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

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer by quoting a short statement made by Claude Mercier, who is the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers for the Mauricie. He provides a small sample of how Canada Post works in my riding. In his letter, he says that, as regards service to the public, the mail was not delivered in some areas of Trois-Rivières last Friday, because it stayed in the letter carriers' sorting cases and the management had decided not to use replacement personnel.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too have been involved with a union for a number of years. I was a school teacher for 34 years. I was also involved with a political liaison between the Alberta Teachers' Association and the Government of Alberta. There are a lot of things that can happen when one gets people together and one gets them to work.

One of our concerns is that Red Deer was one of the places that did have rotating strikes, and we have felt all of the ramifications of that particular action. We have also had a lot of people inform us that they have considerable concerns as well.

But we have had people on both sides of this issue. I have had some communication from a fellow by the name of Cam who is concerned. He disagrees with some of the things we are saying. He does not like the “winner take all” arbitration, but he is also saying that we should be ordering the employees back to work. These are the kinds of things that we see. We see a lot of different concerns.

A lot of people are trying to get communications out. They put ads and so on into newspapers, but the only way that gets to the community is through Canada Post. They go through the effort of producing the papers, collecting the ads and everything else, but they are having difficulty getting the communications out.

I would also like to talk about one of the events that will be happening in--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I regret that we are running very narrow on time.

The member for Trois-Rivières has 30 seconds left in his response.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even though I did not find the question in there, I am pleased to be part of this brotherhood of teachers with my learned colleague. What seems most important in what he said is that when we are part of a union, we can bring people together, closer, and we can create winning conditions.

It seems to me that we, in this House, should set an example. Being unable, after two hours of debate, to put forward a motion or an amendment that would get the support of all parties sends a very bad message to the public.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to wish all Quebeckers a happy national holiday, in particular the people of the riding of Laval—Les Îles, with whom I would really have liked to celebrate tonight, but since the government has prohibited this—we know what is going on, we understand—it will not be possible. They will understand the reason for my absence.

The government decided to extend the work of the House without regard for Quebec MPs or their constituents. It preferred to interfere in the negotiations between the postal workers and Canada Post, by forcing the workers back to work under unacceptable conditions, rather than allowing us to go and celebrate with our constituents.

I am here tonight in order to stand up for the workers of Canada Post who are fighting in good faith to obtain sound working conditions and a negotiated collective agreement. They are faced with the possibility of seeing the government impose salaries that are lower than those that were offered by the employer. I am also here to stand up for all workers who could be facing the same fate because of a government that has no values and does not want to amend its bill.

Before continuing, I would like to specify that unlike Canada Post, which has locked out its employees and deprived the public of an essential service, postal workers never took Canadians hostage. The rotating strikes they held delayed postal delivery by one day at the most. Their goal was to force Canada Post to negotiate. But the employer's reaction was to close the door to negotiation, impose a lockout on its employees and interrupt all mail delivery.

This is a manoeuvre that is putting the most vulnerable people in a difficult if not precarious situation. In spite of the lockout and the threat of legislation imposing a return to work with lower salaries than those proposed by Canada Post, postal workers are continuing to provide mail delivery in my riding. Pension cheques, social assistance cheques and child benefit cheques have been delivered so as to limit the damages. The postal workers are not doing this for money, but out of respect for Canadians who may well depend on those benefits for their subsistence.

I said “respect”, a word that seems to mean nothing to the Conservative government. Government interference and the prospect of special legislation to force postal employees back to work leave the door wide open for the employer, which realizes it no longer has to negotiate in good faith and can hand its dirty work over to the government.

The message to workers is clear: accept the offer of the employer, which is taking away the gains that employees have been able to achieve, not by forcing Canada Post's hand but by bargaining. Today, the government, on whom these workers should be able to rely to stand up and protect them, will impose an even worse settlement on them than Canada Post's offer. It is important to point out that Canada Post is not on the verge of bankruptcy, far from it. It generated nearly $300 million in profits in 2009, and yet it is claiming that it cannot provide its employees with sound working conditions or new employees with fair wages. That is a tough pill to swallow when the corporation pays its CEO almost $500,000, not to mention a performance bonus of more than $150,000, which would climb even higher under this bill. I am certain, by the way, that he still collected his paycheque during the lockout.

Canada Post is a profitable, reliable and indispensable postal service, and contrary to what pro-privatization forces would have us believe, no alternative involving the private sector could ever be adequate.

In addition, the Canadian public does not agree with privatizing a low-cost, high-quality postal service.

I wonder what the government—which is supposed to serve the public and respect its will—does not understand about that.

Finally, I am concerned about the precedent that will be set by this interference. Who will pay the price next time? Unionized workers have every right to expect their contract to be respected. They have every right to expect their employer to negotiate fairly, justly and in good faith. By introducing this bill, the government is opening the door to a dangerous practice that would allow employers to gut worker's rights with the blessing of the House of Commons, or at least one side of the House of Commons.

The Canadian government must set an example in terms of equality, safety and respect for workers. This should be a country that makes its citizens proud and not a land that turns the clock back on the gains made by taxpayers for benefit of company CEOs who already profit from the current system.

Happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to all French Canadians.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as time wears on it appears that the focus of the discourse is becoming increasingly confused. Let me try to bring us back to some important facts.

I would like to suggest that we also focus on the defining offer by Canada Post. Employees hired in the future would be offered wages and benefits that are superior to those offered by competing logistic and delivery companies.

There has been a lot of debate about whether this is a strike or a lockout. I just draw the attention of the hon. members to a June 12, 2011, media advisory from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The union held a press conference saying that workers in a number of locations would be out on strike that night. It itemized a number of areas as well.

I also wanted to also address the definition of “strike”. A strike is the collective organized cessation or slowdown of work by employees to force acceptance of their demands by the employer. Most jurisdictions require that for a strike to be legal, it must be approved by a majority of the employees in a secret vote. I do not recall that this was ever done.

I believe it is the most vulnerable Canadians who are most affected by this stoppage. That includes those with disabilities, veterans, and new Canadians. Does the hon. member honestly believe his party is helping vulnerable Canadians and small business owners by dragging out the passage of this legislation?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are working for all workers across Canada. We are not just doing this for the postal workers. And we are doing this because we thought that the government on the other side would act in good faith, take the wage clause out and take the lock off the door.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just sitting here with my computer when I received an email. I would like to read it. It was sent by a letter carrier from the GTA.

She says: “I am working in Mississauga, Ontario, for Canada Post. I have been working in this company for almost 29 years, both inside the postal plant and as a letter carrier. I have been listening to the government channel and would like to comment on a few things that they are attacking.”

She continues: “First of all, we did not want this lockout. We wanted to work and our high-paid upper management are making these decisions. As a letter carrier, I was in this week to deliver the cheques to our customers that the government is claiming were not delivered. Please report this to them.

She goes on to say: “Ask our government MPs and our upper management to sit in our shoes for a day or two. I think their opinions would change. We're happy with what the MPs are doing when they're saying 'unlock the doors for us to work and force Canada Post to negotiate in good faith'.”

This letter carrier from Mississauga says there is a need for Canada Post to unlock the doors and for the government to not interfere in this collective bargaining process. I am asking if my colleague can comment on that.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

As I said earlier, we are here to ensure that people can negotiate collective agreements, not have ones that are imposed by the government. All we are asking is that the government take the wage clause out and take the lock off the door.

[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?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comment from the hon. member opposite.

[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?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech.

As the member well knows, our government is concerned about the effect that the Canada Post work stoppage is having on the Canadian economy and the economic recovery.

A number of emails and BlackBerry messages have been shared. I have had numerous messages, but I think it is important that I share this one with the member and would ask for her response.

This is from a constituent who owns and operates two helicopter companies, and therefore pays corporate taxes as well as personal taxes. She asks me to speak on her behalf in Parliament with regard to the current postal strike. She wants them sent back to work, as this is seriously affecting her business in terms of receiving payments from her customers and sending payments to her vendors. She should not have to incur more costs to do business, like paying FedEx or Greyhound bills, just to be able to keep operating.

Why is the NDP trying to block the process of back to work legislation? They are basically closing the doors on this opportunity. Why are they doing that and hurting the Canadian economy? Why are they disrespecting the majority of Canadians who want this settled?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond to the constituent who wrote to you. In fact, this is not a strike; unfortunately, this is a lockout. The workers should not have to pay for this decision, which was made by management. Canada Post just has to unlock the doors and end the lockout and the situation will work itself out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the last person who spoke to briefly explain what the future could hold if a two-tiered pension system is implemented, or what it would mean in terms of employee relations within a union where some workers, because of their age, would clearly be discriminated against and condemned to a certain life of poverty when they retire.