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

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

Madam Speaker, I guess the Conservatives have an agenda, and the agenda is to lower people's expectations. They think they can convince anybody to go along with that by saying we have to get the mail going so we will stop this from continuing, and saying that the workers are looking for too much. Members hide behind other people's quotes that say they are lucky to have jobs, et cetera.

This is all really part of an agenda that ends up dividing Canadians instead of all of us saying we should try to get everybody up with better benefits, better pensions, better rights, and better opportunities. Let us not divide people, one against the other. Let us improve everybody's lot in life.

That is what the union movement is trying to do for its workers. As we have seen historically, this raises up everybody's benefits if it is allowed to happen. The government does not want that to happen.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned when I spoke previously, I am from a community which has historically distanced itself from political issues and from most of the Canadian dynamic. Growing up north of the 50th parallel on an isolated reserve conferred a certain number of advantages that I can gauge at their fair value in light of the situation we are dealing with today. The Innu have always made it a point of honour to oppose any kind of pernicious state interference in community management.

I want to emphasize the word “pernicious”, as it certainly applies here. State intervention in the form of social policy, to help people in need, is essential if we are to ensure that we do not let the neediest and most disadvantaged people fall through the cracks. The state has an important role to play in helping communities, be it through funding infrastructure or collecting data that allows it to determine the socio-economic profile of a community, and thus identify socio-economic problems as well as possible courses of action to solve those problems.

It is ironic to see this government, too often blinded by its ideology, seeking private subcontractors, at any price, to provide services to Canadians and fill the jobs associated with them. Although, in a labour conflict such as this one at Canada Post, market logic should dictate that the government allow both parties to find a solution to the conflict, the government's reflex has been the opposite: it has intervened although it did not need to. And what is worse, the government, by taking this action, has upset the natural equilibrium between the parties in question. The reason we are in this House today is to restore that balance and to ask the government to withdraw certain provisions in this bill, in particular the one that pertains to salaries.

We must allow the arbitrator and the two parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to all. We can restore the balance and reach an agreement so that Canada Post lockout ends and service to the population resumes. In the final analysis, that is our goal here today.

I would like to get back to what I was talking about earlier, pernicious government interference in community management. When the message does not get through and the government takes measures compromising the independence of our management structures and the general self-government of my nation, the members of my community do not hesitate to act and express that independence in a radical way.

I want to make this perfectly clear: I would not want to urge the Canadian population to resort to roadblocks to make its voice heard, even though we are clearly faced with a situation involving government interference with the right to freedom of association and labour relations. I would advocate another approach, that of restoring the balance I was just referring to.

The government is attempting to create a precedent that clearly indicates the type of approach it is going to adopt with regard to the Canadian population during this mandate. As we can plainly see, this approach is akin to the authoritarianism of certain regimes that are currently being criticized by international observers. It is not my intent to quote figures and authorities to support my statements in this House, as my position rests on the heartfelt conviction that is a hallmark of the Innu community.

It is that conviction that enables me to offer a human viewpoint on any situation that arises. We must never avoid the human aspect inherent in the situation that concerns us at this time. The government's interference in the human relations that are part of the dialogue between Canada Post employees and their employer opens the door to improper government intervention in labour relations between all employees and employers.

In this regard I want to come back to the imbalance created by the Conservative government with its special bill. We will recall that the postal workers had offered to extend the collective agreement while bargaining continued. That is what the bill provides, but the bill goes further by setting the parameters within which the arbitrator must operate.

Why do they want to substitute themselves in advance for what should be happening down the road? Why not let the negotiations take their course and give the parties involved room to bargain in good faith? Imposing special legislation is a draconian measure that should be considered only in situations where the Canadian public is at risk of serious harm. That is not the case here; we are not in a crisis. I would caution everyone, however, because a crisis point can be reached very rapidly.

The Canadian public has expressed its views on the role of government in the past, and the current situation in the House of Commons is setting the tone of the social dynamic that is imposing itself on the Canadian public.

The measures proposed by the Conservatives belong to a bygone day.

Labour relations are in a constant state of change, and I suspect that this progress lies at the root of the measures proposed by the Conservatives.

They will have to reassess their positions and policies if they are to keep abreast of the wishes expressed by Canadians.

Obstructing the exercise of the right of association and the flow of bargaining that happens in labour relations is direct repression and negation of the concept of free will.

We can be assured that the presence of the NDP in the House will influence the government's decisions. Therefore, opposition members have not hesitated to debate this essential question and will continue to do so tirelessly.

I therefore urge the Mamit Innuat, the Pessamiunnuat, the Chimonnuat, all Innu in general, as well as the Naskapi, to support the postal employees and to support them massively and visibly. Make yourselves seen, brothers and sisters.

We will see that when we pool our efforts, big things happen.

All Canadians need to heed the warning that this issue is very likely to herald a dark era. It is up to the public to take a position and make the decision-makers understand that they will not remain passive forever.

Quite apart from the interruption in postal services, these recent events will perpetuate the power struggle going on in the public and private sectors. It is essential that people mobilize to support the desire of Canadians to express themselves and to flourish.

If I must, I am prepared to sit until the royal couple arrives, so they can witness the dedication of the New Democratic Party members of this House.

In passing, I salute the superhuman effort made by the party's support staff, some of whom are sleeping only a few hours a night, to ensure that our efforts are coordinated.

Without them, we would not be able to sustain our opposition to the policies of the Conservative government. With their support, we are making history today.

And last, I send greetings to the people in my riding, people of all origins, and I wish them all a wonderful time at the festivities that have been organized throughout the region.

I would have liked to be with them, but my presence is more useful in Ottawa.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that while those members are prepared to sit here until the Duke and Duchess arrive, we are prepared to sit here until they are gone to ensure that Canadians get mail delivery returned to them.

For anybody watching this debate, there must be a confusion about the events that occurred. The fact is, and I am sure members will agree, the old contract expired last October. The union leaders were negotiating with Canada Post and failed to arrive at an agreement.

The old contract had expired. It is quite legitimate that once something has expired, one cannot operate under it any longer unless there is an agreement between the company and the workers. We had the situation where, because the union did not want to continue negotiations unless it could operate under the old contract, it started rotating strikes. Then there was the lockout, and now we have back to work legislation.

The bottom line is we want to get the postal workers back delivering mail across Canada to everyone who needs that mail delivery. We are asking the parties to work with us. Let us try and get the workers back to work and then we will negotiate from there. Hopefully, we will have a good settlement all the way around.

Let us get the mail going again.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would note that this kind of delay is inherent in the situation the workers and the employer are in. Events in that situation were fluid and that is how it should have continued: the parties involved had a responsibility to each other to sit down, and they would have reached an agreement, as has happened in the past. There was no urgency to intervene, let alone interfere, in that practice, which is proper and normal.

[The member spoke in Innu-aimun.]

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Manicouagan for not quoting letters. I think we have proved on both sides of the House that we could have letters stating opinions on either side. Quoting from letters is in fact simply a smokescreen to distract us from the real debate. It is an old trick that was known to the Greeks 2,500 years ago.

We will get back down to business, as the saying goes. Should we not leave the two parties free to bargain in good faith?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which follows on what I was saying.

That is correct, the ideal approach in this situation would be for the parties to sit down together, because in any event this is a power struggle and we are going to see this every day, whether we like it or not. So, it is better that the parties themselves be the ones who ultimately have to decide their fate. That is the normal way of doing things, and in this society it is how it should be done.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments and contrary to what he said, some small businesses do find themselves in a crisis, people cannot pay their bills and they certainly cannot meet their payroll.

We have heard over and over again from our side of the House about the hardship being caused to Canadians and to our economy. We have heard from the other side of the House that government should not intervene. In any negotiations there are two sides, and that is why we have a dispute.

First, the union chose to implement a job action which the employer countered with its job action. Given that the situation has gone on for eight months, how long would the hon. member allow this dispute to drag on to the detriment of families, seniors, businesses and the economy in general? How long, two months, eight months, ten months?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I am well aware of the hardship being suffered on both sides. However, social imperatives must prevail in this case. The effort to make our points is truly worthwhile for Canadians. In fact, that applies not only to this situation, but also to situations that will arise in future. That is why we are here today and we are making these points.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak in this debate. I would like to take the opportunity to wish my constituents in Montcalm a wonderful national holiday, in spite of the bad weather. Certainly, at present, the Conservative government does not seem to want to work in the interests of the Canada Post workers. In spite of this obstacle, I particularly want to mention Quebec's national holiday and say to my fellow Quebeckers that it is great to be a Quebecker at this point in history. I want to assure them that I am with them in spirit and I sincerely hope to meet them in the near future. So I wish everyone a memorable national holiday full of music, stories and legends of our very own.

It is unfortunate that the Conservative government does not recognize Quebec's national holiday, but I can tell you that my constituents recognize the importance of the job I have to do here in Ottawa, supporting the Canada Post workers.

In negotiations, it is preferable for the two sides to find common ground and reach a consensus; unfortunately, I have the clear impression that, since the negotiations began, Canada Post Corporation never intended to bargain in good faith. Withdrawing from the negotiations and imposing a lockout shows its lack of respect for its workers.

A lockout is not a strike. A strike is a protest action taken by workers, while a lockout is the temporary shutdown of Canada Post. It is a decision initiated by the employer.

Canada Post Corporation preferred to wait for the government to intervene by trying to impose special legislation. That approach completely takes away any workers' right to strike, since they would always be afraid of legislation like that being imposed on them, and unfortunately sends a negative message not just to the Canada Post workers but, and most importantly, to all workers in Canada.

Right now, back-to-work legislation will create dissatisfaction and discontent among the workers. They will find it hard to swallow this kind of forced settlement and it will leave a bitter taste in their mouths. And that is without mentioning the poisonous atmosphere that will prevail between management and workers for months if not years to come.

We must not forget that several thousand workers are affected by this lockout. When will the government finally understand that Canada Post Corporation employees are people first—I repeat, people first—with families, obligations and responsibilities?

This bill will take power away from unions, whose primary role is to stand up for employees and look out for their interests. Second, the union must also make sure that information is conveyed to the employees. By doing that, it fulfils its function of communicating between Canada Post and the workers.

Canada Post Corporation is acting as if it is confused by the present situation. That is incomprehensible. They are the ones who brought on this situation. The position the government has taken is quite simply a slap in the face to democracy. What has become of common sense? The workers are locked out, and on top of that the government interferes by trying to pass legislation to force the workers back to work. The Conservative government's true colours are showing.

The Canadian courts have recognized that workers have the right to negotiate their employment contract. The Canadian courts have recognized that workers have the right to form associations with other workers to enforce their rights and their employment contract.

The approach taken by the Conservative government has no basis. This procedure is going to create a precedent that no worker wants. Who is going to pay the cost, ultimately? Workers.

Instead of showing consideration and respect for our workers, the government wants to abuse its powers and give the back of its hand to workers' rights. This is unfair and oppressive.

I do not understand. The Conservatives form a majority government. Yes, they got the support they needed, but did they have the courage to really tell Canadians how they intended to go about governing the country?

Did they say they would come down on the side of the most powerful instead of helping workers? Did they say they would impose their legislation without considering the consequences for workers' lives? Did they say they would not give workers the opportunity to negotiate in the way that prevailing practices provide for union negotiations to take place? Did they say they would bring in a bill to take away workers' rights to be heard and cut their pension plans? Will they continue to impose draconian measures on Canadian workers who try to exercise their right to bargain for better working conditions?

I think that out of respect for the workers and their families the government should withdraw from these negotiations and not impose anything by special legislation, let alone take the employer's side. The Conservatives' way of doing things is clear to see here—it is easy to see who their friends are—and it is at the expense of Canadian workers

It is these same workers who day after day contribute to making Canada Post the postal service we know today. These workers have contributed to their pension plan, and like everyone living in Canada they are entitled to draw a pension when the time comes, and thus to be sure of a peaceful and serene retirement. I therefore believe it is reasonable to expect a little consideration from the employer, and also from the government.

Why not give the two parties a chance to bargain in good faith and encourage communication more?

At present, the employees cannot enter the distribution centres and have no access to the mail, so they cannot deliver it. The doors are barred, that is what a lockout is. Canada Post has to remove the locks from the doors and allow the workers to do rotating deliveries, as was the case at the beginning of the negotiations. Today, the government is attacking the postal workers at Canada Post Corporation; who will be the next victims of the government's extreme decisions? No one wants to have their wages cut and their retirement date pushed back five years.

This special legislation is going to give all Canadian workers cause for concern and uncertainty, since they will always be wondering whether they will be the Conservative government's next scapegoats. This special legislation is going to create a gulf between two generations of workers. This special legislation is going to cause wage inequality and social inequality. This special legislation is going to weaken labour relations, not to mention the poisonous atmosphere the workers will have to endure.

The message the government is sending to workers is clear. It will not hesitate to side with employers, even if workers have a lot to lose. No matter what the situation, employers will be favoured over employees. That message tells workers they have no chance of bargaining fairly and equitably, because if they insist and push too hard to enforce their rights and their collective agreement, the government will not support them. Quite the contrary: it will interfere and force the workers back to work by special legislation. What year is this? These workers have paid union dues for years. The union is doing its best to represent them, but the workers did not expect that the government would use a special bill to try to prevent the union from doing its job properly and would fail to respect their right to bargain their working conditions freely.

I am afraid this approach is an attempt to create a gulf between workers in different generations, and also between employers and employees.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are approaching the 24th hour of this debate. We are coming very close to it. This is the first time in my almost 11 years as a member of Parliament that I have seen this type of exercise carried out in the House of Commons. In some respects I appreciate it. There is good debate between two polarized sides, it would seem. I want to congratulate the opposition member, a new member, on winning, and I commend her on her speech.

My question to the member is this. It seems the NDP's identity crisis is over. In the first couple of weeks of this new Parliament, the NDP came forward with a supply day motion asking us to lower taxes. That is the first time I have ever seen such a request from the NDP, but it was on small business. It seemed that most of the NDP members were uncomfortable with that supply day motion because it was new. It was as if they were trying to show us that they were ready to govern.

The past 24 hours have shown us that this party is not ready to govern. We can see that NDP members have taken every legal step there is, and they have attacked.

My question to the member for Montcalmis this. Over the past number of years we have seen how the NDP feels about replacement workers. It calls them derogatory names, such as “scabs”. We know what they think about lockouts. We know what they think about back-to-work legislation, but apparently revolving strikes are all right.

Why does the NDP show that it is not ready to govern and that it will be forever in opposition by not recognizing what is going on in our economy and by not recognizing the need to get the postal workers back to work?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am well aware that Canadians need their mail; we understand that and the postal workers understand it too; they are professionals. But I think we have to respect the workers, the workers in our communities, the workers who must work outside whatever the weather.

To come back to Canada Post's young workers, I think the new generation deserves the benefits that our parents and their parents fought so hard for.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member for Montcalm, as well as the members of the opposition, that this debate is simply about whether or not we are going to resist the lobby pressure of those who wish to raid pension funds. That is what it boils down to. The pattern is always the same. Everyone makes mistakes, but the important thing is not to keep making them, especially after what happened in Walkerton, where people died because lobbyists took advantage of the opportunity to do their own laboratory testing.

I would simply ask the hon. member to answer the following question: should we always grant the wishes of lobbyists, yes or no?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, simply put, everything we do should be done in accordance with our conscience and to the best of our knowledge. Common sense always has a role to play.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning around 4 a.m. I asked one of our NDP members for an opinion about the fact that seniors and small businesses in my riding were not getting their mail.

Yesterday I spoke with the executive director of the United Way of Leeds and Grenville, Judi Baril. She told me about the United Way. I know that they serve 27 agencies and have 92 programs, and one in person in three in my riding of Leeds—Grenville is served by the United Way. They are suffering serious cashflow issues brought about by this situation with Canada Post.

I ask the member: could her party move this debate along and let us vote on the bill so that we can help the charities, seniors and businesses in my riding?

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Montcalm has only 30 seconds left.