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

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned by some of the questioning in the House that has this light humorous tone. After about 24 hours of debating this issue, we should all recognize how serious it is and give the respect that is owed to the people on the picket lines fighting for rights that we all ought to have as Canadian workers.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to elaborate on the point she raised about the draconian nature of this legislation. The government has taken a position that it will go farther than Canada Post, farther than management, and give workers who are doing nothing more than asking for a fair wage less than what management has put on the table. What does she think about this measure?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the inflation rate is 3.3%. The union is asking to catch up with the cost of living. This is not unreasonable. The CEO of Canada Post, who was appointed by the Prime Minister, offered 1.9%. However, this legislation would give them 1.5%, lowering that by 0.4%. That is a complete insult.

This means that if a party goes to negotiate, they need not worry, the Conservative government would not only legislate them back to work, it would actually lower the wage increase. This approach would create even more labour conflict.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to rise in the House during debate, I will take the opportunity to thank the voters of Halifax who voted me back with a very strong mandate to represent all the constituents in the riding.

For those political trivia buffs, such as the member for Winnipeg Centre, it is an interesting fun fact to know that I was elected with more votes of any member since Robert Stanfield. That is not bad for a New Democrat.

I am here representing the constituents of Halifax, regardless of whether they voted for me, I have had a lot of contact from constituents since we started this debate in the House, and actually since hours after the rolling strikes began and the government announced in the House that it would introduce back to work legislation.

It is the constituents' voices that we are missing. We are doing a good job, standing up for the workers and for Canadians, but their voices are missing. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to bring their voices to this chamber, to this magnificent place, and actually share with hon. members what they are saying in my riding. Some of them are postal workers, some are not, but they all care deeply about this issue.

I will start with a letter I received from Thomas Beazely. He wrote:

My name is Thomas Beazely and I am a lettercarrier and 29 year employee of Canada Post in Halifax. I urge honorable members here today to reject the legislation before you. Remove this unjust act that impedes the ability for our union and Canada Post to negotiate a fair agreement for both parties. Allow history to show that government allows collective bargaining to resolve issues and does not permit legislation to tip the scales and handcuff the Rights of workers and labour in Canada. Let the record show that all parties here today worked together to make the playing field level so that Canada Post is forced to negotiate in good faith. This has not been the case thus far. We the workers, I a lettercarrier, want to do our work. We want to serve the citizens of this great country, we want to deliver the mail. We did everything we could to ensure our service was maintained with as little disruption to the public as possible while attempting to force Canada Post to negotiate in good faith. They have hidden behind the promise of legislation and today hide behind the act of legislation. They caused the loss of service to our customers and now should not be allowed to hide behind the misleading information they are providing to our customers. Let “nay” be the vote that carries at the end of the debate, let history show all parties are concerned about workers rights. Thank you for your time....

I have another letter I received from a constituent named Scott Mason. He writes:

...I am a mail carrier for Canada Post. I strongly oppose the back to work legislation because it gives the corporation a way out of bargaining in good faith. Why should Canada Post negotiate when they know the Gov't. t is going to side with them anyway. We started out with rolling strikes to put some pressure on the Corp. and very little on the public. We do not have any problem with the public, as a matter of fact we have been getting overwhelming support from the public. If we do not have the right to fair negotiations, what kind of future will we and our families have? What about future generations? It seems like we are going backwards! If the majority of the population is only making minimum wage, where will are economy be? The Prime Minister would be wise to think real hard about this situation, because there is a lot of unions in this country with a lot of votes. We are not asking for the moon, we just want a fair deal. We were ready and willing to deliver the mail, and still are. Now if the Prime Minister would legislate Canada Post to let us get back to doing our jobs, which many of us love and make them negotiate, he would earn a lot of respect.

The next letter is actually from someone in my riding who I know is not a postal worker. In fact, he is a scientist but he wrote to me because he cares about this issue as well.

His name is Chris Majka, and he writes:

A just and democratic society is one that knows how to hear and balance the voices, ideals, and legitimate concerns of all its citizens. The right to collective bargaining by unions representing working people, are an essential component of how modern, progressive, democratic societies work. These rights were hard fought for, and represent a significant triumph for citizens, not only of Canada, but also of nations throughout the world where the principles of civil society are respected. They ensure that working people have a right to be heard with respect to legitimate concerns relating to the conditions of their employment and the remuneration they receive. But they also represent something even more important--dignity. The dignity that is every person's birthright. Dignity to be respected as an individual, as a human being with fundamental rights--and not simply as a mechanical cog within an administrative or corporate machine.

And these rights must also not be toothless. Where collective bargaining fails to achieve a mutually acceptable consensus, unions, and the members they represent, must have the right to withdraw their services, and strike for what they believe in. Without this capacity collective bargaining pales into insignificance. Unions must be able to take a principled position on the picket lines, literally standing for what they believe. Except in demonstrably dire circumstances, this right to collectively bargain should not be abrogated by government.

Forcing workers back to work needlessly muddies the waters of collective bargaining. It disenfranchises workers from the fundamental rights of every person to have to have a role in determining the conditions, circumstances, and remuneration under which they offer their services to an employer.

I submit that in the case of the current [lockout] by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, there is no dire threat to Canada of the sort that would warrant the federal government passing back-to-work legislation.

I urge the Canadian government to respect the rights of workers, to respect the principles of collective bargaining, to respect the right of unions to undertake legal strike action, and to drop its plans to pass such legislation. Canadians from all walks of life are looking to see if this government intends to impose governance on its citizens, or work in concert with them. This is the time to demonstrate good faith and show a commitment to respectful civil society.

Actually, I feel like I could not have said this better myself. People have written really passionate letters and it is a real privilege to be able to bring their voices to the fore.

In the time I have left, I would like to read a little bit from Jim Guild in Halifax. He wrote:

Any fair-minded parliamentarian would have to rise and speak forcefully against the legislation forcing postal workers back to work. Any law that so precipitously and unnecessarily takes away the democratic right of workers to lawfully withdraw their labour would be reprehensible. But this Act is so flagrantly one-sided in favour of the employer -- Canada Post -- that it does discredit to even this Conservative government. And this is a government that most Canadians expect to be unfair and unreasonable.

Not only is the legislation an attack on public sector workers, it is a disrespectful assault on the very public service upon which Canadians rely. This is particularly true for Canadians who live outside our urban areas.

It is a slap in the faces of the very workers who created the Canada Post profits these past years that have flowed directly to the Canadian government coffers. And it insults every new employee before they have even start working for Canada Post.

This is the [Prime Minister's] gift that keeps on taking.

So I encourage any Parliamentarian to do whatever they can to delay, if not prevent, the enactment of this short-sighted and mean-spirited legislation.

As I said, those are the voices of people from my riding who I represent. I think they have put it just beautifully. I urge the government to start acting reasonably, take the locks off the doors and let the two parties negotiate and put an end to this lockout.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recognize the hon. member's passion in her comments but her comments are misguided and reflect her party's focus on narrow interests and even a narrower vision.

We have heard from Canadians overwhelmingly that the government wants us to act on their behalf and expects us to because of the strong mandate that they have entrusted us with. We will not break faith with the Canadian people.

Why can the member opposite and her party not join us in supporting the broader interests of all Canadians?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, Carole Woodhall, from the riding of Halifax, has the perfect answer to that question. She writes to us on the NDP side and says:

Thank you for your support of postal workers who have exercised their legitimate rights to bargain for a fair collective agreement. It would be a grave disservice to postal workers for the government to interfere in the collective bargaining process. The parties should be left to work out their differences without government intervention. What is the emergency? Postal workers were willing and ready to deliver cheques as they had done in past labour disputes during the 1990s.

This is a lockout and nothing else. It is time for Canada Post to cut the locks off.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am getting tired of hearing about special interests whenever it refers to working people across this country.

This debate today is not about just unionized workers. This debate is about all workers. If we want to talk about special interests, we could talk about a government that instead of telling Canada Post to open the doors so workers can deliver the mail, it introduces legislation which introduces a lower salary than that offered by Canada Post. So talk about special interests. Members across the aisle have a special interest, and that special interest is attacking working people.

I would like to ask my colleague to make a comment.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would like to bring up something that a constituent from Halifax wrote to me that directly relates to this question. She says:

“Postal workers have always wanted to continue to deliver the mail and have showed up daily to do so only to be turned back at the door. I ask you, how can the government legislate us back to work when we have never chosen to leave work or strike? I urge you to do what you can to squash this motion, have us legislated back to work and instead a motion that Canada Post be ordered to come back to the bargaining table to work on a fair and collective contract. We employees are not trying to be difficult or impede or inconvenience the Canadian public by demanding that we be treated fairly and with respect, and along with the help of the NDP and others in the House who realize this is wrong, we will continue to fight for justice”.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that my colleague has been reading letters from her constituents talking about the postal strike. I would like to read something from a constituent of mine who is an employer in the area. He says:

“As a business owner in your constituency, I am part of an industry that employs over 58,000 Canadians, and when you consider family members relying on those employees has an impact on some 150,000 Canadians in total. As you can appreciate, in addition to our loss of business, the impact on the cashflow for all small business is an extreme hardship we can ill-afford to face in these challenging times”.

What does the hon. member say to 150,000 Canadians who are in danger of losing their livelihood?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I certainly hope the member's constituent is watching right now, because I would like him to understand that it is her party and her government that has put the locks on the doors. The postal workers have said that they will go back to the table and bargain, but it is her government that put the locks on the doors.

I hope that all the businesses in her riding realize that it is that member's responsibility and that the losses that they are suffering are a result of her party's actions.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a different tack here today in this debate.

We have asked for a debate on what we call the six-month hoist. We heard the leader of the opposition last night give what I would have to say was one of the most magnificent speeches that I have ever heard in this chamber. It probably qualifies as one of the most magnificent speeches ever given in this chamber. He talked about the history of Canada and of the rights of people and of improvements to the lot in life for all Canadians that have been brought about over many years. He put the current situation in that context.

I want to talk a little bit about that. I am going to quote from a letter I received. It is a very moderate letter. I don't know where this individual lives in Canada, but he is a Canadian. He says:

Thank you for defending a fair settlement in the Canada Post Lock-out!

That sounds very bland, and it sounds like something we would expect to see happen. We would expect to see our government promote, and our laws designed to promote, a fair settlement of what is a dispute over a collective agreement. Collective agreement and collective bargaining rights are enshrined in our law. They are constitutionally protected rights. They are rights that are contained in the universal declaration of human rights. We brag about how we are a rights-based society under the rule of law. The rule of law includes the constitutional rules and constitutionally protected rights.

What he says here is,

Thank you so much for your strong stand in Parliament. It makes me proud to be a Canadian when I see that our politicians make personal sacrifices to protect workers in this country.

It makes me feel proud to be recognized that this indeed is what we are doing, protecting workers. From what? In this case from legislation that strips their rights to bargain collectively, that says to them, when they seek to improve by a bargaining position, “Here is what we would like and here is what you would like. Let's bargain. Let's talk about it. Let's trade proposals back and forth. Let's exercise our right to withdraw our labour.” In this case it was through a series of rotating strikes to bring attention to their circumstances and their demands.

What do we have? We have a government agency shut the doors. Now, within days, I think it was two days later, the government gave notice of this legislation. When the legislation comes, what does it do? It says, well, we do not really care about the bargaining that went on. We know that this company that produced a profit of $186 million made an offer to the workers based on its bargaining stance and other conditions. What does the government do? It passes legislation that says, no, you are going back to work, and you are going back to work for less than the company had offered you during collective bargaining.

That cannot be other than taking away the constitutionally protected rights of workers to bargain collectively, because they were bargaining collectively and the government said, no, we are not going to allow this bargaining to take place; in fact, we are going to interfere with this and order them back to work and order an agreement to be put in place--I would not call it an agreement, because it is not an agreement, but order a contract to be put in place that is not agreed to by the parties involved and that in fact gives workers less.

This individual also says:

I must give special thanks to the members from Quebec who are giving up their National Holiday to stay and fight [the Prime Minister's] unjust legislation. Bonne Fête nationale!

I want to recognize as well the sacrifice that our members from la belle province are making to participate in this debate, to defend a fair settlement for Canada Post workers and to make these sacrifices.

We hear about the concerns that people had, about small businesses and others who needed cheques or mail. I am very sympathetic to that. So is this individual. He said:

One point...I understand that, on the first day that Canada Post locked out postal workers, only 23 workers from three very small communities (Smithers, B.C.; Sioux Lookout; and a third from NF) were scheduled to rotate on strike. Without the lock-out, the small businesses would now have their cheques, as the posties ensured with the rotating strike.

Then he asks us to stay strong and keep up the fight. I can assure everyone that we will do that.

What we have here today is a manufactured crisis. The same powers that manufactured that crisis have the ability to make it go away. Just take the locks off the doors. Encourage the collective bargaining process. Encourage a fair settlement.

Instead, the government has tilted the balance. It has made it impossible for there to be good faith bargaining between Canada Post and its workers.

I am saying “Canada Post and its workers” deliberately. I want to say that to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Prime Minister himself, who has unleashed in this House language that I do not think is deserving of this place.

If he is speaking for the Prime Minister when he gets up in this House and talks about “union bosses” and “thugs”, then he is delivering a message on behalf of the Prime Minister that this is his attitude toward workers' representatives who were democratically elected and given a 97% mandate to negotiate an agreement on behalf of the workers. This member comes here on behalf of the Prime Minister and talks about union bosses and thugs. He hides behind a piece of paper that he says comes from one of his constituents.

That is not good enough. The bosses who shut down this operation are sitting over there. They are the ones whose agency locked the doors on Canada Post. They are the ones who are acting as bullies with legislation that takes away the rights of workers to bargain collectively. If there is any thuggery or any bullying going on, that is where it is coming from.

I want the government to tone down its talk and stop inflaming the situation.

[Bob Zimmer]

Stop calling the kettle black.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

It is the kind of language that I am hearing from over there that is inflaming the situation.

I am objecting to that. It does not do them any credit whatsoever and it does not do this Parliament any credit to have a situation like this. Instead of solutions being reached, workers who are exercising their constitutionally protected rights are being vilified in this House. Their representatives are being vilified.

Members who want to understand could have listened carefully last night to the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about the advances made through struggles year after year, over many decades, to give us the kind of Canada that many of us share today.

However, this process and this approach is to say, no, we will not share the advances with the next generation. The benefits that have been won in terms of some security in retirement will not be shared by other people. The next generation that comes along will have to start off with lower wages. We will have a special policy where we will hire people on a non-discriminatory basis. We will bring all these people in on a non-discriminatory basis and give them an advantage in bringing them in. We will bring in aboriginal people, people of colour, disadvantaged people, and we will pay them half or three-quarters of what the current workers are being paid. That is how we will have equality in this country. That is the plan. New hires will get less than everybody else. We will adopt a very proactive policy that identifies and brings in people who are especially disadvantaged and we will pay them less.

That is wrong. However, that is what this leads to.

We need to have a fair settlement. That is what this individual is asking for. That is all we are asking for here. This legislation should be hoisted for six months. That is our motion, and we would like to see it implemented.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, picking up on what the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering was saying earlier, I have my undergraduate degree in Soviet studies and eastern bloc political philosophy and history. I fought with perestroika and I had no further use for it. However, it seems to be coming in very handy listening to the debate over this matter.

With recent polls stating that 70% of Canadians support back-to-work legislation to end this work stoppage at Canada Post, can the member explain why the official opposition is not on the same side with the majority of Canadians but is only repeating its rhetoric with respect to the union position?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thought red-baiting as well had ended some time ago, but I guess not.

Let me talk about the 70% of Canadians. I would be willing to bet the hon. member that 70% of Canadians, if they were asked, would not support this legislation. They would not support legislation that said the government shall move inside the collective bargaining process and order people to go to work so that they would get less money than their employer had put on the table in collective bargaining. I will bet that 70% of Canadians would say that is unfair.

They might want to see the post office workers back at work. If they were asked if the government should take the locks off the post office to allow postal workers to deliver the mail, 90% would agree to that, too.

Let us not play with statistics here. I do not think that 70% of Canadians or any substantial percentage of Canadians would want the government to follow through with this legislation and to do what it is trying to do.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. colleague is about the discriminatory movements I see with respect to this bill and the offer that has been tabled. For me as a young person, as a woman, and as a person who identifies as a person of colour, why is it that, in the opinion of this member, the government seems to be supporting this type of discriminatory behaviour?

I hear comments from across the way that says workers should have taken the first offer. That type of bullying tactic I do not understand. I would ask my hon. colleague to chime in and give his opinion on that.