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.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is surely not as undemocratic as what this government is doing today in this House.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the postal workers did not have a chance to vote on subsequent offers and yet they gave their union a 94.5% mandate to strike. The party opposite keeps insisting that was not enough.
Does the Conservative Party go to the electorate and have an election every time it introduces a new piece of legislation? Would that analogy not be comparable to the kind of nonsense the Conservatives are spouting about a strike mandate?
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are here because we want to stand up on behalf of citizens against this bill that the government is trying to pass. They tried to blame us and told us that if we wanted to attend Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations in our ridings, we simply had to vote for a bill right away, without debating it. I do not think that is how Canadians want us to do politics. That is why we are here today and why we will stay here until the government agrees to debate the amendments we want to propose.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Bourassa set the tone for this next round of debate. You will notice that with the way I speak, things will calm down a bit, we will take a deep breath and bring the debate back down to earth.
Does the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île share my concerns about the situation? I have been a negotiator and a union president. There is some give and take in any negotiation. But as it stands, the bill introduced by the Conservative government is so good for the employer and for the Canada Post Corporation that, even if there are some backroom deals—negotiations must take place, or at least I hope—I think that the employer side has no interest in moving and does not want to move, simply because the government handed it working conditions on a silver platter that clearly put the workers at a disadvantage.
Does she see the same problem I do in what went on on the government side when it introduced this bill that is unfair to the workers?
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that excellent question. There is no need for me to add anything about the government and the head of this crown corporation. We know very well that the corporation did not impose a lockout without the government's agreement. If that were not enough, it dares to offer inferior working conditions, lower wages and, above all, a wage increase that is less than inflation and less than the increase in the cost of living.
As I said in my remarks, it is normal to have no negotiations going on. The government tells us that it tried and tried again. No, it did not try; it just took the side of Canada Post, let it break off the negotiations and let the workers take the blame. We here have all agreed that it is a precedent. From now on, no employer—CBC/Radio-Canada or any other—will ever want to negotiate their collective agreements to a conclusion because they know that the government, which we are unfortunately going to have for four years, will be in their camp.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to be the next speaker. We are now into debate on the principles of Bill C-6 and I thought maybe some members on the other side who have so much to say in the question and comment period would like to stand up and explain the principles and philosophy behind the bill—
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
—and defend what the government has brought forward in the House of Commons.
There have been some wild charges by the other side about what motivates New Democrats, what motivates trade unionists, so I am going to start by talking—
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
I would ask all hon. members to refrain from yelling in the House. There are three or four members who continually interrupt.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks on the debate in principle on Bill C-6 by talking about some of the motivations that lie behind my opposition to the bill.
I will do that by talking a little bit about what a great Canadian did when confronted with a society that was becoming increasingly unequal and was becoming a society where there was great hardship among ordinary working people. That Canadian was J.S. Woodsworth. He began his working life as a young minister. His motivation was not Marxism. It was not labour bosses. It was his great Christian faith which said that he should reach out to his brothers and sisters and his community and to help those in need.
When he was confronted with the depression that confronted all Canadians returning from World War I and the great deal of hardship, he got caught up in the response of workers in Canada, which led to the Winnipeg General Strike. His conclusion from that was that government, in order to prevent this kind of hardship in our society and in order to bring people together, had to step in and create social programs and labour policies that would lead to a more just and equal Canadian society. He ran for Parliament and sat as the member for Winnipeg North Centre from 1921 until his death in 1942.
His philosophy is one that can guide me in my response to Bill C-6. Some of the key issues raised in the bill are the issue of a living wage and the issue of intergenerational equity. Woodsworth's philosophy was very well expressed in what is known as the Woodsworth grace, and, with the House's indulgence, I will read that grace. It states:
We are thankful for these and all the good things of life. We recognize that they are a part of our common heritage and come to us through the efforts of our brothers and sisters the world over. What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all. To this end, may we take our share in the world's work and the world's struggles.
What is most important to me is the line, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”. I know that is what motivates trade unions in this country. It is not to take from others but to build a society where we all have the same ability to raise a family in dignity and in honour and to save for our retirement. What trade unions wish for themselves, they wish for all Canadians. This is the spirit in which trade unions fight, not for union bosses but for their members, not just for their members but for all working people.
Today, the Conservative government tells us that the recession is over and yet we have the largest number of Canadians in our history using food banks, including many families with children and many families where one parent is working. The Canadian Association of Food Banks says that now there are 870,000 Canadians per month are assisted by a food bank.
Some on the other side would ask me what that has to do with Bill C-6. Bill C-6 would result in a rollback of wages to levels that would not allow a family to avoid food banks. In the case of Air Canada, where the government first suggested intervention, the two-tier wages that were on the table at that time would have started workers at Air Canada at $11.35 per hour. That is not enough in my community for a person with one dependant to pay for the basics of food, clothing and shelter.
What is on the table in the agreement to be enforced by Bill C-6 is an 18% reduction for new workers, lower than the existing Canada Post rate. What will that bring their wages down to? It will be $19 an hour. I heard many members on the other side say that there are many people who would be happy to work for $19 an hour. I can tell the members that in my community $19 an hour will not support a family. It will not buy housing. It will not pay all the bills at the end of the month for a family.
What is wrong with Bill C-6, from my point of view, is that it violates the principle and philosophy that was set out by Woodsworth, which is that we all are brothers and sisters in this community. We all deserve the same good standard of living in this country. That is my vision of Canada, that was Woodsworth's vision of Canada and, I hope, that is the vision of all members in the House.
When it comes to the two-tier wage system, it is clearly inspired by some other model and some other vision where some Canadians who do the same work will be paid less and will not have enough at the end of the month to take care of their families.
The second part of the legislation is the attack on pensions. One of the great problems that was faced in the 1920s and through the 1930s was the absolute destitution of the elderly in our society. We went to great lengths to create the Canada pension plan but, in parallel with that, also private pension plans.
This attack on pensions will leave workers without the security that they need for their retirement. We will have many seniors, as we do today, who do not have pensions and who will need to choose at the end of the month between shelter, prescription drugs and food. When they make those hard choices, they often end up ill and often end up becoming a greater cost to our society as a whole. Many of them are too proud to ask for help. Many of their families provide that help without them actually asking. We end up with those very families we are suggesting should have a lower wage to start, having to help out their senior parents and having to pay the high cost of child care all at the same time. This is that new term we are talking about, the sandwich generation. What is being suggested in Bill C-6 is that we give those people even lower wages to try to meet those multiple demands in their lives.
Perhaps what is most pernicious for me in Bill C-6 is its effect on intergenerational inequality. My generation has a lot to answer for. Our emphasis on consumerism, excess and privilege for a few has left a society that I am much less proud of than I would like to be. What we are doing is also leaving future generations with an environment in crisis and with debt racked up by the Liberal and Conservative federal governments that failed to make those who have wealth and resources pay their fair share in this country. They are the ones who benefited from the work that all Canadians do and they have had relentless programs of tax reduction in their favour, which has driven up our debt that we will leave to our children and their children. The Conservative government's corporate tax reductions that we have seen go ahead now will only add to that problem in the future.
Bill C-6 again compounds that problem. We are now saying to the new generation of workers that not only are we leaving them these greater problems to deal with, but we will give them lower wages and fewer resources to actually deal with those problems.
What we are back to at the end of Bill C-6 is a difference in philosophy, and that philosophy is not based on Marxism or union bossism on this side. It is based on a wide variety of philosophies, some taking their inspiration from faith and religion, some taking theirs from humanitarianism and some taking theirs from socialist and social democratic traditions. However, what we share on this side of the House is that statement that was included in the grace that I read earlier, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”. We will take our part in that struggle and work very hard to ensure Canada is and always will be a more equal society.
We have now reached a position, 90 years after Woodsworth was first elected to the House of Commons, where inequality is once again as big as it was when he began his career. The great shame of the last 20 years of Canadian society is that we have slipped back to the 1920s. We have slipped back so that ordinary working families have lost those opportunities for a safe and secure future for them and their children.
That is why I am very proud to stand here with my brothers and sisters in the NDP caucus. We will be forcing this debate as long as we can to try to make members on the other side come to their senses and see that there is a better way to build a prosperous Canada and a better future for all Canadians.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders
Ajax—Pickering Ontario
Conservative
Chris Alexander ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, with some of the numbers the member has just cited with regard to the 1920s, comparing the standard of living with today, he would do well to recheck his statistics.
He would also do well not to pretend that $19 an hour, close to $40,000 a year, is enough to live on in this country. There are many hard-working, unionized and non-unionized people, people, I would hazard, who work in our very offices in this House, who work on that amount or less than that amount and do not have recourse to food banks. We should not take their effort, their sacrifice and the discipline of their lives lightly.
What concerns this member and many on our side is the emphasis on fighting. Why do we need to fight? We were all impressed by the revolutionary fervour of the previous speaker, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, but, honestly, Canadians have not sent us here to fight. They have sent us here to find solutions.
Will the member opposite not agree that the solution is to vote for this law and put the workers of Canada Post back to work to help their company become the competitive corporation that its management and its workers want it to be, and that the best way to do that is to end this debate, end this filibuster and vote for Bill C-6 now.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member here in the House. He may not remember but we did actually meet when I was working in Afghanistan and he was also working there. I respect the work he did there.
However, with respect, he is absolutely wrong about who has picked this fight here in the House of Commons.
Canada Post is a profitable corporation and that profit was made by the co-operation and hard work of all those people who go to work everyday to help deliver the mail in Canada. What did Canada Post do? It sought to roll back the wages and pensions of those workers when it was making $281 million a year in profits. When things did not go easily for Canada Post, the government stepped in and imposed even worse conditions than those that were put forward at the beginning.
To me, the blame for who picked the fight here, who locked out the workers and who caused us to stand here in opposition belongs to the other side of this House and not to this side.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have a great deal of respect for the member. I know he is sincere in what he is saying. I accept everything he said and I agree with much of what he said.
The last questioner asked something that was pertinent. I did not agree with his conclusion of why we are fighting. I feel that we need to fight for certain things here. However, at the end of the day I wonder if the hon. member could explain the worth of this fight of who started it, who did not start it, who will finish it and who will continue it. Is it not about finding a resolution? Is that not what we should be doing?
I do not understand. I wonder if the member could explain to me how, after 29 hours of speaking in this House to a motion to hoist the bill and wait six months, who that benefits. It does not benefit the worker, in my book. It does not benefit the public interest. Who does it benefit? Let us stop the fighting and get to resolutions. Let us get to committee of the whole.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in my speech I did not talk about who picked the fight. The question of who picked the fight came from the other side of the House and I felt obligated to respond to that.
The other part I did not get a chance to respond to was where the $19 an hour not being enough come from. In my community, that figure that was produced by the community social services council that surveyed the costs that a family faces in the community for the very basics of housing, food, clothing and education for their kids. It is not an amount that includes holidays or saving for retirement. It is a very modest income in the major cities of this country. Therefore, that is not a figure that was picked out of the air.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, here we are in the second day of our debate. What comes to my mind today is this is not about this particular dispute. It is not about postal workers being locked out. It is not about union bosses not giving union members the vote. Those are all red herrings. This dispute and the legislation are about the kind of Canada we want.
We must look at this debate in that context. Each and every one of us in this room, as well as those who are sleeping or sitting in the lobbies, should take the time to reflect on that. It is not just the kind of Canada we want for ourselves, as my colleague mentioned, but it is the kind of Canada we want for our children, grandchildren, neighbours and people right across the country.
It is about a living wage. I am not talking about a minimum wage. I am talking about a living wage, the amount of money it takes to support a family, to enable a family to pay the rent, to buy food, to pay for transportation and clothing, and to have a bit of money left over so the family can take the occasional vacation. I am not talking about going to Hawaii or Timbuktu; most families would be grateful just to go camping.
Those are the kinds of issues we are dealing with. When we look at the challenges being faced by the post office workers, that is the attack the government is making on their right to a living wage.
I have heard hon. members say that some of their constituents make $12 an hour and are very happy with that. Someone who had been unemployed and was able to get a job for $12 an hour would be very happy with that, but would that be enough to pay the rent, to pay for food, clothing and basic needs? I would answer no because I know many people who make that kind of money and they have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.
It is very easy for all us who sit in these hallowed halls. We make a decent income, I would say a more than comfortable income. It is very easy for us to say that $18 an hour is extravagant. We have to ask ourselves, would we be willing to take $18 an hour?
Canada Post is telling new workers that they can work for Canada Post but it is going to pay them even less than it used to pay. That does not make any economic sense and I will explain why. Workers who are happy, who are not depressed, who are not feeling persecuted or hard done by the government or their employer, are far more productive.
What signal are we sending to our youth, to new workers? We are telling them that they are not worth as much, that they can work for much longer, that they are younger and they can do it.
I ask my colleagues across the aisle, are there special grocery stores for the young? Young people have to pay the bills and have to support theirs families just like the rest of us. We cannot, in our society, buy into differentiated salaries for the same work.
I absolutely believe in employment equity. Past governments, some that did not have a majority at the time but were supported by others, did away with the employment equity program. We saw the impact that had on the civil service, and we saw the greater impact it had on women.
When I look at what is coming for the postal workers, it is not only a differentiated salary, but now the government is exercising its majority and is being punitive. It is being a bully in trying to impose an agreement. It is setting the salary. It is imposing a salary on workers instead of giving them the freedom to negotiate. That is just wrong.
I also want to talk about benefits. What attracted me to Canada back in 1975 when I chose to make Canada my home was Canada's wonderful health care system. When I was hired as a teacher, I was really pleased with the benefits I had, just as I am sure the postal workers were very happy when they fought for and earned those benefits.
Now, the postal workers are being told that their sick leave benefits are going to be changed and are going to be taken away. That is just wrong. I cannot see how a corporation that is making a huge profit can take away more from the very people who helped it make that profit. Those two things do not coincide. Good corporations know that when they do well the first thing they should do is reward their employees.
A state corporation is under the control of the Conservative majority. Its employees are being told that while the corporation has this huge profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars, their wages are going to be lowered. They are not going to get as much as Canada Post wanted to give them. Also, their benefits, and for good luck, their pensions are going to be worse.
What kind of government does that? The kind of government that hid its real agenda from Canadians when it said it was going to be a kinder and gentler government that would not attack pensions, that would not attack working people. I heard those speeches over and over again, and like any bully, once it got a majority, the cloak came off. Here we are, hardly a couple of months into this new Parliament and the cloak has come off.
What is this really about? This is about the corporate agenda to privatize public services and public corporations, absolutely. Why else would a government make it impossible for workers to go back to work? The doors are locked and the government is not opening them.
There is no way the Prime Minister could persuade me, or any Canadian, that the government did not lock the doors. The government is responsible for close to 50,000 people not making a living right now. They are outside because they are locked out. Those people do not have health care benefits. There have been strikes even in the public sector that have gone on for months, but the employer did not cut off benefits.
In an email one of my constituents told me that when she went to get her drug prescription, she was told that she had to pay $111, because she did not have that benefit anymore—
