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

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by pointing out that it is now — not technically — but actually June 24, which is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I would like to congratulate all my constituents on this Quebec national holiday. Unfortunately, I cannot be with them today. I would very much liked to have been able to be there. Our leader attempted to negotiate an arrangement with the Prime Minister that would have allowed Quebec MPs to return to their ridings to celebrate such an important holiday with their constituents. Unfortunately, the response from the Prime Minister was a firm no. We can see the true face of the Conservatives today. There is a total lack of respect for Quebec and its people. I will now move on to something else.

The NDP is here to defend the rights of workers. On June 3, letter carriers and all Canada Post employees began rotating strikes to put a little pressure on management. This rotating strike was perfectly legal and allowed the mail to reach its destination within a very reasonable time period.

They are fighting for better and safer working conditions. Not many people know it, but I am a chiropractor. Not long ago, I had a patient, a woman letter carrier. I cannot go into details, but as the months went by, I was truly able to see that the work of letter carriers is very demanding physically, particularly once I saw how her return to work went. It showed me just how demanding her job was.

These people wanted to work. In any event, my patient truly wanted to return to work to earn her pay, to be sure, but also to help her community, even though her working environment was unsafe. Winter means ice and icy patches, and they have to do their job even when there are snowstorms. In the summer, when the heat can be oppressive, they have to carry all their mail over their shoulder. This creates a great deal of musculoskeletal pain — that’s just a bit of chiropractor jargon. In short, these people work very hard. They deserve to be treated with dignity, particularly when they ask to have included in their collective agreement a safer working environment.

These workers also want, through their labour action, to say no to the cuts that management is trying to force upon them. These attacks affect 48,000 workers and their families. That represents many people in Canada. They make the economy run, whether in Canada, Quebec, or Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. That is why the NDP is going to stand up as long as it takes to defend the rights of workers and families.

Their union opted for highly responsible rotating strikes. This showed respect for the people who wanted to receive their mail. They received it in a timely manner. It also showed respect for their workers, to enable them to put a little pressure on the government.

On the other hand, Canada Post decided to lock them out. That is why we are here today. As a result of this lockout, the mail has definitely stopped reaching people’s mailboxes. That was a smart move by Canada Post. We have seen over the past few days and will continue to see over the coming days just how this decision has placed Canada and its people in a very complex situation.

The union also proposed to Canada Post that it end the lockout to allow people to continue working and negotiating at the same time. However, for some strange reason, Canada Post refused. The crown corporation has really shot itself in the foot. The Canada Post team has decided to keep up a hard line approach, not unlike the one the Conservative government is trying to impose on the postal workers.

It is important to remember one thing: the media often talks about a postal strike, but this is not a strike; it is a lockout. The main problem lies with the employer, Canada Post. The employees have the right to negotiate their collective agreement in good faith with their employer. It is a right that has been earned over time. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer provided a very interesting history of the union movement in Canada.

However, this is not a negotiation in good faith. The government is trying to impose a contract on the workers, but it is not the government's role to do so. The bill clearly sides with the employer. It is irresponsible of the government to act in this way. We even see that the bill encroaches on the Canada Post employees' freedom to negotiate. As a result, the two parties in this situation cannot honestly negotiate with one another. What is more, the government is proposing lower salaries than the ones Canada Post was offering a few days ago during the negotiations. What is happening right now truly makes no sense.

In fact, I wonder why the government insisted on offering so little to the workers, even less than Canada Post management wanted to offer their employees. Personally, I think this is a conflict of interest. Just consider where Canada Post's profits end up. This is a corporation that generates millions of dollars every year. Who owns Canada Post? The Government of Canada does. At the end of the day, cutting payroll expenses at Canada Post will boost profits. Where will the profits go? They will go into the government's coffers. What will the government do with this surplus money? During the election campaign, there was talk of investing $35 billion in purchasing fighter jets and there was talk of megaprisons. I do not think it is ethical to cut employees' salaries and benefits to invest more in the Conservative government's ideological program. That is my view as an NDP MP.

What message is the government sending with its approach? It is implying that, if a contract is unfair, it is not a big deal; if employees do not agree with their employer, it is not a big deal—the government will take action, it will impose a framework that will put them at a disadvantage and it will cut everyone's wages. Recently, with the orphan clause, it has been said that there would be a second generation of employees, often young people, who will not have the same benefits as employees with more experience.

I think it is a bit hypocritical of the Conservative government whose ideal is to reduce the size of the government; now that it is in power, it is meddling a lot in the labour relations between employees and their employer.

Since I do not have much time left, I will briefly point out that Canadians have fought over many years and decades to be where they are today, to have decent salaries and benefits. Not all Canadians are privileged to have these benefits. We should not be lowering our standards in Canada. Our society is going through economic recovery. In our society, everyone should be elevated, not cut back and brought down to minimum wage. Like the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, I do not want to see the postal service privatized and I do not want to have to go to Wal-Mart to get my mail.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague, another chiropractor, to the House. Perhaps we could work on straightening this thing out by aligning both parties so we can come to some resolution.

In the big picture of things, this is what the government is trying to do. We have looked at the disagreement between the two parties and we have seen two parties that cannot come to an agreement. We have seen rotating strikes, which has cost Canadians over $100 million. There has been a lockout. Obviously these two sides cannot come to together.

What would the member do with the rest of the workers in Canada? The calls I am getting in my office are from seniors and people on disability who require their cheques, and small businesses that are relying on cheques going back and forth consistently in order to pay their bills. Small business is now responsible for the employment of most Canadians.

We are trying to end this now as quickly as possible, get everybody back to work and have a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, the NDP want to keep us here. I should be in Oshawa today for 11 o'clock. We are celebrating Saint Jean Baptiste Day too. I find it very disrespectful.

We need to work together and help continue this recovery. What would the member say to those--

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the Conservative member, who is also of the same profession as I am. We in the NDP also want workers to get back to work as quickly as possible. The workers and their union are calling for an end to the lockout, and rightly so, so they can resume work and start delivering the mail again every day, and so they can negotiate their collective agreement at their own pace.

My colleague wants the postal workers to return to work and so do we. The NDP does not believe however that a collective agreement should be imposed that penalizes them and that is not as generous as what Canada Post had already offered.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his remarks today.

I would also like to wish a wonderful Fête nationale to all my colleagues from Quebec who are present. Like them, I would have liked to be in my riding today to celebrate with those dear to me.

I would like to ask a question about the “orphan clause” in the bill. One of the concerns raised by constituents in my vast riding relates to young people and the message we should be sending them. My fellow citizens of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are very proud to see so many young people and women in our party. I would like to ask my colleague’s opinion as to the message the government is sending in this regard.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the NDP for his question.

As a young person of the age of 25, I am fortunate to be in a job where I am my own boss. At least I was before I became a full-time MP. Many young people have difficulty finding work as we are coming out of an economic recession.

Young people who are looking for work would love to find a job with decent wages and good working conditions so they can start a family and stay in their home region, whether that is Abitibi or Lac-Saint-Jean.

Yet with the focus on cutting wages and benefits, there will be a generation of young people with little job security or who do not make enough money to make a proper start in life. This is not the right message that the Conservatives are sending.

[For continuation of proceedings see part C]

[Continuation of proceedings from part B]

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have preferred to make my first speech in the House under more positive circumstances, but the government chose otherwise.

As the saying goes, it helps to sleep on it. But in my case, sleeping on it has raised some questions. I was anxious to return to the House to share my concerns. I must admit that after the election, I was worried about our country's progressive values. I was worried that we take a step backwards with the social gains that Canadian society worked brilliantly at great cost to earn over the course of our history.

I never thought that the Conservative government could threaten the structures of Canada's economic success themselves. I must admit that I was surprised about that. I see that this is the reality today, and I wonder why and what the government's goal is.

The public must understand that the Conservative government is trying to create a precedent. The Conservative government never hid its intentions. The Minister of Labour recently reiterated that the government's priority was to support economic growth, and that it would intervene in any labour dispute that could jeopardize that.

Any labour dispute? What does that mean? It is now very clear that the government will jump in indiscriminately. It is one thing to support development, to support businesses that create jobs, but it is an entirely different thing to systematically attack workers.

The New Democratic Party is in an interesting position, since we must remind the Conservative government of some fundamental principles of our economy. Simple principles. In our economy, the workers are also consumers. They are customers who use their incomes to keep the economy rolling.

One concept is fundamental to our economy: offer better wages to employees and they will buy more cars; offer better wages to employees and they will buy houses, consumer goods and services. But if you lower wages and cut employee benefits, you are attacking the very foundation of the modern economy.

The Conservative government is proposing a single formula: support economic development by reducing the purchasing power of workers. The government is adding insult to injury by simultaneously suggesting that Canadians reduce their debt levels. Workers who have supported Canada's economic growth for years, by going into debt of over 140% of their income, are now forced to accept that the government is making their debt level even worse by decreasing their disposable income. In what economic dream world is the government living?

The Conservative government is getting all worked up about the economic impact of the delays in mail delivery. It is condemning the temporary pressure tactics used by the workers, who are trying to preserve their purchasing power. And what does it do to resolve this temporary problem? It permanently reduces the income available to workers to support economic growth. What are we to take from this lack of logic? Do we just accept the excuse that the government continues to repeat, that its intervention is necessary to ensure economic development?

The answer is no. Instead, we need to unmask this government, which claims to be a champion of the economy but is flouting economic principles for ideological reasons. The Conservative government is interfering in the market economy and in the bargaining process between workers and their employer. Let the government suffer the consequences of its own lack of rigour.

If the NDP has to remind the government, citizens and especially the Minister of Labour that the Canadian economy is based on principles that have made us member of the G20 and an economic success worldwide, they can count on us. We will not allow the Conservatives to attack our economic prosperity. We will not allow the Conservatives to reduce the purchasing power of Canadians and further increase their level of debt. But above all, if the government insists on systematically interfering in negotiations between workers and employers, the NDP will systematically stand up to protect the Canadian economy and the principles that have made it so strong.

Now let us talk about the sense of urgency we see in the government. Not only has it rushed into this matter, not only has it gotten involved in a process that is none of its business, but it is also trying to force the adoption of a bill that will create a precedent that the government intends to systematically repeat, according to the very words of the Minister of Labour.

What is the urgency the government is referring to? Let us be clear. It was never the intention of Canada Post employees to undermine Canada's economic stability. This accusation on the part of the Conservative government, this bugaboo that it has been unleashing on the House for several days now, is not convincing anyone. Canada Post workers are much more sensitive to the importance of the service they provide than the Conservatives are letting on. The government is forgetting that Canada Post's clients are the neighbours, family members, colleagues and friends of the crown corporations's employees. Accusing them of taking Canadians hostage is absurd.

Under an agreement reached before the dispute, Canada Post workers had already committed to delivering government cheques, such as welfare, old age security and family support payments. According to the union, nearly 9,000 members would have helped sort and deliver over 2 million cheques a month. But the lockout changed everything. That excessive measure is what interrupted mail service to Canadians. The scolding emails only started coming in after the lockout was imposed, the same emails that the government is now citing to justify its bill. I hope the government will keep those emails as a reminder of the harmful effects of its precipitous action. We will also send them all the emails from citizens who are disappointed by this government's actions.

Lastly, I would like to send greetings to all of my friends and constituents in the riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert who were expecting me today for our national holiday celebrations. Since moving to Quebec, I have come to enjoy this beautiful celebration. The national holiday has allowed me not only to celebrate the history of my new home province, but also to develop a sense of belonging. How I would have liked to be among my constituents to thank them for the incredible welcome they have extended to me. I would have liked to show my profound gratitude for the honour they have bestowed upon me by voting for change in Ottawa. I will simply have to put it off to another time.

In the meantime, I am here to do the job entrusted to me. I will remain here to represent the interests of the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. And, if need be, I will stay here with my colleagues until Canada Day.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to touch on the sort of revenge factor that the member has built into at least her strategy, if not the entire party's.

I have been talking with constituents this morning. The great Kenora riding covers 326,760 square kilometres. There is no road access to 25 communities. The mail lies at the heart and soul and the ebb and flow of a lot of the business activity and social economic activity. We have an opportunity here to put these folks back to work which is what my constituents are overwhelmingly asking for. They are saying put back to work legislation in place so that we can get our regional economy and Canada's economy back on track.

I know the angles that the NDP is working here. Its members are saying that we could have had rotating strikes, or some sort of hybrid response, so that not too many things would be affected. But at the end of the day, seniors are not getting certain important pieces of mail. First Nations communities are not getting essential pieces of mail. Small businesses are suffering.

My question is quite simple. Does the member not believe at this point that putting an end to this by using back to work legislation is the most effective way for us to move forward?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the other side for his question.

First, I would like to say that the situation has gotten worse since the lockout. The rotating strikes did not disrupt mail distribution for seniors and for all members of society. I want to point out that this happened when Canada Post locked out its employees. There is no point trying to blame the workers. The workers are proud of what they do. The workers are prepared to return to work if we unlock the doors at Canada Post.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for her speech. It was very informative. At the same time, it seems as though it addressed a number of points I have been hearing since this morning, that NDP members are just talking for the sake of talking, that we just want to stall the debate and prevent people from doing all kinds of things, when that is not the case.

There are fundamental principles at stake. I will not allow our colleagues from the other side or from the second opposition party imply that our right to speak means nothing in this wonderful chamber. I was pleased to hear the member refer to that, because, even if we would have rather had the day off like everyone else, I think that the best interests of Canadians are at stake. When I say “Canadians,” that includes workers and other people.

I would like the member to answer a question that we often hear from the other side about the fact that the union did not transmit the employer's offers, even though the union received its mandate from the employees at the start of negotiations and it is not obligated to return—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to give her colleague the chance to answer.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I think Canada Post has been posturing since the beginning so the government would introduce this bill that we have been debating since yesterday. Canada Post had started making offers to the union but now the Conservative government is interfering and coming between the employer and its employees

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

First of all, as a Quebecker, let me begin by wishing all Quebeckers a wonderful Fête nationale.

Unfortunately we cannot join in the celebrations today. This is distressing for me. It is very important to me to be a Quebecker and a Canadian. So the Fête nationale is extremely important to me. To all my fellow citizens of Alfred-Pellan, to all my family and friends, and to all of Quebec, happy Saint-Jean!

A whole generation of new workers entering the labour market will be affected by the bill the Conservative government has introduced. Why? First of all because young people are the next ones who will enter the labour market and who will become the next postal workers at Canada Post.

Allow me to point out just a few features of the bill we are debating. First of all, wages will be lower for the next workers hired. They will make $875.50 less over four years than what was planned.

As for their pensions, the new employees will have to wait five years longer than others to be eligible for their pension.

That is not to mention the dangerous working conditions that Canada Post workers could face.

Because this bill affects the next generation of workers, I thought it very useful for all members of the House of Commons to hear what young people had to say on this subject. So I asked them, through various social media, what they thought about this subject, the lockout at Canada Post and the bill the government is bringing to the table.

Today, I want to give them a voice. I will let you hear what they had to say about this subject.

To start with, the first person, Daniel Carette, a young father, 26 years old, says that bargaining should proceed in the usual way, there should be no government intervention, and in addition, important government cheques are sent by mail in any event. So he suggests that the employees be allowed to bargain their agreement in peace. He adds that he is not very keen on unions, but he is on side with what was won in the old agreement, and it should not be eliminated from the new agreements, particularly when the employer is not having problems.

Philippe Long writes that he thinks the lockout is pointless, and that for the managers who are criticizing the employees because of their rotating strike to impose a general lockout and paralyze the country is no better.

A master’s student at Laval University in Quebec City, Caroline Roy-Blais, wrote that Canada Post employees had decided not to take the public hostage, by organizing rotating strikes and continuing to deliver government cheques and other papers. She adds that the employers decided to impose a lockout so the government would get involved in the bargaining and compel the employees to “agree to” dangerous working conditions and lower wages for people hired in future.

She also says that she is against government intervention. First, she writes that although the government says it is a fan of the free market and is not interventionist, it is unabashedly intervening in the dispute. Second, she asks why two classes of employees are being created. Equal pay for equal work, she writes. Third, she says that employees’ right of free association in a union is important, and employees should not be prevented from organizing to get better working conditions, based on the entrepreneurial right to make money.

She also adds that we must not forget that the “orphan clause” is intended to give higher wages to postal workers who are already employed, but freezes wages for future employees. She suggests that this means that if someone is hired after the agreement is signed, they would not be entitled to the same wage for the same work! She concludes by saying that this is not fair at all.

Jean-François Paradis, a young father in the Montreal region, said that Canada Post was trying to impose a new distribution method that has tripled occupational injuries, which is not acceptable. This is a lockout. It is not a strike. There is no mail distribution because of Canada Post. If it goes on any longer, it is the fault of Canada Post, which was waiting for special legislation instead of negotiating.

I also received a short comment from Patrick Allard. He thinks this is a real shame.

This morning, another citizen, Eric Jacques, wrote to me. He said that Canada Post has been earning a profit every year for 16 years, yet managers say that they need to cut costs. Where is the logic there? Letter carriers were carrying out a rotating strike to maintain service, and the government said that it would not intervene as long as mail was being delivered. So Canada Post imposed a lockout, so that the government would take action and the corporation would not have to negotiate in good faith. If we truly want to improve the health of the economy, we need a plan with good wages, like those of mail carriers.

Those are just a few of the comments I received. That is what the next generation has to say about this labour dispute. These are engaged people who understand the problem. They do not understand what the Conservative government is trying to do.

I sincerely hope that the comments from these few Canadian citizens will be taken into consideration by members on the other side of the House, so that we can reach a better consensus for the sake of the workers.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech and I find some of it very misleading. She seems to want to portray the action the government is taking as unusual.

I would like to recount to her a bit of the recent history. In 1978, there was back to work legislation. In 1987, there was back to work legislation. In 1991, there was back to work legislation. In 1997, there was back to work legislation.

The reason is we have two parties that have a history of not settling. These are two opposite sides that have had over eight months to come up with some type of agreement. They have had numerous meetings with the minister. They have been given every opportunity to come up with an agreement.

The real question that Canadians want answered is, how long is the NDP going to allow these two parties, together, to hold Canadians hostage?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First of all, the NDP, like the workers, would be happy to see a return to work. It would be very simple to get workers back to work immediately, because all we have to do is unlock the doors. It is as simple as that.