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

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing a happy Quebec national holiday to all Quebeckers, and in particular to my constituents in the riding of Saint-Lambert. I am not with them today, but they understand that the current circumstances are keeping me in Ottawa and that I will be with them very soon.

They will also no doubt be aware that defending the rights of workers is the basic reason why we are here in this forum this afternoon. Bill C-6 is just one more example of the attitude of an authoritarian government that cares about nothing but its own decisions.

As we know, Canada Post workers are simply fighting, as you or I would, to protect their jobs and their wages. They simply do not want their basic rights to be sacrificed and abused. They are refusing to allow their families to suffer the consequences of the Conservatives’ unjust policy.

In this matter, the unions assumed their responsibilities perfectly. The postal workers’ approach demonstrated respect for the public by holding rotating strikes. Canada Post acted in bad faith by declaring a lockout. Canada Post decided to unjustly penalize people and businesses by depriving them of their daily mail service.

In any company, employees are entitled, through their union if there is one, to negotiate their working conditions with their employer and to arrive at a favourable outcome, which is not the case for Canada Post employees, on whom the government wishes to impose a contract that runs counter to their interests.

This is not normal, all the more so as it is not part of the government's role nor within its jurisdiction to interfere in labour relations between employers and employees, and thus take away the employees' right to negotiate a collective agreement.

The government’s interference in this matter does not give the two parties the opportunity to achieve a negotiated agreement that is in their mutual interest. This is all the more unacceptable given that the government is proposing an agreement in which the wages are lower than those Canada Post had offered.

This is a dangerous precedent for all workers in Canada, who could find unfair contracts, wage cuts and misunderstandings with their employer imposed upon them. No, the government absolutely must stop interfering in this matter, as it is doing, and to give a negotiated settlement a chance, because it is not yet too late.

This matter not only inconveniences individuals and businesses, but also and above all attacks the basic rights of all workers and all unions to negotiate a collective agreement with the employer.

Passing this unfair act would be a major step backward, because Canadians have fought for a long time, too long, for a fair and equitable working environment, and for acceptable wages and benefits.

The Conservative government cannot ignore this and impose a contract that runs counter to the interests of Canada Post employees.

Canada Post is a dynamic corporation that serves all Canadians. Citizens have always relied on this public corporation, which is one of the best postal services in the world. And these merits, it must be recognized, are due to the employees of Canada Post.

Our duty as the official opposition is to defend these workers, who operate this essential service for our citizens: our constituents need to get their mail every day, our senior citizens need to receive their pension cheques on time, small businesses must be able to send out their invoices on time. The Conservative government wants to do away with all of that. It wants to privatize this country’s postal services and ask citizens to pay more for it, even though Canada Post is doing its work well at a competitive price.

The government is now, for purely ideological reasons, against providing our fellow citizens with an essential public service. The reason is clear: to maximize corporate profits at the expense of workers. If there must be austerity measures, the government should look to the CEO of Canada Post and not the ordinary wage earners.

A collective agreement allows workers to enjoy benefits such as working in a safe environment, preparing for a well-deserved, dignified retirement, and having a sufficient wage to be able to support their families and pay their bills.

The purpose of government is to protect workers and their families, not to place them in a difficult position.

This legislation runs counter to the model of social progress that is championed by the NDP, and we cannot allow the Conservatives to do whatever they want because, after Canada Post, who will be next?

This power grab against workers by the Prime Minister and his Conservative government shows Canadians where they really stand.

The NDP cannot allow this to happen and we will fight to protect the rights that are fundamental and essential in a true democracy.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I sit in the House and listen to members opposite, I wonder if they are even reading the same bill that I am reading. It seems that they talk about everything else except what is in the bill.

It is important for Canadians to know what is in the bill. In particular, I would like to refer the member opposite to subclause 11(2) and ask her what it is she finds so objectionable in the guidance that this bill gives the arbitrator. It gives the arbitrator four principles on which to base a contract between these parties: first, that the terms and conditions should be consistent with those in comparable postal industries; second, that the terms provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure short- and long-term economic viability; third, that the terms maintain the health and safety of the workers; and, fourth, that the terms of the contract ensure the sustainability of the pension plan.

I would like to know which one of those four guiding principles that this bill sets out is the opposition so vehemently opposed to.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his question.

I would simply answer that it is not beneficial to wage earners to impose lower wages than they had negotiated at the outset.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech because she touched on some things that are extremely important: what this is, what this is not, and what this is about. This is not about a strike; it is about a lockout. This is about the government setting a precedent in what normally would be a fair collective bargaining process, where it imposes wages, not just any wages but wages that are lower than what was already on the table.

This is something that should seize us all. It is not just about Canada Post but about how we bargain in this country and how legislation goes forward. I would like to hear from my colleague about the implications of this bill if it passes the way it is without any amendment.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I would simply like to tell him that if this bill is passed, there will be very significant repercussions on wage conditions and on all the work done to date, and on everything to do with negotiating collective agreements. In a democratic and free country, such an impact is unacceptable.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened patiently yesterday and today. I have sat in this place for some period of time, and there has been a lot of misinformation with regard to the B.C. Health Services case. I am not going to get into the particulars, but I practised labour law for a period of time, and I would recommend that my friends read the judgment, especially in relation to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's comments, which sets out the particulars in relation to the right to strike, etc.

In this particular case, it is clear that there is a right to associate, to bargain collectively, and a freedom to strike, but there are consequences for that, just like there are consequences for what Canada Post and the union are doing. Clearly, those consequences can be dealt with in the future because we have the rule of law in Canada and people can actually be sued when they do things wrong.

The government clearly has power to do what it is doing. What I want to know from the member is what New Democrats are trying to accomplish. Really, they are wasting time. They are wasting the time of Canadians, especially the time of people who are waiting for the important things that Canada Post can deliver, like seniors' cheques and other things. I want to know what they are trying to accomplish by wasting so much time and money of Canadians, because clearly it is not going to be the result they want.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

At what point will this Conservative government—which caused the lockout—accept full responsibility for its actions?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all Quebeckers a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Today is a day of celebration.

I would also like to say that I am very proud to be working with such a good team from Quebec, and particularly with the new MPs.

I want to start on an issue that I think is important to understand, and that is how we got here. As people know, there were ongoing negotiations, there was job action, and then there was of course the lockout. We have to underline that point, because some would say that if we believe what we have heard today from the other side, there was no lockout. Let us be absolutely clear about what is happening. There was a lockout. There was an offer by Canada Post to go back to work to keep things going.

When we hear from others who suggest that somehow Canada Post workers were trying to undermine the economy or hurt others, it is just not the case. There was a choice made, and the government can make the choice; let us be clear about that. It has the power to do that. The choice it made was to have a lockout, and I think Canadians will hold it accountable for that.

But it is important to also understand that in this country we have fought collectively for fair bargaining. I have been on both sides of the table. I have been negotiating contracts on behalf of members. I have been on the other side of the table when I worked in the NGO sector, where we were negotiating contracts with employees. The guiding principle in negotiations is to make sure you have fair bargaining. Everyone gets that. For those who do not, I am thinking of that commercial where the guy presents one kid with a toy pony and brings the other kid a real one. That is not fair bargaining, for those who do not know what it is. It seems that the government wants to go down that path.

A younger worker will not get the same entitlements for their pension and the same wages as people who are more senior. That really flies in the face of fairness. I think that is pretty clear. That is the kind of issue we will have to confront. We're saying that if you are a young person or a new worker, you will not get the same benefits. That is kind of strange when you think about it. We are asking young people to give up the opportunity to have a decent wage so that they can actually settle in a community, stimulate an economy, and have something that we have all been able to benefit from.

I know the members have young kids. I do too. What do we say to our kids? We say, okay, in our economy we have decided that we will lay hands on certain people and say they will not get as much because there is just not enough. It is like that kid who gets the toy pony instead of the real one. Sorry, we cannot help you.

It does not make any sense. It flies in the face of fairness. In this contract that was imposed it is important to note that; it is important to note that we are talking about a two-tier system.

I want to turn to the legislation, because I know it was important for some of my colleagues across the way to read. It is actually on page 6. When I first looked at this legislation, there were a couple of things that grabbed my attention. One is the final offer selection. For people who do not know about that way of bargaining, it is a method in which both parties agree to--that is the first point--a process whereby they boil down the issues to a couple of issues, put in what appears to be the best offer, and provide it to an arbitrator that has been agreed upon. It is not an imposition. In this legislation, this is being imposed. It is taking a method of bargaining and torquing it such that it is undermining the whole relevancy of what was final offer selection.

It gets better, because on page 6--and it ignores the Canadian labour act in some ways--it says that wages will be imposed. Some people might think that it is not a big thing and that they have to put the wages in there because they could not agree. I think it is terrible and regressive.

Here is the kicker. They impose wages that are less than what was on the table from the employer. If I tell anyone in this country that an offer was put on the table by government, whose role is not to take sides--the role of the government is to be a fair arbiter, and I see other members nodding yes--but then in legislation on page 6 the government put in wages that are less than what the employer was offering, at the least it is confusing. What we have here is a method of bargaining that will change the way in which bargaining is done in this country.

We have to stand up against that. The one thing we have to stand up against is unfair bargaining, and we can do that in this place. Today we are here to make sure the bill is changed.

This is an offer to the government. We can change that, so why not change it? If we told everyday people that an agreement was being negotiated and a wage rate was put in front of the employees, and another party, who is supposed to be fair in arbitrating the dispute, imposes wages lower than what the employer was offering, most people would say that would not pass the smell test. It certainly does not pass the fairness test. It would be reasonable for the government to look at that. That should obviously be dealt with. That is one of the reasons why we are here today.

This is not about us as a party deciding we want to spend a day and night here. This is not our idea of a retreat. If we want a retreat, we will have a retreat. We can do that. This is about a principle, and it is about bargaining and about the direction this country is going.

If the government is going to put bargaining, like final offer selection where there has been no agreement, and put it into legislation, then we have to deal with that. If the legislation is going to impose wages on workers that are less than what is being offered by the employer, then we have to stand up to that.

As I mentioned before, bringing in closure and then bringing in legislation is a little untoward. When government members were in opposition, they fought very hard against closure. Mr. Manning was the leader of the opposition in 1998. He was very strong on this point. He believed that the whole issue of closure that was being rendered upon Parliament was fundamentally undemocratic. He fought hard against that. Preston and I do not agree on everything, trust me. But he had it right when he talked about what Parliament is about and when he said that closure should not be used to ram legislation through, that closure should ultimately never be used. To use it before legislation is brought in is new. That is something we have to deal with.

I think of the people who spoke against closure.

Brian Mulroney's government on closure was a pillar of virtue compared to what the Liberal government has done since it came to power. It continuously uses this hammer. It is not a matter of negotiation. It is just too bad: “It is my way or the highway”.

It is unfortunate the government has decided to go this way. It is a trend. It does not bode well for this institution that the government has decided this is the way to force through legislation, controversial or not. The government is just doing it.

Do members know who said that on November 22, 1999? It was one Preston Manning.

Mr. Strahl, who was in this place not too long ago, said in reference to the government of the day:

It uses closure and time allocation to choke off debate in the House. It stacks committees and committee hearings....How can such a government possibly be pretending to exercise democratic leadership in government when it behaves in that way?

I just say that for the record because it is important to know how closure is being used.

I ask the government to take a look at this legislation, take a look at this imposition, and ask themselves: Is this fair?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments.

Before I get to my question, I just want to point out that I personally have had a very positive relationship with Canada Post workers in my lifetime, whether it was with delivery to my constituency office where Dean delivers the mail with a smile every day, or to my home where Cathy has delivered mail for over 20 years. I have a very positive relationship and I respect the professionalism and the work they do.

However, over the last number of days we have had dozens, if not hundreds, of emails written to this place by our constituents and constituents of members across the way, pointing out the negative impact that this ongoing work stoppage is having on our economy. I just received another one from my riding. It says:

We currently have hundreds if not over a thousand shipments either stalled with Canada Post or are unable to ship.

A secondary issue is receiving payments, sending invoices and payments. These are problematic, but obviously not as crucial.

He goes on to ask us to move quickly to bring this work stoppage to a halt.

Small businesses are at risk. Seniors are at risk. Charitable groups who do such good work for us are at risk. How much longer will the New Democratic Party cause these groups to suffer?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that will be when we see we get some fairness. Simply put, every single small business operator I know, and my sister is one, works extremely hard. They are looking for the government to do a very simple thing: pick up the phone and call the person they appointed.

This is a point I have to make. The head of Canada Post was not hired by Canadians; he was appointed by the Prime Minister. Guess what happens when the government wants something to be done? It can do whatever it wants in terms of direction, and I think we heard this from the former Liberal minister, that it just picks up the phone and says what it wants to happen.

This government could, if it wanted to, end it right now. It could pick up the phone, call the head of Canada Post, and it would be done. It is that simple. That would help all the people who are concerned, whom the hon. member mentioned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for most of the last day and much of last night. I have heard from both sides and I hear one common element, which is the importance of getting the mail service back and the importance of ensuring that average Canadians, senior citizens and small businesses are not impacted. That should be our primary goal here.

To get through this, we can throw rocks at each other for days. I think the government understands that we are serious about fairness. However, we both have to look at the issue of compromise in order to put senior citizens and small businesses first.

I ask my hon. colleague, because of his experience, if he thinks that it would be fairly straightforward for the Prime Minister to take out the clause that forces wages down in the back to work legislation. Could he take that out, call on Canada Post to unlock the doors and send both parties to mediation and arbitration?

This could be settled immediately. I think it is incumbent upon us to show Canadians that in this 41st Parliament we could actually get something done for the good of the people of Canada.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are at that point. I think we need to ask the government what is reasonable, what is fair and how we ensure that we all do our jobs. Is the government going die on the hill on this particular contract?

Again, the main focus of my speech was around page 6 of the legislation, where it has the salary grid laid out. In fact, it is lower than what was on the table in negotiations.

I think we could see some form of agreement so that this House could do its job. We could get through the next number of hours, not by debating points back and forth, but perhaps by ensuring that we do get a resolution to this issue. We could ensure that Canadians get their mail and have postal workers back doing their job. We could ensure fairness so that all of us could go back to our constituents and say that we all did our jobs and be proud of that as parliamentarians.

That is what I think Canadians are looking for; that is what we should be doing; and that is what I think is a reasonable offer. It is something that should be done. We ask the government to take a look at this.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this today.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as my colleagues in the House know, especially my friend from Peterborough, I like to think the glass is half full. He knows that is true.

I just want to point out to everybody in the House that over the past 18 hours or so the government is no longer referring to this as a strike. It is now referring to it as a lockout. That is a very positive step forward, for that is exactly what it is.

Speaking of that, I had an email from someone who publishes a weekly paper in my riding. He asked why, if the government was going to lock people out, it did not give notice to people like him. That is a very good question. We have had that question in the House a number of times. Why all of a sudden did things get stuck at the post office? Things were not going anywhere. People were upset. It was a hardship for many, including this small business owner in the west end of my riding.

Why did the government not give notice, for example? That is in the spirit of compromise. That is in the spirit of saying that the government may have to do something, so we had better sit at the table and work things out.

Why did the government not do that? I do not know. I told the fellow who owns that weekly paper that I would ask that question today. Perhaps in the question period we will have a chance to do that.

The government's insistence on locking out Canada Post employees and sending them back to work is not just an attack on collective bargaining rights. It is also an attack on young workers and an attack on the retirement security of all Canadians.

I want to talk about what the bill says about imposing new hourly pay guidelines on the workers at Canada Post. It is significantly below Canada Post's last offer, which makes no sense at all. In fact, over the four years of this contract, $35 million will be taken out of the pockets of Canada Post workers and their families. That is important: it is workers and their families. That is $35 million that will not be taxed. That is $35 million that will not be spent in the local economy.

What this boils down to is fairness. That is what we are really talking about today and tomorrow. We talk about the younger workers coming into Canada Post and not getting the same deal, getting partial deals of what the older workers get.

We do not have a two-tier system of rent in this country. We do not have a two-tier system of mortgages. We do not have a two-tier system of going to the grocery store and buying groceries. We do not have a two-tier system of filling up our gas tanks. It is outrageous to say that young workers in our country should be paid less than their older counterparts. It is outrageous. They are doing the same work.

I want to say something about pensions, an important element of this, and about the pension changes that the government is trying to impose on workers at Canada Post. In the last legislative session, pensions and retirement security came to the fore in just about every discussion. Bill C-501, my bill, came to Parliament, was voted on a couple of times, and was passed those times. I know that there is a will on that side of this place to ensure that Canadians have the retirement security they need.

In fact, before the last election, the government was actually warming toward increasing CPP and making CPP better. Then the Minister of Finance said it would hurt the economy. He forgot that we were talking about phasing it in over seven years. We were not talking about some big shock.

The Minister of Finance has also suggested that increasing CPP is administratively difficult. The president and CEO of the CPP investment board, David Denison, has made it clear that there is no administrative impediment to enhancing CPP. In fact it is quite the contrary. He says private plans will cost significantly more for the same benefit.

In 2007 Canadian RRSP holders paid private fund managers $25 billion in fees, fees that we do not have with CPP. CPP is simply the lowest-cost option. If that were enhanced, the kinds of negotiations that go on at Canada Post on retirement security would be made easier and clearer and we could plan for the retirement security of those beginning work in their twenties.

A phased-in CPP is an increase from $960 a month to $1,868 a month over the next seven years. What would that mean to the average earner? For people who make $30,000 a year, every week over the next seven years they would pay $2.27 out of their salary to ensure their CPP doubled. It simply makes sense.

We have heard some stories from business owners and other people. Let me talk about Canadians who are hurting, and I am not going to put any blame here. I will read a couple of passages from emails I have received from northwestern Ontario.

This is from a postal worker and her husband. She says:

Our sick leave provisions are such that a fulltime employee earns 10 hours per month of sick leave credits. This sick leave accumulates until you retire. At that time, any sick leave you have not used is gone. WE ARE NOT PAID OUT!!!

That seems to be a misconception of many people. Their sick leave provisions in their contracts are protecting them in case of long-term disability. She goes on to say:

Well, last August, my husband...was diagnosed with cancer and shortly went off work on sick leave. Fortunately, he had almost a year of sick leave credits. As such, he has been able to still provide for us by receiving a regular pay check. His drug benefits were still active as well. This has been a great comfort for him as he has gone through months of treatments and surgery and made this situation much more tolerable. He could just concentrate on healing. He was hoping to be able to return to work by the end of the year and work a few more years. We still have a mortgage and bills like everyone else. We put three kids through University...

On June 2, 2011, CPC declared that our collective agreement was no longer in force. This resulted in [his] sick leave and benefits being cut off....

Lest people think, from this discussion, that it is small-business owners, seniors and others who are suffering because of this. Many people who work for Canada Post are also suffering. This means that Canadians right across the country are suffering.

Another person writes, “I am 62 years old, a single mother. Nine years ago, I became partially disabled, only working a half shift at Canada Post”. Her son is just coming to the end of university. She is already poor. She is asking why her employer proposes to make her poorer.

Here is one from a woman in my riding. She says, “I'm currently on sick leave after experiencing a heart attack. I also have numerous other related health issues”. All her benefits have been cut off. She continues to say, “After only two days without my insulin, my glucose levels have doubled and I'm experiencing difficulty breathing without my puffers and heart medications”, which she can no longer afford. That is what is happening.

We, on this side of the House, and I am sure many on the other side, believe in free speech, free association and free collective bargaining. This legislation hurts the values that our country stands for and is an attack on the rights of workers and their standard of living. The proper role is for the government to tell its own crown corporation to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate a collective agreement, but first it must unlock the doors.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite had many good points. However, the one point I would like to underline is what he clearly said about Canadians all across the country hurting, and that includes postal workers. I have had emails from postal workers in my riding and from across the country. They want to go back to work now. They want us to encourage members opposite to stop delaying this and to pass Bill C-6.

Would the member agree that the bill needs to be passed for the good of all Canadians in our country, and it needs to be passed swiftly?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, this is not a strike; it is a lockout. It could very easily be ended by simply taking the locks off the door and getting everybody back to work.

In fact, she will remember that CUPW said that it did not have a problem, that it would keep working with the existing collective agreement, while it continued to negotiate. That would have been fine, too. It does not have to be this way.

My final point is we have proposed amendments to this, which we think will help to solve the deadlock we are in right now. Perhaps if another member from the Conservative Party has an opportunity to ask me a question, I would like to know why the Conservatives have not accepted those.