try to get the two parties together. We have not heard much detail on how that has been done.

With regard to the morale of the corporation, Canadians are going to be worried that the government is so quick to move to draconian measures. There would be much more confidence and better morale in Canada Post and in other organizations, in their own organizations where people are working, if the government were not so quick to go to this measure. It might be necessary if this dragged out for years and years, but it seems too quick at this point.

I would suggest another measure.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member's speech. As a professor, he knows all of these issues very well with regard to solutions. In fact, I am sure he knows what I am going to refer to. It is a book I had to read when I was going to do negotiations. It is a Harvard tome called Getting to Yes, which talks about a win-win situation.

I am glad the hon. member talked about solutions, because what I wanted to say is we know that the postal workers want to go back to work if we stop the lockout. Let them go back to work, let them negotiate for a limited period of time with a timeline and then go to mediation or arbitration. What the bill will do is not allow that to happen, because it is going to set complete limits on any arbitrator trying to come up with some way to facilitate an agreement. That is what should stop.

We should make sure that they take away the piece that talks about future collective bargaining agreements for this particular group. If we did that, and if we could go to these Liberal amendments on the table, the government would then have to show that it means what it says and that it really wants a solution and is prepared to bend a bit and to come to a win-win situation.

What does the member think of that?

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

I thank the hon. member for the question. I enjoy being with her in the House here.

My point is that the government has gone to this too quickly. There is still time for negotiation, and it was indeed the crown corporation that locked out the workers. The government does owe it to the workers and the managers of Canada Post to try to work this out. Forcing people back to work this quickly sends a bad signal. We talk about market signals all the time. This is a bad signal to other companies and to other crown corporations that this is going to be the answer to every labour problem: that we will not work through various solutions, we will go right to the hammer.

That is unfortunate, because it does not leave anything in reserve. If you use the hammer all the time, nobody ever sees the feather.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk a little about what is really going on here, about this totally trumped-up lockout. It's not just happenstance that the postal union is the target of such a massive attack. You have to know the history. In the history of this country, postal services, either as a department or as a crown corporation, have always been subject to political authority. No one will make me believe that the director of the Canada Post Corporation imposed a lockout without first getting permission from the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister reacted favourably to this lockout. Then the Prime Minister introduced a special bill, saying that there was a lockout and that he had to act. But if he had not agreed, there would have been no lockout.

This union, which has been in existence since 1911, is exemplary on any number of levels: democratically, socially, and as an institution. When it was part of the public service, it professionalized the public service and made it non-partisan. The members of this union have always delivered quality service. The Canadian postal services have always provided the services expected of them.

Over time, this union negotiated some important improvements, such as salary increases and job security. Then it obtained a pension fund. The first pension funds were perhaps not extraordinary, but at a certain point the union obtained a defined benefit pension plan. It made sure that this defined benefit plan was indexed and that it included survivor benefits. The union even obtained the acceptance of same-sex survivor benefits. As institutions go, the union has a good pension plan. And that is the problem. This issue is at the heart of all of the collective agreement negotiations. Salaries are not the issue, as they have already been settled. The union signed a salary agreement with management. The problem is not compensation, nor is it the normative provisions, as they too have already been agreed upon.

The problem is management’s desire to reconsider the pension system. That is nothing new; it is the same problem as at Air Canada. It is no accident that in both cases there was speedy intervention by the government. In the case of Air Canada, the pension fund deficit is $2.1 billion. If the private entrepreneur that owns Air Canada, which is in fact a speculative venture, is able to reduce that to $500 million, it will have gained a $1.5 billion asset in one fell swoop, with the help of the politicians in this government. That is the problem.

In the case of the postal union, what can it be accused of? Wanting to defend a system that guarantees its retirees that they will not be reduced to poverty? Essentially, they are having a gun held to their head and being asked to agree to be poor when they reach the age of 65. No, they do not agree to that. That is why they have used pressure tactics, to which the Prime Minister responded with a lockout.

If someone here tries to make Canadians believe that the Prime Minister did not authorize the president of a crown corporation to impose a lockout that was going to damage the Canadian economy, I think they have not read the same Constitution as I have. I also think they do not know their Prime Minister. On this side of the House, we know perfectly well that he and he alone makes the important decisions. That is the problem. The Conservatives have got to the point of attacking the largest and oldest Canadian union.

If they succeed, they are going to be able to get their hands on private pension funds. All union funds will become private funds. For the next 35 years alone, that represents $1 trillion in Canada. That is the problem: greed. The people on the side opposite are defending greed. We are not going to allow something as essential to the social and economic life of this country as pension funds to disappear. We will not agree to turn a blind eye to the fact that two or three generations of Canadians will be condemned to poverty when they reach retirement age.

I will also point out to my colleagues that at present, in spite of the economic exploits the Conservatives boast of, the poverty rate in Canada has been rising for five years. That is nothing to brag about.

The people on the side opposite are preparing for another Walkerton. People will remember that little Ontario municipality. The government had assigned the water testing to its friends in private enterprise, who supposedly did everything better and more cheaply. They walked off with the cash and left a mess. If they had only left a mess for the government, no one would have complained, but the problem was that people died because of it. The Conservatives are making exactly the same mistake all over again. This is the same mistake the Americans made not so long ago: giving the public’s money to the private sector. What a great bargain: commissions and bonuses. The devil is in the house and they are the ones who let him in.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start by offering my sincere congratulations to the workers at the Toyota plant in my riding of Cambridge and North Dumfries. The Toyota auto-worker plant has been named the number one automotive plant in the world.

Speaking of the automotive industry, I would like to remind the member it was this Conservative government that put forward an agreement, a package, that saved 52,000 auto worker jobs in Ontario alone. We did not just do it for auto workers, but for the forestry workers, miners, students and seniors. Why? It is because as a government, we are responsible for all Canadians, not just one sector, like the socialist party fighting for the unions.

It is no surprise that the socialist party has been for the unions, but what about the students in the member's riding? What about the seniors who are not getting their cheques? What about the small businesses that will suffer if the members do not agree to this legislation and take the locks off that door now?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only do I know these people, but I can say that the cheques they are receiving do not cover their rent, let alone their groceries. And that is the government's fault because it ignored our budget proposals. A word to the wise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if the government's current attitude reminds him of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. He decided to lock out all of the air traffic controllers in the United States because they were using pressure tactics.

Since the Conservatives have gotten their majority—which was not that long ago, just since May 2—we have come to recognize their ways. We had our suspicions. We were worried. And now it has become reality. We saw it with Air Canada, and now we are seeing it with Canada Post. Special legislation was quickly put in place. It did not take long. We have our suspicions, and I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks, as I do, that with Canada Post, it was a prepared script, which included the threat of special legislation immediately after the lockout. And the special legislation imposes employer-friendly conditions on the workers. It is scandalous.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the country is run by the Prime Minister of Canada, not the head of a crown corporation, it is clear that the 55,000 Canada Post employees were ambushed in an attack that was planned and directed by the Prime Minister's Office.

Unfortunately for them, the more we talk about it, the sooner people will understand that it makes no sense that the Prime Minister imposed a lockout and then brought in special legislation with the excuse that there was a lockout.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is rising on a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a point of debate, but the hon. member has made several insinuations about the Prime Minister. Because I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I know what he is saying is absolutely incorrect. However, if he has any evidence, he should table it. Otherwise, he should withdraw those remarks and apologize to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of this country.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on the same point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see my colleagues over there are probably tired and grumpy after staying up all night. I think they are starting to be a little delusional. I think they just need to calm down and engage in some respectful debate and stop interrupting. It was a very interesting speech, and I find that what I am hearing from across the way is starting to sound rather delusional. I would say, have a little cup of Ovaltine and everything will be fine.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I think we have heard a couple of interventions on this. In all honesty, we need to get on with debate. Members should know that while the point speaks to the substance of the comments, the substance of the comments are part of debate.

I would say that members should recall that they should address their comments to the Chair when they are in the midst of directing their remarks or comments. That is always a good idea.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear last night, when the labour minister was speaking in terms of the Conservatives' little narrative they are trying to set up and their attack on unions and the NDP for defending the rights of people to have pensions, that the labour minister said it was obvious the NDP had a direct line to labour leaders.

I would think that any labour minister with any sense of responsibility would also have a direct line to labour leaders, because if she did she would not have stood up in this House and given us this drivel about how the Conservatives were not taking sides and how they wanted to get people back to work. If she had a direct line to the labour leaders, she would have known that the lockout was engineered, that the workers are ready to go back to work and will be delivering the pension cheques.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the labour minister has no direct line to labour union leaders and so has no idea of what is actually happening in this debate.