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

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition said in his speech that he is opposed to this bill, but he also said that he wants to propose amendments to improve it.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned several times in his speech that he is willing to improve the legislation. What exactly are the amendments that he proposes to bring forward?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of amendments touching on a number of areas that we are preparing to submit. However, it would be particularly valuable if the government would indicate a willingness to talk about amendments, because it might be possible to agree on a package of proposals that could meet our various objectives, which is why I am reluctant to run through a long list.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Don't be shy.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I am being called upon to be less shy, Mr. Speaker. That is the first time that has ever happened.

In my remarks, I touched on quite a number of the areas that concern us, such as impacts on pensions, the way in which a two-tier structure is set up, lower salaries and the tone and structure that is being established for any arbitration. In fact, I would have to say that the structure that has been recommended, where there would be a process of mediation to be then followed by final offer selection, is completely and utterly unworkable.

No mediator or arbitrator would be able to work in that sort of situation. It would be like, as one member said, playing poker, spending time showing our cards to the very person who we will ultimately have play against and then moving to the actual game of poker later. That is not how negotiations work.

Those are some of the areas where we would have concerns.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to the bill. Fully recognizing and appreciating the greater sense of decorum here in the 41st Parliament and the greater degree of collegiality, I would ask the House if I might split my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are a great number of aspects of the bill that cause concern, and some have been raised by the previous speaker. I would like to put a bit more meat on the bones and be somewhat more specific. There are two things about the approach that the government has taken on this legislation.

First, the government would like to paint the picture that the Canada Post workers are on strike. We know, and we know through the comments of the previous speaker, that that in fact is not the case. These workers have been locked out by Canada Post. We need to understand that is the situation. These workers have offered to go back to meetings with senior officials with Canada Post and have offered to go back to work. They said that they would go back under the past agreement. Any time people are off the job because of a labour dispute, it is not fun. There is absolutely no joy in this for the workers.

I know the government has--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There is an awful lot of noise in the House. I would invite members to find their way to their respective lobbies and we will let the member for Cape Breton—Canso continue.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government read a number of emails and letters that it would have received over the last couple of days and we fully appreciate the impact that some Canadians have experienced because of the lockout. We know there has been an impact on some businesses. We know there has been an impact on some charities. We know that some individuals have been inconvenienced.

It has not been rosy for the workers. I shared earlier an instance where a Canada Post worker who had been delivering mail and had been going about his route. He was up on a porch and a dog ran around the corner. The postman was loaded down with mail. The dog came at him and he fell back off the step. He cracked his arm in five places. He has undergone significant surgery. He is having a heck of a time, but we know that his benefits are cut off. Anybody who is suffering any kind of hardship has his or her benefits cut off.

I have two friends who work with Canada Post, Cliff and Lorraine Murphy. If we want to put a face on postal workers, Cliff has been there for over 25 years. Lorraine has been a long-time employee. They are great members of the community. Cliff, year after year, is a committed volunteer in the community coaching young ball players, having an impact on young people's lives. For Lorraine it is the same thing. She sorts the mail. She is an incredible person. She takes in members of the major junior hockey team, the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles, and she is a billet for the hockey team. She gets up at four o'clock and does her work. She comes home and provides a home atmosphere for young major junior hockey players. Trying to keep them fed is no easy chore, but she is the mother for those players as well. Cliff and Lorraine Murphy make that commitment to the community.

The postal workers are people we live beside, that we live with, who provide a tremendous service for us. They are hurting too and they would like to have this resolved, but they certainly do not want to have it resolved in the manner that the government has undertaken to resolve it, which is to come in with the sledgehammer, with this piece of legislation. That is not the way to find agreement on this.

There are a number of aspects of the proposed legislation that cause us great concern. We would hope, ideally, that the sides would come together and find their way through this so that the service is provided, people get back to work and that way everyone wins. However, we believe that the way the legislation is written and with the provisions in the legislation it greatly handcuffs the ability to find a way through.

I wish to consider specifically clause 11(2), guiding principle:

(2) In making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries--

On comparable postal industries, there is only one Canada Post. There are private companies that provide similar services, but for the cost of a postage stamp they are not delivering to Nunavut. They are not bringing mail to rural communities and remote communities in this country. There is nothing comparable to Canada Post.

Under “guiding principle” it is also important that they:

provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short- and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of the Canada Post Corporation, maintain the health and safety of its workers and ensure the sustainability of its pension plan--

So we further handcuff the arbitrator by putting in these provisions.

They also identify in paragraph 11(2)(a):

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

We know that points to the end of the defined benefit pension plan. We know that is what is being identified in that paragraph.

When we move amendments these are clauses in the legislation that we would like to see taken out. The minister said earlier that she would be amenable to these types of amendments and I really hope she is.

Clause 13(3) talks about salaries. It says that the salaries should be no greater than those offered in section 15, and we see what is offered in section 15. The government has put rates forward that are lower than those offered by Canada Post prior to the tabling of this legislation. That makes no sense at all.

We hope that these clauses within the legislation will be taken out. That would give far greater latitude to an arbitrator to put a deal together, a deal that would assure a safe, healthy and productive work environment. Any interruption would be a thing of the past. We think this would be productive.

We want to work toward a positive conclusion to this lockout. We in the Liberal Party would like to do what we can to make sure that we can find some kind of pragmatic approach to this so that we get mail delivered, we get the people back to work and get this thing over with.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the wage percentages in the legislation simply reflects what the public service has received. I hope that answers the member's question.

The parties have been negotiating since October and the labour minister has already outlined all the steps, the timelines and the considerable amount of effort that has gone into bringing the two parties together and yet they have not been able to come together. Would the member not agree that it was time for legislation to be brought forward to bring Canada Post and its workers back to serving the people of Canada to ensure that the Canadian economy continues to recover instead of having this very unfortunate situation? Would the member not agree that it is time for the government to act?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, these things have due process. They have a path that they follow on their own. IWK Health Centre nurses signed a contract today in Nova Scotia. Their contract lapsed in October 2009 and they have been negotiating since then. They resolved the issues. There were no last hours worked. There were no interruptions in the work service. These things can be done.

If the government had made it imperative that both sides sit down and get this deal done rather than coming in with the heavyhanded, tilted approach that really handcuffed any hope that the workers would get a fair deal out of this then we would be further ahead and we would not be here tonight and over this weekend.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Cape Breton and I have also been listening to the comments coming from the Conservative benches, in particular the Minister of Labour, who somehow managed on three occasions in her speech to misconstrue the entire situation by calling it a strike rather than what it is, which is a lockout. I do not know if that was wilful ignorance or a lack of experience in dealing with these kinds of things. We here on the New Democratic benches have a lot of experience in this.

Is the very reason that we have these labour laws in place not because some time ago when there were many strikes and many disruptions employers asked for some sort of fair negotiating practice alongside working people? To undermine this process takes us back to a time when we had more strikes, more disruption of services and they destabilized the very economy that Conservatives seem to care so much about but do so little about.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when I posed the question to the minister, she referenced the fact that the lockout was triggered by rotating strikes.

There were 25 different places where these strikes took place. It tied up a minimal amount of mail over that period of time. It had limited, if any, impact. It allowed the workers to get their message out.

It was looked upon as if rotating strikes were illegal in this country. We know they are not. They are long accepted. They are a legitimate process. They have been used on a great number of occasions in various labour disputes. It was not a fair assessment to put them in the light that this was a radical tactic that was assumed by the union and that this would throw everything into peril. It was not a fair rendition of exactly what was taking place. It was heavyhanded on the part of Canada Post to come in with a lockout.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso and the House for allowing me to share his time.

First of all, I acknowledge that, from time to time, there may be circumstances when the government and Parliament must intervene to put an end to a strike and force a return to work.

In my time as an MP, I have participated in such debates on a few occasions and have had to vote on the issues. There was mention of 1997, the last time there was a postal strike. That is one case. There was also the strike affecting grain producers in western Canada who were unable to deliver their products.

However, this is not the only means the government can use to help. I will give another example of parliamentary intervention. After the 2008 election, the government was faced with a situation that I will talk about later. The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. A few days later, OC Transpo, Ottawa's public transit company, went on strike. The strike lasted 53 days during the winter. It was very difficult for the people of our city. When Parliament resumed in January 2009, I asked for an emergency debate at the earliest opportunity. The Speaker at the time scheduled a debate for the next day because Parliamentary staff had to be able to make arrangements to return home in the evening.

In the meantime, knowing that there would be a debate in the House the next day, the two parties, which were at serious odds and very far apart in their respective positions, agreed to go to arbitration. The strike was settled.

The government can also intervene by using its moral authority, by debating, as we are doing at present, but not by making threats.

Let me set up the backdrop to this situation. I want to go back to the 2008 election. Those who were here and everyone in Canada will remember that, following the election, the government was supposed to provide a fiscal update. When the government provided the House with the update, it added certain elements that had never been discussed during the election. One of those elements was to suspend the right of public servants to strike. Parliament had recognized that right to strike in the 1960s under the leadership of Lester Pearson. The right to strike has never really been misused in Canada, but it did strike a balance between management and the union's need to assert its rights. Without notice, the government was proposing to suspend public servants' right to strike.

The three opposition parties at the time agreed to say no, and that lead to the prorogation I talked about earlier. The government did not change its mind, at least not at the time.

Here is another factor: a few days ago, an Air Canada union went on strike after an agreement could not be reached. Everyone agreed that Canadians who use Air Canada had not suffered very much because of that strike—as there are other ways to fly other than Air Canada. In less than 24 hours, less than a day after the strike began, the government still tabled back-to-work legislation. The legislation did not have to be considered because an agreement was concluded. That being said, like anyone with a background in labour, I am sure that negotiations are attempted once it becomes known that back-to-work legislation is planned.

The third factor in this backdrop is the current Canada Post situation. Following unsuccessful negotiations and its members' overwhelming vote, the Canada Post union decided to launch a rotating strike that affected local mail delivery. However, the union members and representatives agreed to deliver cheques to those who needed them at all times. They still showed some flexibility.

On June 9, they proposed going back to work if Canada Post agreed to restore the clauses that were in the old collective agreement. But Canada Post did much more than just refuse; it put the locks on the doors and imposed a lockout, while negotiations were still under way. That is unheard of. While the negotiations were still under way, the government showed up with a bill to force workers back to work after a lockout. That makes no sense.

This backdrop is very worrisome for anyone who believes in the legitimacy and legality of the right to strike. We are in a situation where a right has been recognized in this country for decades, a right that has its place, a right that creates problems for the employer whose workers are on strike or for the people who use and need the services in question. There are other considerations, however. There is the essential nature of the service affected, but that is not what we are talking about. I think it is understood that this situation is disruptive to business owners and perhaps charitable organizations. But by its very nature, a strike must cause disruption in order to bring pressure to bear at the bargaining table. That is what the union was trying to do and what Canada Post never wanted. We are all aware that Canada Post has just one shareholder and that is the Crown, in this instance, the majority Conservative government, which acts for the Crown.

This backdrop is very worrisome for anyone who believes in upholding rights that have existed in a nation decade after decade, Parliament after Parliament. That is why—as the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso mentioned—we are going to propose certain amendments; this is a draconian piece of legislation and needs to be less rigid.

As I said, we accept that there may be times when the government can and must take action, but this is not one of them. As the leader of my party noted, the government is wielding a club or a hammer, and is coming at every problem as if it were a nail. This is not the way to resolve problems, this is not how society evolves, and this is not how one shows respect.

I hope that in its desire to take action, the government will take people's rights into consideration. Our record on that score is an honourable one. There have been significant advances in the field of labour rights in this country. The circumstances here are unique, as is the backdrop against which these events are unfolding. We have a government that, when it was in a minority position, talked about suspending the right to strike. We have a union that decided to strike and that was ordered back to work by the government less than 24 hours after walking out. Now, we have a government that tabled back-to-work legislation even while the parties were still at the bargaining table, because the employer locked out all of its employees. I hope that everyone who is listening to these proceedings recognizes that this situation is extremely disturbing.

And, here, I think the government needs to show some flexibility and make some concessions to find a solution, preferably a negotiated settlement. Let us get back to the bargaining table—the union has said it is ready—and ensure that mail gets delivered in the meantime.

To conclude, only once all of the truly genuine, frank and honest attempts have been made and failed, only at that time can we fathom the government returning to Parliament. Nothing is keeping the government from bringing Parliament back this summer. Right now we are being called on to sit for 48 or 72 hours. Instead of doing that, they could ask the union and Canada Post managers to reach a settlement through negotiations and, when that happens, everyone could work with the best deal and in a better environment. But if that is not the case, things could be quite challenging at Canada Post for some time to come.