This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
Lisa Raitt Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a document written by a local postal worker in which he says, “This is for the real workers at Canada Post, not union thugs”. A Canada Post worker used the term.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a letter that is written by a postal worker from that member's riding that was sent to me because that worker is unhappy with his member of Parliament. Am I allowed to table such a letter?
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
That is not a point of order.
The member from Timmins—James Bay. I trust this is a legitimate point of order.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your ruling this morning really set the tone for this debate. Some of the members might not have been there but we need to reflect on the role that we are playing in this as people are watching.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you ask members to settle down. We need to have a civilized debate. I was very impressed with your ruling this morning.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
I would agree that we all ought to give all our colleagues the respect to which they are due.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the citizens of Jeanne-Le Ber who elected me to represent them in this House. I am very proud to be in Ottawa now and to work on their behalf in connection with this important bill.
We hear much talk from the government about the economy, about how important the economy is to this country and about working for the average Canadian.
I do not think the so-called strong, stable majority government, which, incidentally was supported by a minority of 40% of Canadians, is feeling particularly warm toward the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for it.
In fact, I would venture to say that even the 40% who did vote for them were not voting to have stripped away from them their established right to grow and build their own self-worth and value through the accepted and democratic process of collective bargaining.
It is quite frankly beyond me how the current government does not see the conflict of interest in this process of shutting down a well-organized and responsible expression of job action to only then introduce back-to-work legislation.
Let me break this down. The government owns Canada Post. The government is in negotiations with its employees, as Canada Post. The employees, after much negotiation, take job action that sees at least partial delivery through rotating strikes. The government, as Canada Post, locks out the workers. The government, as itself, tables back-to-work legislation. In addition to eroding the process of collective bargaining, it further intrudes in that process by imposing its own views on what these workers should be paid, totally disregarding the agreements already made.
Now, excusing the possibility that the government may at this time be suffering from an identity crisis, what with playing both sides of the fence, does this government truly not feel any responsibility to the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for them?
The government speaks about democracy, but then proceeds to deny the democratic process of contract negotiations, because it does not like how it goes. The government says that it is looking out for the greater interest of Canadians, but then attacks those Canadians it says it is protecting. In case it is unclear, postal workers are Canadians too.
Postal workers are also consumers. In this one-dimensional, myopic vision of the economy the current government practises, I suppose it makes sense to cut out the buying power of a significant number of Canadian consumers to satisfy some ideological belief in the absolute numbers. “We are focused on the economy”. That is a familiar mantra that all members of the Conservative government are well versed in.
I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems that there are many facets to economic growth, including standard of living and morale in the workplace, to name two.
I wonder what kind of Canada can be built when workers' rights are disrespected. In fact, history shows us what that disrespect can yield. It was that type of disrespect that sparked the beginning of the labour movement in the first place.
Is this lockout an inconvenience? Yes, it is, and please, let us remember that it is a lockout and not a strike. Then again, I can see why the government might be confused.
Dare I say that there are many Canadians who would accept some inconvenience to protect the rights that so many Canadians fought and died for. Here are some of the thoughts these Canadians are sharing.
I have been a postal worker for the past 21 years....most people don't know that we have to be casuals without paying pensionable benefits for approximately 6 years. With an average income of $49,000 a year, I will be able to retire in 2024 with a rate of $1,391 a month! Now, in 2024, that won't even pay for an apartment....why would I want to lose more from the new collective agreement? Chopra started this year and will be getting a pay of $650,000 a year with a major retirement off of my back!
When we put in our right to strike notice on May 31st, the corporation retaliated by cutting off all of our benefits including medical. I have a brother-in-law who has progressive MS and couldn't get his meds while he is in severe pain from the waist down. He is paralyzed.
We responded only then after they cut off our benefits within 3 hours of our notice to strike submission, with rotating strikes without intention of harming the mail flow. Only with the understanding that it would delay mail for one day in that city!
It is wrong what the [Prime Minister's] government is doing! They collaborated with the management of Canada Post and took away our right of collective bargaining.
I want to work and I did volunteer, as did many other workers across Canada, only because we do not want to affect Canadians in a harmful manner. I love serving the public, but not at the expense of our pensions! I don't want to be on some government assistance when I reach 65. There is no need with a Canadian Crown Corp that is making major profits off of the backs of us, the backbone of Canada Post.
This is a Halifax postal worker.
I was always taught that one should be careful of the seeds one sews. The seeds this government is sewing are seeds of discontent, mistrust, indifference, and absolute contempt. It is contempt for the workers in this country, workers who, when the need is there, are willing to work with management towards the greater good. We saw this at the beginning of the economic crisis over and over again.
What we do not see, however, is the CEOs and the upper echelon colleagues willing to practise what they are forcibly trying to extract from the people who make them rich.
If this government is so interested in participating in the collective bargaining process and feels perfectly justified in imposing lower wages than were fairly negotiated, why not be of true help to Canadians by forcing those same CEOs to convert their pension plans, give up their bonuses, and reduce their salaries. I suppose that this is too socialist for this government.
Human beings by nature are social animals. We need to work together to survive. Although there may be a pecking order, there should always be respect. This is something this government seems to feel does not apply to it.
The economy of this country is, and always has been, its people. They drive the country, both as workers and as consumers. If this government truly wants to help Canadians, then treat workers and consumers, as they are one and the same, as they should be treated.
The government needs to take responsibility for its actions. The government needs to unlock the doors. The government needs to put the workers back to work, not by legislating them but by legislating the government to unlock the doors and the lockout.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, this debate has lowered itself to simply reading e-mails and letters from constituents. I'd like to join in.
I have an e-mail. I am reading this to the member who just spoke. He and his NDP colleagues should realize the havoc they are creating in this country and in the economy of this country. This is just an example.
This is from one Lori:
I'm in the small business community. We can't pay our vendors and we might miss payroll for the first time in 18 years. Lots of our printing suppliers have now laid off their staff.
You have to do whatever it takes to end this useless NDP tactic and get a vote in. Have to get them back to work. Let an arbitrator decide....We have no alternatives here. We are being held hostage. We have thousands and thousands of dollars trapped in the sorting station with respect to cheques that were mailed before this strike. Please, please.
The point of reading this is that the people of this country are getting desperate. Why not stop the nonsense that is going on in this House? Allow the votes to take place.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I am sorry that the hon. member feels that this is a useless exercise. The fact is that while the government wishes to break this down to a simplistic “Deliver the mail”, this is about more than just mail delivery. This is an attack on workers' rights.
I am sure that the person who sent the e-mail would be quite distraught about the fact that he and members of his family might have their rights eroded through this.
If the member really wants work to resume and to have these cheques go out, it is in the government's hands. The government acknowledged this lockout. The government is responsible for this lockout. Thus, the government is the one that can end this lockout. If the government wants the mail to go out, end the lockout.
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us how unfair and how unjust it is to lower the wages and how this needs to be removed from the current legislation?
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty apparent. The negotiations have been dragging on for so long and they finally actually got to the amount of money they would be paid, the salaries, which is usually the largest and heaviest sticking point.
As a union leader myself, I have been involved in many negotiations. It is always the largest sticking point, but they managed to get to that.
Why does the government not respect that and move forward from there? Why does it have to bring back-to-work legislation that includes lowering their wages? Answer that question.
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have been here now 36 hours or better. My constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex usually do not have to be told the same thing 120 times. I have listened to the comments that keep coming. We hear the same thing over and over again. It has been said that this is about ordinary families that need to be able to make ends meet and that they do not have the opportunity to make a decent living.
Canadians now pay $3,000 less in tax than they did in 2006. They voted against it. They put forward proposals to raise the EI by 35%. They want to double the Canada Pension Plan, which will cost employers and employees, because they are the only ones who pay for it. They opposed a GIS increase. I think it was going to cost a little more than $200 a year, yet they opposed everything families stand for.
I wonder if the member could help explain why they voted against everything for these same families.
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what that question has to do with the issue on the table.
We did not vote against those things because we do not believe in them. We voted against those things because they are not enough. The $1.36 a day, or whatever it is, is not enough to lift a grandmother out of poverty. It is not enough.
If the government really cared about seniors, it would give them the money they need to lift themselves into some sort of dignity. Please, do not twist words.