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

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her comments and congratulate her on her election to the House.

It is important for us to put this whole debate into perspective. The Government of Canada is not taking sides in this dispute. This is a dispute between two parties: the corporation and CUPW. Both parties, unfortunately, have not come to a resolution upon expiry of a collective bargaining agreement.

The government attempted, through mediation, to get the two parties together despite that. There was a series of rotating strikes initiated by CUPW and then on the other side management decided to lock out the union.

What a responsible government would do in a monopoly situation where there are no alternatives for millions of Canadians is to legislate workers back to work to ensure the continuation of this essential service for so many Canadians. When the Liberals were in government, they did the same thing.

What a responsible opposition would do is not filibuster this legislation. In fact, it would allow this to pass. The problem here is that the official opposition is taking a side in this issue and that shows that the official opposition is not ready for prime time.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, in response to my friend the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, I wish we could put aside whether or not the NDP is ready for prime time or anything. That is not the issue. I do not think it is quite as clear that the government has not taken sides.

As I mentioned earlier in the House today, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations in reviewing Bill C-6 has come to the conclusion that it would violate key elements of the Supreme Court decision and it would set back collective bargaining across Canada. Why would they think that?

There is nothing wrong with back-to-work legislation. Nobody would deny that it is an appropriate thing for government to do. The reason that this piece of legislation is offensive to some principles of labour law is because it is overly prescriptive, it ties the hands of an arbitrator, it puts in place in section 15 a schedule of payment to the workers that is less than what was on the table when negotiations broke down, and it further has a rather bizarre section that suggests that the arbitrator must be guided by the need to find terms and conditions of--

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. We must move on to other questions.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills made an intervention that was a pathetic attempt at political spin. He is generally a little more fact-based in his approach.

The government is clearly taking the corporation's side. Rather than dealing with the lock-out, which was caused by the government's actions in allowing management to do this, we have legislation before us that does not address the issue.

Would the member not agree with members who have been speaking over the last few hours that the most prudent and responsible approach that the government could take would be to take the locks off and then allow collective bargaining to run its course? The government should just take the locks off and get the mail workers back to doing what they want to do, which is serving Canada and making the mail--

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster on one thing but not on another.

I quite reject the notion that the adjective “pathetic” could ever be applied to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. It does not apply all.

I do entirely agree that the prudent thing for the government to do would be to get hold of Canada Post and tell it to take the locks off the doors so collective bargaining could begin in a free and appropriate approach.

It was legal for management to lock the workers out. It was legal for the union to apply revolving strikes. The less that we inject ourselves as parliamentarians, and worse as political parties, into a management-labour dispute by taking sides, the better this debate will go over the next several eons.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, during a bargaining process, it is preferable for the two parties to find common ground and reach a consensus. Alas, since the negotiations began, it has been my strong sense that Canada Post Corporation never intended to negotiate in good faith.

Withdrawing from the bargaining process and locking out employees is disrespectful to workers. A lockout is not a strike. A strike is protest action on the part of workers, whereas a lockout is the temporary closure of the Canada Post Corporation. It is a management decision.

The Canada Post Corporation opted to wait for the government to intervene and introduce special legislation. This approach robs workers of the right to strike because it leaves them constantly fearing this kind of legislation and, unfortunately, sends a negative message not only to the employees of Canada Post, but to all workers in this country.

Forcing workers to go back to work right now will leave them disgruntled and unhappy. This kind of forced settlement will be a bitter pill for workers to swallow and will leave them with a bad taste in their mouths. Not to mention the poisoned atmosphere that it will create between management and workers for the months to come. We are not talking about years here.

Let us not forget that several thousand workers have been affected by this lockout. When will the government finally understand that Canada Post employees are first and foremost people with families, obligations and responsibilities?

This legislation will strip the union of power when its primary role is to advocate for the interests of wage earners. The union’s second duty is to ensure that information is passed on to wage earners by acting as a liaison between Canada Post Corporation and its employees.

Canada Post Corporation is pretending to be caught off guard by this situation. That makes no sense. It is Canada Post Corporation that precipitated the situation and declared a lockout.

This government’s stance rides roughshod over democracy. What about legislation based on common sense? Workers are being locked out, and worse still, the government gets involved and wants to introduce legislation to force employees back to work. Now we are really seeing the true colours of this Conservative government.

Canada’s courts have recognized the right of workers to negotiate their employment contracts. Canadian courts have also recognized the right of workers to collectively organize with their fellow workers to have their rights and their employment contracts upheld.

The government’s approach is, without a doubt, bizarre. This procedure is going to set a precedent that no worker wants. And who will pay for it at the end of the day? The workers, as usual.

Instead of showing our workers some consideration and respect, the government is abusing its power and riding roughshod over the rights of workers. It is unfair and it is not right.

I do not understand. The Conservatives have a majority government. They won the support they needed. And yet, did they have the guts to tell Canadians how they intended to govern the country? Did they say that they would back the big guys instead of helping workers? Did they say that they would force their legislation through without regard for its impact on the lives of workers? Did they say that they would deny workers an opportunity to negotiate according to the rules of proper collective bargaining? Did they say that they would introduce legislation to deny workers the right to be heard, and that they would chip away at their pension plans? Will they continue to foist draconian measures on Canadian workers who only want their right to negotiate better working conditions to be respected?

Out of respect for workers and their families, I believe that the government should withdraw from these negotiations and refrain from using special legislation to get their way, especially when it means siding with the employer.

The Conservatives’ approach is all too familiar: it is easy for them to look out for their friends at the expense of Canadian workers. These are the very same workers that helped make Canada Post the postal service that it is today, a service from which we benefit day in and day out. These workers have paid into their pension plans and are entitled, like anybody living in Canada, to receive a pension at the agreed-upon time, so they may enjoy their retirement in dignity.

One would expect a little bit of consideration on the part of management, but also from government. Why not leave it up to the two parties to negotiate in an honest fashion, and open up the communication channels? Currently, the employees are not allowed in the distribution centre and have no access to the mail, so they cannot deliver it. The doors are closed. That is what a lockout means. Canada Post has to unlock the doors so that workers can continue with the rotating delivery, just like when the bargaining process began.

Now, the government is going after the workers at Canada Post, and they will be the next victims of the extreme decisions of the government. Nobody is interested in a wage reduction or having their retirement age raised by five years. This special legislation will give all Canadian workers cause for worry, and they will wonder if they might be the next scapegoats of this Conservative government.

This special legislation will create divisions between two generations of workers, it will be the source of pay and social inequities, and it will weaken labour relations and create a damaging work environment.

The message this government is sending to workers is clear: it will not hesitate to side with employers, even if workers stand to lose a great deal. In all situations, employers will be valued over the workers. Workers will not have any opportunity to negotiate fairly because, if they insist too much on having their rights and their contract enforced, the government will not support them. Quite the opposite, it will step in and legislate them back to work. Can you believe this is happening in this day and age?

These workers paid their union dues for years. The union is trying its best to stand up for them, but what came as a surprise to the workers is that the government, through special legislation, is trying to prevent their union from doing its job properly by not respecting its right to negotiate the members’ working conditions freely. I am afraid this kind of approach will drive apart different generations of workers and also drive apart management and employees.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would also like to rise above partisanship in this discussion.

I would really like to know something. Since we are concerned about work stoppages and their impact on the economy, what is the point of this stalling by the NDP? So far, all I see is that we are spending taxpayer money to pay people here, like the pages, support staff and cafeteria workers. It is a waste of time. We should pass a bill to put an end to this dispute. Mail must be delivered and Canada Post must get back to work. What is the NDP's goal by stalling this bill? I would appreciate an answer that does not stray from the point.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I get the impression that the government wants to blame the situation on the NDP members and on Canada Post workers. What we want is to defend these workers and to recognize that a worker who has the right to belong to a union also has the right to bargain a collective agreement.

I would like to remind the House that Canada Post employees decided to start a rotating strike. Employees in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver took turns going on strike. This slowed down postal services, but mail was still being delivered. I do not think that we should take the blame for this situation.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, my comment is for the members opposite. All day they have shown us their little phones, saying that they have received comments, letters and words from people in their ridings who are protesting the fact that mail service has been interrupted and explained all their problems.

I went to read the newspapers. TVA—and everyone knows that TVA is not very socialist—said that 62,000 letters, including benefit cheques and every other kind of cheque, were being held up and were not being delivered because of the lock out. It was not because of the rotating strike, but because of the lock out. So the government should take responsibility for it.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government did not require Canada Post to return to the bargaining table and respect the collective agreement of its employees. The government probably does not want to interfere in the affairs of a Crown corporation. But it did not hesitate to table a bill that affects thousands of workers.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, just very briefly, I have here an email from Victoria, your own riding. It is from a woman who is disabled and dealing with two cancers and a broken arm. She is saying that she is fine with picking up her cheques and she says how much she supports the postal workers. She says that what's more important is that workers are respected and that there are well-paying jobs out there and people paying taxes that help to support people like her. She says, “Just because we are on disability does not mean we are desperately waiting for our cheques”.

I wonder if the member would comment on how important well-paid jobs are to our local economies and for supporting people in our country.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, we need to respect the workers, workers in our communities, workers who work outside, no matter what the weather is like, whether the day is hot, windy or bitterly cold.

Earlier I failed to mention the young employees of the Canada Post Corporation. This new generation deserves the same benefits as those our parents and their parents fought so hard for.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, since we do not have the same concept of time in the House right now, I would like to follow up on what I was saying this morning. I was telling the story of a teacher who, although not in the same situation as the one Canada Post workers are currently in, said she was scared of the precedent this would set and the domino effect it will have.

In fact, I have read the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia. I will read an excerpt that I find to be quite relevant:

The history of collective bargaining in Canada reveals that long before the present statutory labour regimes were put in place, collective bargaining was recognized as a fundamental aspect of Canadian society, emerging as the most significant collective activity through which freedom of association is expressed in the labour context.

The relevance of this quotation is obvious, but I will elaborate. It is what is at issue here. Canada Post workers have not had the opportunity to exercise what is a fundamental right in our society and in our Canadian history. This ties in with the story I was telling earlier. If we cannot even have this right, what rights will be taken away next? What will be the next situation in which things do not work out and the government decides to use special legislation to resolve the problem?

I would like to give an example of recent collective action in my community. It did not involve unions. I want to make that clear so as not to scare the members opposite too much. It was during the flooding in Montérégie. Two weekends in a row, people from the entire community came to the help of strangers. They did that together, collectively, simply because these are things that could not be done alone. A collective effort was needed. That is why we have unions and workers' groups. They want to have things they are not capable of getting alone. They are not going to get what they want by going to their boss one by one. They have to express their wishes collectively.

The hon. members opposite have asked us a number of times why New Democrat members continue to express their disapproval with the current situation and with this bill. It is simple. Just like workers who come together to make their views known, we too are making ours known. We are doing so on behalf of those in our ridings, whether they be workers or small business people. That is why we are here. This is not a waste of taxpayers' money, this is our job. We are paid a salary to be here or in our ridings when something is happening. Something very important is happening now. These will be very relevant questions over the next four years. If we cannot handle situations like this and answer questions like this now, where will we be in four years? I have no idea, and I don't even want to know. Perhaps I would be better off staying in my riding, rather than being here all night, because I might prefer not to know about any of this. But we are here, and we are now trying to establish what we want to do as representatives of our communities.

Here is another passage from the Supreme Court of Canada decision:

Recognizing that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and Freedoms].

What is at stake here are individual rights.

We hear a lot of bogeyman stories from the hon. members on the opposite side of the House. They are saying that the NDP members have a leash around their necks and the union leaders are pulling on that leash. But that is not the case. We can see in the Supreme Court decision that this is about the autonomy of the people who came together to make a democratic decision and exercise their freedom of association in order to use this tool collectively. As we have seen over the past few evenings and nights in the House, we now take these things for granted. I may be young, but I know that it is important not to take these things for granted because people have fought for them. Why should we start taking them for granted now and thereby prevent workers from continuing the work that has been started?

Let me go back a little. I was talking about the flooding in my constituency, which has been a great concern to me since the beginning of my mandate. When I first spoke in the House, I had the opportunity to ask the minister whether the army was going to help the victims with the cleanup. But the army did not come to help the victims and that is not its fault because it follows orders. It does a great job under the circumstances. I am bringing this up and I think it is relevant because the government clearly said that the private sector should be allowed to deal with the situation, that things should take care of themselves and that the market should do the same. Why are they not approaching the current situation in the same way? Why does the government not let the union and management work things out between themselves?

I spent the election campaign hearing that the NDP was a party that was going to interfere in everything and that it was not going to let people sort out issues for themselves. Ironically, the government that claims not to act in that way is doing just that, at the expense of our workers, their rights and their pensions.

Once again, I am speaking as a young person. I do not want to come up with a definition of what a young person is, because, in our hearts, we all either are young or see ourselves as young. When young people consider the environment, for example, it is easy to see the consequences because they can be seen. We can see what is happening with the environment. When we consider our pensions and the financial future of the country, we do not see the consequences. That is what scares us: we do not know what is going to happen and we do not understand all the issues. The fact that we cannot see the consequences results in some of those involved thinking that everything will happen without anyone asking questions about the consequences. It is therefore up to us to point out the consequences so that future generations know that the issues are important.

In our current situation, I have a duty to speak as the voice of the young. And I am not alone. Once again, we are not a nasty union, we are a parliamentary caucus. Just like workers and their unions, we work as a team and for a common purpose. We use our freedom of association to work together in the name of the people, the workers, as the Supreme Court decision described. We will stay here for the night and for as many days as it takes, right up to the end of next week, up to the royal couple's visit. We will stay for as many days as it takes. We missed Quebec's national holiday and we will miss Canada Day if we have to. We have freedom of association and it allows us to be here fighting for people and making our views known on their behalf. We are not nasty trade unionists, we are not bogeymen, we are people who were elected in our ridings to do this job. Our constituents are proud of us and we have nothing to be ashamed of. This is also why we are opposed to this bill.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate the hon. member on his election and his speech. Clearly this is a new member who has a good deal of passion. I congratulate him.

That being said, I have received many email messages from my constituents who are in favour of Bill C-6, including some Canada Post workers. I would like to quote a few sentences from those workers’ emails.

I will not use their names because I do not want these CUPW members to be harassed by union bosses. However, a postal clerk from my constituency said she feels that legislation is the only hope to keep their jobs. She said their union has not allowed them to vote on any revised offers that Canada Post Corporation has made and that most of them think the revised final offer is fair. She said they wanted to vote, but the union would not allow them to vote. She said they are part of a democratic society and the workers should have some rights but that this is not happening. She said the union has not tried to negotiate a better offer based on the corporation's offer; it is trying to change it entirely. She went on to say that government intervention is the only hope for getting them back to work.

Would the member please comment on the remarks of my constituent who is a CUPW member?