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 Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of State for Science and Technology, I know exactly what I said. The member was not here, so I can forgive him for misquoting me. I will give the member the opportunity to stand up and apologize for again misleading Canadians. That is not what I said.

I said that this government has helped the automotive sector, as well as the forestry sector, as well as mining, as well as seniors and students. We did that because as the government we are responsible for all Canadians in all sectors and not, unlike the socialist party, just the unions.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

On the same point of order, the hon. opposition House leader.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I just want to make sure that when this happens it does not affect the time of the members of the loyal opposition who are speaking. That was obviously not a point of order. It was a point of debate.

The member was also signalling that in his opinion someone was absent from the House. That is another breach of the regulations governing our debates. I would have hoped that this would have been pointed out to the member. I ask that particular attention be paid to that type of intervention. It was definitely not a point of order. It breached another rule of the House.

As the parliamentary House leader of the official opposition, I ask for confirmation that this type of intervention does not negatively affect the time allotted to the members of the opposition for speaking.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate the advice offered to the chair from the hon. members of the chamber.

I would encourage all members to refrain from using points of order as opportunities to engage in debate and to take away from speakers. I have just come back to the chair. It is actually morning to me rather than late night. I do not know what has happened to this point. In this case, the clock has been stopped during this process. This will not infringe on the time allocated to the member speaking.

I appreciate that many members have strong views on this subject. I would appreciate the cooperation of all hon. members. I hope they will show their colleagues the respect they are due.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said because there may have been an interpretation problem. I was acknowledging that the federal government provided assistance to the automotive industry in the form of $10 billion in loan guarantees. That said, it is unacceptable to say that the government helped the forestry industry, which is larger than the automotive sector in terms of percentage of GDP, when it received only $170 million to help it out of the crisis. I simply wanted to correct what my colleague opposite had said.

I also want to say that I am proud to represent the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Like many of my colleagues, I want to express my regrets that I am not there with my constituents today to celebrate Quebec's national holiday.

I would like to say to the various members who have made speeches, and particularly the members on the government side, that my goal is to represent all of my constituents, both the postal workers and those who use postal services.

My colleagues know that this is my first term as an MP. Some of them have been here longer, but it seems that my colleagues are having some trouble properly responding to the correspondence they are receiving from their constituents. So I would like to help them out. If they have a pencil and a sheet of paper, they can take some notes.

To the people who are writing to them to say that they are having difficulty, that their small business will not survive if service does not resume or that they are waiting for services, various goods, medications and so on, they can say that there is currently a conflict at Canada Post and that the employees responded to that conflict with a rotating strike in light of what they felt were unacceptable offers from Canada Post. That rotating strike allowed Canadians to receive their mail, their parcels, and so on.

The Minister of Labour said that she would not step in to put an end to the rotating strike since service was not being interrupted, but that if service was interrupted, she would seriously consider the possibility of passing special legislation. So Canada Post locked out the employees.

Given that the government has a weak majority that it obtained through less than 40% of voters and less than 20% of voters in Quebec, it has the power to impose a special bill that interferes with the principle of collective bargaining. But, as government MPs, my colleagues support this process. The government had several options actually. It could have passed a special bill to renew the collective agreement, which would have been acceptable to the union and the employees, and which would have let Canadians receive their mail. Unfortunately, the government decided not to take that route.

The government could have passed a special bill that would have ended the lockout without affecting the union's right to rotating strikes and the right to strike, which would have made mail delivery possible. Unfortunately, the government decided not to take that route.

So the government decided to impose special legislation that forces employees to return to work under unfavourable conditions.

The government says it is surprised that the employees do not approve of the conditions that are contrary to their interests, even though that government decision is delaying mail delivery.

This is what my colleagues could say to their constituents to explain the current situation.

In my opinion, this government—my colleagues do not have to write this in their letter—is definitely the most polarizing government I have seen in the history of Canada. Right now, it is dividing the country into good guys and bad guys, as it has done for the past five years, and as we know it will continue to do. Right now, the bad guys are the unionized workers whom it has decided to treat as second-class citizens.

What is happening here now is by no means an isolated event. We are not staying here until who knows when in order to deal with an isolated incident at Canada Post. A message is being sent to Canadian employers for the coming years and especially for the next fours years, under this government. It is basically telling CEOs and board of directors chairs that they can negotiate in bad faith and drag their feet for seven, eight or nine months and impose a lockout.

Then the government will simply legislate and impose strict conditions on employees, conditions that favour employers. We just saw this with Air Canada. That is what the government was about to do. Now the same thing is happening with Canada Post. What will be next? Via Rail, Bell, Bombardier or any other company this government considers too important to our economy to be allowed to negotiate freely and to determine its own future.

In other words, the message being sent out right now to employers in this country is that if they manufacture a crisis, the government will bail them out. That is exactly what is happening here.

I would like to take the rest of my time to discuss two specific reasons that, to me, explain why there is currently a labour dispute. The employer is imposing two clauses that are absolutely unacceptable to the union, the entire union movement, and to people in the lower middle class. With clauses like that, we can understand why people resort to using pressure tactics such as rotating strikes.

One of the clauses is called an “orphan clause”. The most inequitable and unfair measure that there could ever be in the world of labour relations is an “orphan clause”. I am not sure if there is a way to translate that expression. Essentially, with an orphan clause, young employees joining the workforce who do the same work as employees already on the job will earn a lower salary than their colleagues. How can a union that represents all its members tell some members they are worth less than others who are doing the same work? Does anyone really think the union can accept that? Can someone not explain to Canada Post, which is a crown corporation—and therefore controlled by the government—this basic principle of labour relations, namely that members cannot receive different salaries for the same work?

The other clause has to do with pensions. As some hon. members have already talked about this, I will not talk about it at length. Employees, who know they will have income security when they retire at age 60 or 65, are being asked to go from a defined benefit package, where they know what benefit amount to expect, to a defined contribution plan, where they can hope there is no economic crisis when they are set to retire. Otherwise, they might end up having to work another five, six or seven years.

Again, the principle is unacceptable and we can understand the union's position. We are asking Canada Post to be more conciliatory. We are asking the federal government not to send workers back to work under unfavourable conditions and to consider other options such as ending the lockout.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there are some ironies in the current debate, Right now the NDP is perpetuating an effort to delay an end to a corporate lockout. Apparently, its members wish to have the workers of Canada Post continue to be locked out and have Canadians denied service. I know they have an affection for work stoppages.

When we hit 11 a.m. this morning, this back to work legislation will have been delayed longer than any of the other 32 times such legislation has been tabled in Canadian history.

Is it really the case that the members opposite are so committed to the New Democratic Party that they will do everything possible to deny Canadians postal delivery and everything possible procedurally to keep the Canadian economy from having the benefit of the postal service it depends on so strongly?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I would like to thank the member for his question. When I began my speech, I said I was sincerely sorry and offered my apologies to my constituents in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques that I could not be with them because we are here debating this issue. This is a fundamental issue that is going to set the direction that labour relations will take now and for the next four years.

The government members are well aware that they could settle this issue very quickly. They can change the special legislation; I offer them that option. This is not an option that has been only half discussed here. They can introduce another special bill and end the lockout. They can make sure that the employees retain their right to hold rotating strikes. Tomorrow morning, Saturday, I am sure the postal workers would be happy to work that day to make up for the losses. Beginning on Monday at the latest, people will start getting their mail again. It is up to the government to make the effort to end this debate by introducing a bill that is fair to everyone, which will mean that Canadians and Quebeckers will get their mail.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, this debate strikes me as a dialogue of the deaf. We have the hard right ideologues in the government jamming the union with legislation that it cannot possibly accept, and we have hard left ideologues in the NDP who cannot quite come to grips with the actual decline in the need for postal service, as evidenced over a number of years.

Simultaneously, Canadians are looking at this discussion here in the chamber and shaking their heads. If my office is any indication, frankly, they do not care. I am not getting a whole lot of push-back other than from the identifiable hard right or hard left.

I suggest to hon. members that they have a chat between themselves, because Canadians are otherwise just going to let them talk and talk.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear a question.

At the moment, it is very easy to put the situation in a left and right context, but that is not the issue. As I said in my speech, the fact is that we have a polarizing government right now that had other options than introducing a special bill, one with unfavourable terms, that requires an arbitrator to abide by strict conditions, something that did not exist in previous legislation. It had a choice.

As I said, if it absolutely wanted to use a special bill to end the bargaining process, it could have put a halt to the lockout and still allowed the employees to retain their right to strike, which they were using to hold a rotating strike, and this would have meant that people would get mail service. It could also have arranged, in a special bill, for the present collective agreement to continue for one or two years, and this could have let that people get their mail.

There are options here, but this government is refusing to consider them. In all honesty, if the people they represent were to write to them, what they should reply is this: the government has made a choice, and the choice is to pit management against the union, and that creates disputes like this one. It is not a matter of left or right; it is a matter of justice and fairness.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to add my voice to the growing concern over the government's heavy-handed and draconian legislation.

Essentially, the government has declared war on working people in Canada. Within hours of Air Canada's workers going on strike, the government advised that it was bringing in back to work legislation. Within hours of Canada Post locking out its workers, the government advised that it was bringing in back to work legislation. There was no attempt to reason or to meet with the sides in this dispute; they just brought in the sledgehammer.

Workers in Canada should look out, because this government has decided that it is appropriate that the standard of living of ordinary workers in Canada continues to slide backwards relative to inflation. They have decided it is okay for pensions to be clawed back. They have decided that it is okay for young workers to be paid less for doing the same job.

The government's intention is clear. It is attacking in the holy name of profit and ideology the very standards of living that working people have struggled to reach over the past fifty-plus years. This legislation attacks working families by making them take a lesser wage increase, $40 million less in fact. It attacks pensioners and retirees by demanding that the agreement not touch the solvency ratio. It attacks working conditions by demanding that the arbitrator look at the imaginary market place of postal companies for comparisons of working conditions. There is no comparator, but the arbitrator is forced to do that.

This legislation also attacks young workers by signalling to them very clearly that they should expect less than their senior colleagues in working conditions, wages, pensions and everything else. That is not the message this party wants to convey to the people of Canada. We want to convey a message that Canadians should continue to expect to do better every year, that our standard of living should continue to grow, that our ability to purchase our homes and food should continue to grow and not slip backwards.

The solvency ratio part of the legislation really bothers me, because the government has advised that it is concerned about the cost of a mediated or arbitrated system. Yet in order to determine the solvency ratio of the offers to be sent to the arbitrator, they will have to spend millions of dollars to have actuarial evaluations of a $14 billion pension plan done on each offer and then on the final selected package. That is an incredible waste of money.

The government only mentions the solvency ratio and not the going-concern ratio. What does that mean? A solvency ratio shows what will happen if a pension plan is wound up. If Canada Post ceases to exist, how much money will be owed to the pensioners? That is all they talk about. Does that signal a hidden agenda to privatize Canada Post? I say this because the government did not talk about the going-concern ratio, which Canada Post itself is not worried about. Canada Post states that:

Since the going-concern deficit is small, it is anticipated that this can be eliminated quickly—

That is Canada Post itself saying that. The deficit in fact is 1%.

I think this points to a government intention to perhaps contract out the postal service in the near future, and we should be very concerned about that.

I also want to point out to the members opposite that I have a long history in the labour movement in Canada. I remember what started me on this quest in the labour movement, the 1975 legislation by a certain Prime Minister who had promised not to do so, but who limited wages across Canada. That legislation in 1975 was called wage and price controls, and it was introduced by a Prime Minister this party does not really like, Mr. Pierre Trudeau. Today, the government smells an awful lot like that Prime Minister, because the government is introducing legislation to limit wages. It is awful.

Then again in 1982, he brought in some more wage controls. Again, this legislation seems to have the air of the beginning of wage controls in this country.

That prime minister lasted only a couple of years before he was kicked out of office. The government should pay attention.

If this is about restraint, if that is what this is about, that the workers of Canada Post are being told they must exercise restraint, why is the restraint not being practised at the senior levels of Canada Post? Why is the Canada Post CEO continuing to get wage increases and bonus increases that far outstrip the rate of inflation? That is a clear message to the people of Canada that the government actually cares more about the CEOs and their wages than it does about ordinary working Canadians and their wages, working conditions, and ability to get by.

The other thing that bothers me about the government's comments is its complaint that bargaining took too long and that is why they had to step in. In fact, I have bargained collective agreements that took 22 months to negotiate, and that is because the issues were so complex and so detailed that it took that long to actually figure a way out of the morass without a strike or a lockout. That is part of what happens in Canada when things are complicated. We take a long time to discuss them; we take a long time to deal with it.

The minister also claims that she did everything possible--everything possible--under the legislation to prevent this dispute. That is not true. The legislation still contains a provision for a conciliation commissioner, which was not used by this minister. A conciliation commissioner has the power to issue a public report, and while the commissioner is deliberating, there is no possibility of a strike or lockout. That was not done here. The minister did not do everything she could.

Let us also talk about the other effects of this legislation on the rest of the people of Canada and the signals it is sending to other governments in this country.

My son-in-law is a police officer and his job is declared to be an essential service, and he does not have the right to strike. In return for that denial of his right to strike, he has an understanding that is put in place by the province that his wages, benefits, and working conditions, if they cannot be negotiated, will all be sent to a third party for determination--not some of his benefits, not everything but pensions, not everything but wages because we are going to define the wages over here.

Recently the police officers in the city of Toronto, with an arbitrated settlement, reached an 11.5% wage increase over four years. That is an appropriate wage increase. They accepted it. That is what was determined by a third party.

However, here the government has decided to instruct the third party that they are not to give more than 7.25%. That is more than 4% less than an arbitrated settlement in Canada. I believe that a lot of those police officers may have voted for this party. But if this government introduces this kind of legislation, it will signal to other legislatures across the country that it is okay to limit wage increases in arbitrated settlements, it is okay to limit benefit increases in arbitrated settlements, and it is okay to touch pensions in arbitrated settlements. That will be a very sorry day for the rest of Canada.

I just want to say one other thing. In a Canada Post press release right after talks broke off on June 22, the company announced:

Canada Post must now find ways to deal with the financial damage caused by the work disruption.

That is a self-inflicted wound. They did it to themselves, and now they are worried about the damage?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question on the last point, the self-inflicted wound.

There are two financial costs here. Of course, one is happening now; $25 million a day is the estimate. The other was caused by the rotating strikes. After eight months of negotiations there were rotating strikes caused by the members, which caused an interruption in service and a loss of stability to consumers of what Canada Post offers. This is something the NDP just does not get about business.

People start to outsource their needs. Canada Post starts to lose business. That was about $100 million. That was not caused by Canada Post. That was caused by the rotating strikes. So after eight months of free negotiations and rotating strikes, which caused a lockout, there is significant financial damage.

Here is my question. If the member is not willing to get the workers back to work, he obviously must be willing to have the taxpayers in his riding take up these additional and exorbitant costs, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Why is the member not willing to get these workers back to work and let them negotiate the way they want? Why is the member so willing to allow his constituents to pay those high taxes?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are actually willing to have these workers go back to work. In fact, yesterday we said unlock the doors, they will be back, the fiscal damage will stop, and they can negotiate a collective agreement, freely and without worry of legislation.

This legislation signals to employers that they do not have to negotiate because the government will jump in and rescue their bacon the instant they lock people out.

There is no ongoing labour relations peace here. This union has had 20 labour disputes in the last 46 years and a lot of them have been legislated back to work.

Why does the government continue to do that? Why does the government continue to signal to this employer and the union that they do not really have to bargain because something bad will happen to them at the end of the day?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member talk about the immense amount of knowledge he has in labour relations. On the one hand, of course, we have the hard hand of Bill C-6, which is a hammer, with legislation full of clauses that will clearly tie the hands of any arbitrator or mediator.

Given the fact that the official opposition had an opportunity to move an amendment last night, with the member's great knowledge and the knowledge of some of the others on his NDP team, why were the amendments not put forward in more of a conciliatory way, actually trying to find solutions and laying those solutions on the table, rather than simply deferring things for six months and letting them work it out? Why were some of those amendments not mapped out so that we could find solutions, rather than a continual debate between the extreme right and the extreme left that could go on for days?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my leader signalled last night that we were in fact willing to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this dispute with this government. As far as I know, there has been no response from this government.