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.
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a sad Saint-Jean-Baptiste for us, and I also find it pathetic that the government has failed to listen to our requests in this matter.
A few seconds ago, I heard the hon. member opposite ask why. One of the reasons we have embarked on this marathon is to show everyone this government's true nature. People will hear about it in the news, 20, 30 or 40 times, and in the end they will understand the government's hidden agenda to privatize the postal system. I say hidden agenda because the government is trying to make us believe it is intervening for the sake of efficiency in the interest of the workers and average citizens. In reality, however, the government's sole motivation is to make Canada more appealing to its friends in big business, on whom it bestows all kinds of tax credits.
Bill C-6 is a disgrace. It is not complicated: the bill is an abuse of power, plain and simple. Now we are seeing the Prime Minister's true colours. I urge all Canadians and Quebeckers to stand together in solidarity instead of fear, because we can all ask ourselves who will be next. Which workers will the government muzzle next?
The Conservatives would not have introduced this bill in the days leading up to the election, because there is no question that the vast majority of Canadians respect the rights of workers. This kind of bill would not go through on the eve of an election, only at the beginning of a government's mandate. The Conservatives have no hesitation perpetrating this kind of abuse. Instead of bringing the parties together, the government is taking an adversarial position against the workers. I remember a statement the Prime Minister made on election night about wanting to govern in the interests of all Canadians. I remember him saying that.
A strong, stable majority government, please.
The government is setting out to shatter our society. Does the government have a hidden agenda to sell off all our resources and the workforce? Are we facing a government that objects to public postal services for purely ideological reasons?
The government is looking to dismantle Canada Post, that is quite clear. It would prefer to privatize postal services, which would have disastrous consequences for Canadians. There is no private replacement option that could fulfill Canada Post's mandate. On the contrary, service levels would diminish but would cost more.
With a crown corporation that makes more than $280 million in profit, how can they be talking about profitability concerns and costs that would be too high for Canadians to bear? Postal services are efficient and affordable, and I think that all Canadians hold these services dear.
While more and more Canadians are using email physical mail remains an essential service and one that Canadians hold dear. But the Conservatives seem to believe differently. I use email all the time but my real mailbox is quite often filled to the brim. I easily receive about 20 pieces of mail a week, which amounts to about four pieces being sent through the mail every working day. I do not believe it is a dying service.
Postal workers are aware of future challenges and they have amply demonstrated that. Rotating strikes were respectful of the public. Pension cheques were being delivered.
On June 3, Canada Post workers started a rotating strike. They are fighting for better job security and fair wages. They refuse to be the victims of tactics to unfairly take back their money. They refuse to allow the rights of 48,000 employees to be violated and have their families suffer the consequences. Canada Post belongs to us all, to all Canadians.
We are lucky to have one of the best postal services in the world. Seniors need to receive their pension cheques and small businesses need to send their bills.
The government needs to take the damned locks off the doors. We are supposed to defend the people who make this essential service work. That is why we are here. Hearing the Conservatives talk about the businesses that are suffering from the lack of service, I would like to remind them that SMEs are run by ordinary citizens and that they also have collective and civic consciences. They are sometimes able to be patient. I would be curious to poll them.
In any case, we do have to bear in mind that the Conservatives look out for rather big businesses like oil companies and big banks, which do not have a social conscience. With its attitude, the government is trying to create an environment appreciated by the big business lobbies. We all know this. Let us stop fooling ourselves. It has been very clear from the start. This is why I became interested in politics three years ago. When I became a card-carrying member of the NDP, I said to myself that this could not be, that we had to stop it. This government takes its orders from big business, and is out of touch with ordinary people. That is why we are here.
I would like to remind members that the CEO of Canada Post earned $497,000 last year and, in addition, he is up for a 33% performance bonus. That is obscene.
How can we ask people to make sacrifices when others are paid that kind of money? That is mind-boggling. That is the right word. We often use that term. We say about everything and anything, that it is mind-boggling. That sure is incredibly mind-boggling. This was put to us seriously, no kidding.
Postal workers do not drive luxury cars or live in mansions. They are ordinary people who have good working conditions because they are well represented. Today, the government wants to break them. That is what they want to do.
Obviously, the government sees nothing wrong with this and it even wants to give more money to the workers' managers, who are asking for a bit of help with this special bill.
The Conservatives cannot see past the end of their noses. In fact, they do not see past their wallets. Short-sightedness is their speciality. For example, last night at around 10:20 p.m., I heard someone blaming the NDP for creating a carbon exchange because it was going to increase gas prices. That is like dancing on the deck of the Titanic or pretending that there are no problems, that there is no pollution. They have been short-sighted from the outset. Their current desire to privatize the postal system is short-sighted. They claim that it will save money. Come on. Why do they not just admit that they want to go play golf with their friends?
Underestimating the magnitude and scope of the measures against postal workers will create an atmosphere in which all workers will feel as though their rights are threatened. It will create a Canada where, one of these nights, a server at Tim Hortons will hesitate to complain about her working conditions. Yes, she has less protection than letter carriers and other postal workers. However, because the government is trying to break letter carriers and postal workers, this server will feel threatened. She will sell donuts and never ask for a pay raise. I guarantee it.
This is also the case for a cashier at a service station just off the 417 where we go to fill up at 3 a.m. Is he protected? How will he feel if this is done to the postal workers? And what about Raoul, who works on the 18th floor of the office building next door and who vacuums with his earphones on? He must also be telling himself that, if this is being done to letter carriers and postal workers, things will soon not be so rosy for him either.
These workers are not unionized. They are already in a corner. Imagine how these citizens, who are often new immigrants, will gradually lose hope. It would be different if we were at least telling everyone that we need to pull together in difficult economic times. But, no. The government is going to buy F-35s because it is cool. It is true. I imagine that going to dinner with the directors of large aerospace and military equipment companies must be much more exciting than eating Timbits with Huguette or a sandwich with Raoul.
I hear the members opposite talk about the people being held hostage and suffering from this postal situation. But let us be clear: this is not a strike, it is a lockout. I will say it again. This is like a game of table tennis: strike, lockout, strike, lockout. We all know the truth—there were rotating strikes, these guys got impatient and said, “No, we will create special legislation,” and that was that.
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to wish the people in the Louis-Saint-Laurent riding, all Quebeckers and all French Canadians across the country a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
Today, throughout my riding, thousands of people are celebrating their shared values and pride at living in the beautiful province of Quebec. I hope that today was everything they hoped for.
I cannot say the same for myself. Rather than celebrating with them and taking advantage of the festivities to meet more residents in my riding, I have to listen to the government repeatedly attack the rights of Canada Post employees and justify their anti-worker measures with very questionable arguments.
Like many of the hon. members, over the past few days, I have not stopped receiving phone calls and emails from concerned citizens, from people who are wondering what this government is getting us into.
On one side of this dispute, I see people who are fighting for better job security and, on the other, I see a government with irresponsible policies that is seeking to impose an unfair contract on workers and do everything in its power to lower workers' wages.
Last year, in 2009, Canada Post made a profit of approximately $281 million. Its President and CEO earns almost half a million dollars a year with a 33% bonus. And what is being asked? Workers are being asked to make sacrifices that will impact their families.
This government must understand that it is not its role to act as management for Canada Post. It should not have even become involved in this situation since the workers have the right to negotiate with their employer and are able to come up with solutions.
After workers have fought for decades for a fair and equitable work environment, I am wondering whether this government wanted to get involved in the dispute just to create a precedent and move us backwards.
We are lucky to have one of the best postal services in the world. Canada Post employees would like nothing more than to return to work. They have always been there for Canadians across the country, from coast to coast, in summer and in winter. Today, we must be there for them. It is a duty.
We want to work with the government to find solutions but we will not play its game. The workers deserve respect and they have the right to negotiate with their employer as equals.
The reason I am standing here today is that the thousands of men and women who every day brave all kinds of weather deserve better than this special bill. They deserve better than a watered-down pension plan, which will from one day to the next force them to change their retirement date, a date they had been looking forward to for years. After providing decades of good and loyal service, thousands of Canadians must make radical changes to their plans.
What about the promises management made to them year after year? The commitments made in successive collective agreements? Poof! Gone up in smoke. It is not fair to change the rules of the game in such a fashion.
Canada Post workers deserve better than a government that does not hesitate to separate them into two camps according to their age. In other cases, we have heard government members insist that the same rules should apply to everyone. But in this case they have taken the opposite position: they are unabashedly advocating a two-tier system, a position that tells the workers of my generation that their contribution is not up to par and will never be truly recognized.
By imposing these vastly inferior conditions on new employees, this government is digging a wide trench between the generations. It is creating serious divisions between young and older workers and will have created a more troubled work atmosphere when the mail starts to move again throughout the country.
And above all, these workers deserve better than a government that treats them the way they have been treated over the last few days, that is, as second-class citizens. What has struck me most from the beginning of this debate has been the contempt that certain members of the other side of the House have not hesitated to show towards thousands of Canadians who have devoted their lives to their community for years.
The government did not hesitate to depict them as people who are refusing to work, when the opposite is true—it is management that has put a lock on the door and brought all postal service in this country to a sudden standstill.
The government did not hesitate to attempt to turn the public against the postal workers, presenting them as the killers of the Canadian economy, a privileged caste profiting from the cost of stamps, when the opposite is true: they are productive members of the Canadian economy who generate substantial revenues for the government.
These citizens who wanted to continue working are involved in their communities and proudly serve their fellow Canadians, rain or shine.
The government did not hesitate to twist the knife with its special bill that imposes wages that are lower than those in management's last offer. This just does not make sense. The workers kept the postal system going despite their frustration with the slow pace of negotiations, and restricted themselves to rotating strikes that minimally impacted the public. The employer initiated a lockout, depriving millions of Canadians of their postal services and, as my colleagues opposite like to say, that really hurts the Canadian economy.
What does the government do in this situation? It punishes the workers and rewards Canada Post management by reducing the offer that was on the table.
If this government really believed that this lockout was adversely affecting the economy, it would not act this way. It would end the lockout instead of punishing the workers, who acted in good faith throughout this situation.
At present, everyone wants this conflict to be resolved. That is all the employees want. They want the lockout to end so they can go back to work and continue to serve the public.
This bill, however, is not about resuming mail delivery or protecting the economic recovery, or any other reason given by the government. No, Bill C-6 is about eroding some of the most fundamental rights of Canadian workers. This bill is about sending a message to workers across Canada; they are being told to keep quiet because this government will not hesitate to interfere if they want to exercise their rights.
Today, I would like to remind this government that it must support families and help them pay their bills. That is not a favour, it is its job. It is a duty. Unfortunate, the government seems to have forgotten this.
Today, it is attacking the postal workers. Who will be next? Who will be the next victims to have their rights violated in this way?
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I just got a message on my BlackBerry. The sender is wondering if this is a debate between members or a debate between BlackBerrys.
Seriously, the member talked about extending the work of the House. It seems to me we are debating a hoist motion and we are not even debating Bill C-6. If they want to stop extending the business of the House, let us get to Bill C-6. How about it?
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf, and as the critic on francophonie, allow me to first wish a happy national holiday to all Quebeckers. This day has been called the national holiday for the past few years to be more inclusive of all minorities in Quebec. My age is betraying me here. I am sometimes a little nostalgic and I miss what used to be called Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Today, I feel a great deal of empathy for all the francophones of this wonderful country who are celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Happy celebrations to them also.
It is no secret that, before May 2, my life was totally different. I wore two hats: I was a teacher in a Trois-Rivières high school, and I was the union rep for the teachers at that institution. Therefore, I have some experience in collective bargaining. I negotiated at least four collective agreements, each with a term of five years. They were referred to as “institutional peace”. At the end of each of those negotiations, and despite the clashes and the differences of opinion, we always managed to find a win-win solution and both sides could come out of the process with their heads held high. They may not have obtained all that they wanted, but they had improved their lot.
On May 2, a majority of voters in my riding elected to me to represent them in this House. I was perhaps a little idealistic in thinking that I was coming here to help create and draft legislation that would ensure the well-being of all Canadians. In the few minutes that I have, I am going to show how Bill C-6, now before us, contains major flaws that make it unacceptable. Since yesterday, there is broad consensus if not unanimity in the House on the importance of getting postal workers back to work. The Conservative Party, the NDP, the third party in the House and postal workers themselves all hope that the workers can return to work. Everyone hopes they will go back to work. Why is that not happening? Probably because this specific dispute involves a lot more than just the conflict at Canada Post.
Canada Post is a very large corporation. Yesterday, I listened with great interest when the Minister of Labour described this corporation. It became clear to me that what we have been debating for hours will set a precedent. Indeed, whether it is another crown corporation, a private venture, a small, medium or large business, or any type of business in this country, what is going on right now is setting a precedent. The government is setting the rules for future negotiations.
While I was preparing these notes, I put my history teacher hat back on, to see when these mean unions were born. Of course, I am being ironic when I use the term “mean”, because that word was used in reference to me during many years. I suppose it will be used again against me in the next few minutes, in addition to the term “socialist”, but I have no problem with that.
At the beginning of the industrial revolution, at a time when those who had money were creating businesses, workers were not listened to by owners. Their working conditions were harsh, their living conditions were miserable and they did not have any access to the sharing of wealth. Whenever they would, individually, try to meet their boss to improve their plight, the door would be shut, or they would just be ignored. So, the solution came naturally. The only way for workers to have a balance of power was to get together and create unions. And how did the employers of the day—at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century—react? Their initial action was to try to pass legislation to prevent unionization.
Thank goodness, they did not succeed in that respect and the union movement was able to continue to develop. A second attempt was made to pass legislation preventing the right to strike. It seems to me that, 200 years later, we are not very far from those actions in the current dispute, since the strike at Canada Post was a very modest one. We are talking about rotating strikes designed to stop mail delivery for one day in one region of the country, and then in another one, so that the whole economy would keep running and businesses would continue to get postal services. At the same time, it allowed employees to show to the public what their working conditions are, while also putting some pressure to support their demands.
Fortunately, unions have made a lot of ground since the industrial revolution, with the result that working conditions are now much better. The work week is reasonable—with the exception of the current one—, living conditions are much improved and wages are decent. As regards salaries, Bill C-6 includes a despicable discriminatory measure whereby young workers would not enjoy the same treatment as more senior workers. It is strange that the government would propose, here in the House of Commons, a bill containing measures that members of Parliament would not accept.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke, who is not here right now but who is the youngest member in this House, the hon. member representing the neighbouring riding of Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who is the dean of this House, and I, who am somewhere in the middle, all receive the same salary, because here we have understood that, regardless of age and experience, the ideas, the values and the work of each member are of equal value and deserve equal remuneration. I cannot figure out why we would not provide for others what we are providing for ourselves. Yet, such is the nature of Bill C-6.
Who benefits from a fair and equitable negotiation process and a win-win solution? Everyone can benefit. Canada Post employees of course, but also management. It would benefit from having a positive working environment for many years and from objective management practices based on a mutually accepted agreement. Moreover, the employees of other corporations in Canada would also benefit, because that successful process would serve as a model.
Let us not also forget the whole category of precarious jobs and self-employed workers, whose numbers are constantly growing because of technological progress. Since these people are alone, they can hardly make demands. However, they are affected positively or negatively by the outcome of the collective bargaining process carried out by major unions.
And here is the icing on the cake. Labour standards provide that the union has the right to strike, while the employer has the right to impose a lockout. In principle, these are the two ultimate negotiation tools. However, these negotiations have been going on for eight months. We have been told for the past two days that it is terrible to have negotiations that have been going on for eight months. Discussions and negotiations are two very different things. One does not have to have been very involved in negotiations to know that the first few months are spent getting to know each other, developing a rapport and putting the demands on the table. Eight months is a very short period to negotiate a collective agreement.
In the escalation process, the biggest pressure tactic used by the union was to begin a rotating strike. The reaction was swift: not only a lockout, but the suspension of the collective agreement, which includes workers' rights and benefits. And they would have us believe that this reaction is fair.
Unfortunately, I am going to stop here, because time flies. However, I will be pleased to reply to the questions and comments of hon. members.
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, last night we heard a phenomenal speech by the leader of the official opposition. He raised the bar and raised the tone of civility of this debate. He also focused our attention on some of the really important things that matter and that mattered in the last election.
I want to remind those in the chamber of another speech made last night. It might have been this morning; I can't quite remember. It was by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the official opposition labour critic. He talked a lot about the history and culture of working people. He reminded the House and Canadians of the battles that have gotten us to a place where so many people in this country take having a weekend off for granted. He talked about his father, who was a lumberjack. He himself was a miner. I thought it was a really powerful speech, because we forget that nothing comes without a fight.
The government has repeatedly asked why we are here. We are here because we want to bring it to the government's attention that we want to speak for all workers, not just unionized workers.
I want to speak to the fact that I have been a self-employed small-business person. My father was as well.
I represent a riding where there are a multitude of different kinds of small businesses and self-employed people, and they are workers too. They want pensions. They want benefits. They want job security. They would like to have access to EI. If their children get sick, they would like to take a couple of days off to look after their loved ones. This is not an option for many Canadians.
We are here tonight, and for as long as it takes, to focus the government's attention on the fact that workers in this country are hurting. A win for a trade union is a win for all workers, and a loss is a loss for all workers.
There are people in my riding who worked for companies for 23 years, were let go, and now have no workplace pensions. They have none. Do members know what they are doing now? They are competing with their grandkids for jobs at KFC.
The government asks what we are doing here. When we in the NDP see legislation like Bill C-6, which offers workers less than what management was offering in the first place, we have to say that this is not right. The leader of the official opposition, the member for Toronto—Danforth, drew a very clear and respectful line in the sand.
I too have received e-mails and phone calls from small-business people in my riding. For example, I received an e-mail from a member in my riding who publishes two magazines, not one but two. He is dependent on postal service. He e-mailed me to say that we have to stand with the workers at Canada Post and that the principle of collective bargaining is a principle that our grandparents and great grandparents fought for.
Last night I listened to many of the members opposite talk about how their fathers were in the trade union movement. I thought that was interesting. If it were not for the hard work and dedication of men and women over decades and decades, many of us would not have had the opportunity to end up where we are right now. That is very important for us to consider.
Another thing I respectfully ask the members opposite to consider is this. In 1995 a CEO's salary was 85 times the average worker's. That seems a little high. Most reasonable people would think there was something out of whack with that kind of equation.
I know some of our friends across the aisle like to characterize some of us on the official opposition side as some kind of wild-eyed folks that they do not want around their money.
However, today a CEO's salary is 220 times the average worker's pay. Whether one is a small business owner, a medium-sized business owner or a big business owner, or a worker, something is wrong with that.
That brings me back to Bill C-6. If we allow pensions to be chipped away at for workers who have fought for so long to achieve and to protect this benefit, then we will not help workers across the country who have no pension in the first place. If we let this happen, it moves the marker back for everybody else.
I was elected in the riding of Davenport on the promise that I would advocate for, speak up for and fight for, among other things, those who had no pensions, benefits or access to a safety net like employment insurance.
If we look at the data, we see a large-scale migration from the unemployed line of the ledger over to the self-employed line of the ledger. The problem is that for so many people who are self-employed, they are not really making enough money. They are trying to get businesses off the ground.
The government likes to trumpet the fact that it has supposedly created hundreds of thousands of jobs, but it never says whether these are full-time jobs. It never says whether these are jobs on which one can raise a family. We need a means test because one cannot raise a family on a $10 an hour or $12 an hour job. One cannot raise a family on a job where at the whim of the employer he or she loses a couple of days of work. That is happening all across the country.
At the same time, housing affordability has plummeted. It is almost impossible for most young families to afford to live in the city of Toronto.
We have postal workers who are key to our communities, to our economy and we have been asked to agree with the government to chip away at their living wage. We will not do that.
We have many workers in the country who are looking for leadership from the official opposition—
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated, we have actually provided some information with respect to a hoist motion. If the government is willing to really negotiate and look at the wage rates, then we are certainly open to its suggestions and will continue down that road. Obviously the government is not willing to move at this point, and that is why we are still here today.
Let me tell you about Elliott Lake, which reinvented itself, as a response to the loss of mining jobs, as an affordable place for pensioners and seniors to retire. For many of those seniors, the incremental increases in the cost of living ate away at the advantage they sought when they moved to Elliott Lake.
What does all this have to do with the debate? It has to do with pensions, which are part of Bill C-6. Price increases to everyday items, such as groceries, are hard enough to budget for. When the Conservative government conspired with the Ontario government to slap an additional 8% on home heating bills, it was a significant shock.
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can actually talk about the bill in the next couple of minutes.
There has been a lot of discussion today, and members opposite on several occasions have raised the prospect of making amendments to Bill C-6. There has been a lot of talk about one of them being about wages. The member's colleague, the member for York South—Weston, suggested that 11.5% over four years, which is what he said the Toronto police received in a settlement, would be considered a fair wage. The member for Trinity—Spadina suggested 3.3% per year, which would be 13.2% over four years.
Can the member tell us whether the New Democrats will be moving an amendment to stipulate wage increases that are somewhere between 11.5% and 13.3%?
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
I will do just that. As I indicated, this is about arbitrary decisions. The chief goes on to say, “My council and I much favour co-operation and collaboration over unilateralism and arbitrary government action which inevitably result in frustration and confrontation.”
That is where my remarks link to Bill C-6.
Most of the work in my riding has traditionally been resource-related, especially in the forestry and mining sectors. There are many farms, including a significant stretch along the strip of land near Lake Huron, and a great many small businesses as well. More and more we are seeing the small businesses pick up the slack created by job losses in traditional resource sectors, which have been devastated by short-sighted government policies over the last few decades.
As I said, we are hard-working people, but it is not all work all the time by any stretch. Visitors to our riding this summer will have no end of opportunities to join in our community's celebrations and cultural events. As you can imagine, with two Great Lakes and thousands of inland lakes, streams and rivers, we have fantastic fishing in the constituency as well. In fact, Chapleau has just won the title of Canada's Ultimate Fishing Town in the World Fishing Network--
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I urge the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing to bring her remarks to the substance of Bill C-6 as quickly as possible.
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, this debate is about Bill C-6, not about land claims in this country and who is on the right side of land claims.
This is totally inappropriate.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, I must say I always look forward to the member opposite's grasp of theatre. It is very interesting to listen to some of his comments, and his use of hyperbole is absolutely astounding. However, the factual content is somewhat worrisome.
The facts are that on May 2, this country elected a strong, stable Conservative majority government. Canadians elected a strong, stable majority Conservative government because they had confidence that our government could handle the economic downturn that we are coming out of in such a fragile economy.
Is the member aware that Canada Post is losing $25 million a day from this strike, this lockout? Is he aware that the economic downturn is not helped by what is happening right now? Is he willing to pass Bill C-6 and encourage his caucus comrades to do that?
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, as soon as they get a majority, they exercise their authority. That's how I would characterize this government's attitude toward its responsibilities. The rotating strike started just one month after the election, to the day. The principle of a rotating strike, of course, is that it lasts 24 hours at one location before continuing at another.
The rotating strike was not supposed to penalize the entire country and would ensure service at all locations, with the exception of the municipality affected by the strike on a particular day, on a rotating basis, one municipality after another.
The government cannot tell us that a rotating strike is worse than a work stoppage forced by the employer. What is happening now is not a rotating strike, but rather a lockout. We can therefore say that everything has been brought to a standstill with the aid of the Conservative government.
The public is not blind. The rotating strike left the door open to negotiations between the two parties, but the lockout does not. The workers decided to conduct a rotating strike because they were aggrieved, as the government had offered them less than their employer, Canada Post.
The workers sought increases at least equal to the rate of inflation, particularly since Canada Post is profitable and therefore would run no risk by improving the situation of its employees. Remember that it earned a profit of $281 million last year.
A number of labour strikes have been harshly suppressed in the past. I can offer the example of the Winnipeg General Strike in 1919, the most famous strike in Canadian history. Within a few hours, 30,000 workers walked off the job. The issues were the collective bargaining principle, wage increases and improved working conditions. In 1949, there was another famous strike, the strike in Thetford Mines, involving 5,000 workers, including 2,000 miners from Asbestos. The issues there were wage increases, the pension plan and recognition for the family. The issues have always been the same.
That was a time when any attempt to organize in the workplace was immediately repressed. It was a time when there was no legislation on working conditions.
I get the unpleasant impression we are reliving that period when workers had no rights.
The current incidents at Canada Post are strangely similar to what happened in the last century.
The government complains of the harm done to small businesses, harm that it has caused through its lockout.
The government is trying to pass this bill as quickly as possible in contempt of the workers' most fundamental right.
The NDP sensed what I would call this totalitarian attitude long before the election. Unfortunately, our worst fears have been realized, and not just once, but twice.
The NDP opposed the budget tabled on June 6, 2011. It opposed the bill to end the strike by Air Canada's 3,800 call centre and check-in counter personnel, which was just barely avoided. It now opposes Bill C-6 because the bill does not enable the two parties to go back to the bargaining table to reach a joint solution.
However, the workers wanted to negotiate with management, and they want to continue those negotiations.
Canada Post wants new employees to accept reduced wages, benefits, job security and pension plans compared to what is offered to current employees. Quebec law prohibits employers from creating working conditions for new employees that are different from those enjoyed by current workers. However, employees of businesses under federal authority, such as banks, telecommunications companies and the Canadian public service, are not protected by that legislation. This “orphan clause” providing for differential treatment made headlines in Quebec a few years ago.
Might we state once again that it was the government that subjected the postal service to a lockout, not the unionized employees? Unionized employees were conducting rotating strikes to avoid harming small and medium-sized enterprises and the public. Unionized employees delivered pension, workers' compensation and employment insurance cheques to Canadians.
“Aimed at the black duck, killed the white, oh, son of the king, you are unkind.” That line from V'la l'bon vent, an old Quebec folk song, is very appropriate to the work required of us today by the Conservative government.
Mail service is of course very important to Canada's economy, and any extended stoppage of that service would call for action by the Government of Canada in the public's interest. But what is the black duck at which the Hon. Minister of Labour is aiming in this matter? What is the cause of this interruption in mail service across Canada?
After a few days of perfectly lawful rotating strikes that had virtually no effect on mail delivery, Canada Post management decided unilaterally to cut back Canada's postal service, violating, with impunity, its own mission to deliver the mail quickly and efficiently across Canada. That decision alone would have constituted grounds for the minister to table a bill to summarily dismiss Canada Post management for incompetence and contempt of public order.
But now the Minister of Labour has drawn her big silver gun in the form of a special act and drafted legislation mistreating postal workers instead of rightly attacking those who are disturbing the public order, Canada Post's senior management.
This legislation is out of all proportion to the harm it aims to remedy. Senior management at Canada Post, feeling supported by such a well-connected accomplice, will thus order a lockout of its workers, putting the finishing touches to its sabotage of mail delivery across the country.
One can just imagine the size of the bonuses those gentlemen will be receiving for that brilliant idea.
This bill is a crude joke that rewards the turpitude and incompetence of Canada Post management. “Shameful,” as our leader would say. In addition, the minister adds insult to injury by getting back at the unionized workers: the legislation even provides for working conditions inferior to those set out in the draft collective agreement.
To vote for this bill would be to show contempt for Canada's unionized workers and to deny them their rights. However, Canadian taxpayers pay the minister's salary in order to protect those rights.
To vote for this bill would be to reward the laziness of Canada Post's senior management, who are more concerned about their year-end bonuses than about the performance of the service they are required to provide to Canadians.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing that point of view. If the hon. member can consider that everything I said spoke to that concern, that individual with that difficulty would not be in any difficulty at all if the government benches were prepared to compromise just a bit and tweak Bill C-6 so we can get people back to work faster. That is all I am asking. I am just asking the member to consider that when she reads out valid and important concerns on all sides of the House.
I have received similar emails. I read one yesterday in the House from a local newspaper that cannot get its papers delivered. How on earth does it advance the interest of those mentioned in the email the hon. member read out loud to keep the lockout going by failure to compromise?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy standing up as I have been in the House uninterrupted without sleep for 31 hours. I mention this not with any sense of bravado, but merely to apologize in advance if anything I say is somewhat less than coherent.
It would also be better if I were not to speak in French, given that I am very tired.
I will speak to the motion in a couple of ways. I find the challenge of being original, after 31 hours of debate, is my main obstacle. We have heard a lot of very fine words on all sides of the House, but it has become, and I hope I do not offend anyone, a little repetitious. Therefore, I thought I would take a different tack.
We do want to stay on the subject, and the subject of the motion is a hoist amendment. It is useful to go back and reflect on the fact that hoist amendments used to be used by the government, not by opposition. They were used most commonly around 1867. That is why most of us had not heard of them before, but we have learned more about hoist amendments.
However, what it comes down to is the fact that to accept a hoist amendment in these circumstances is basically to reject Bill C-6. Why would we want to reject Bill C-6? Those reasons have been well canvassed.
I want to state the position of the Green Party on this as clearly as I can.
We sympathize with all those people who are disadvantaged by the current lockout, work stoppage, however one wants to put it. Small businesses are disadvantaged, some in my own riding. Others disadvantaged are: small operators of all kinds; individual Canadians waiting for their cheques, whether they are seniors, or single parents waiting for child support cheques; the workers are disadvantaged, people who cannot go to work when they want to, who are not receiving their paycheques.
I would like to take it as a given that every member of the House would rather have the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers do their work with a management structure of Canada Post that allows them to do that work efficiently, effectively, with proper supports for their training. A lot of the issues that have come up have to do with new equipment purchased by Canada Post. I hear from Canada Post workers in my riding that it did not provide adequate time or adequate training. There are some structural issues here that are real.
For CUPW, it has not really been primarily about the salaries. We have also heard that. That was not the big sticking point in the negotiations. What then was? Issues of fairness, issues of pensions, issues of this training equipment.
How are we to resolve this? This is where I would like to try to be original. What are our duties as members of Parliament? To whom do we bear allegiance?
It was not long ago that every one of us in the House swore an oath of allegiance. Members may recall, unless they have individual practices within their own parties of which I am not aware, that none of us put our hands on the Bible to swear allegiance to our political party or the leaders of our political parties. Quite simply, we all swore allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
We did that not because we admire a very admirable woman of enormous sense of duty and responsibility, named Betty Windsor, who lives in England and has a lot of grandchildren and some great-grandchildren. We take the oath to Queen Elizabeth II because she represents to us, as head of state, our country. Our primary duty in this place is to our country. As such, I would beg of each and every one of us to think primarily about what is in our national interest, which is clearly to end the lockout, to get people back to work and to stop blaming each other for how we got in this pickle.
The Government of Canada clearly sympathizes more with Canada Post. That is understood. I think all of us in opposition tend to sympathize more with CUPW. However, the opposition is not CUPW and the governing party is not Canada Post. We cannot continue to be proxies for people who cannot get to the bargaining table on their own. We need to fix this for them and we should not fix it in a blunt way, with a draconian instrument, that would cause long-term damage to something we need to thrive, our national public postal system.
I know I have heard from many members, and I am not pretending for a moment that this idea is original, certainly in the official opposition and from some within the governing party that we should be able to bend a little. We should be able to fix this. We should not conduct an ongoing echo chamber in our House of Commons that leaves Canadians from coast to coast absolutely stupefied as to what we are doing here.
Let us surprise the people of Canada by having the members of the 41st Parliament act differently. Let us actually get together out in the corridors, and maybe people are already doing it. Let us remove those sections of Bill C-6 that are unacceptable at least to this side of the House. Let us find a way that gets the postal workers back to work as soon as possible, which satisfies all the needs of the people that we have heard so much about, the people who need their glasses, the delivery of food to the north, services to small communities. All of those needs and hurts will be mended the minute we take the locks off the door and get people back to work. People who want their mail delivered really do not care whether we keep clause 15 in Bill C-6 or not.
I beg of all of us in the next few hours that we find a way to hoist ourselves out of hoist amendments. In studying this I learned to my horror that we could move a hoist amendment again and continue to debate the bill. We could be here for days. That is in no one's interest.
Let us move to unanimous consent on things that make sense and let us solve this problem. Let us get the postal workers back to work and do it in a way that shows a collective respect for them and their work.