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

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker,my colleague talks about picking sides, but the government already did. It picked the side of the corporation. It allowed the corporation to lock out its workers and then it brought in legislation that supports the corporation.

The Canada Post Corporation locked out its workers. The union members of CUPW are being punished with back to work legislation, legislation that reduces the stingy offer that Canada Post made.

I referenced an email that I received earlier in my remarks. That individual who works for Canada Post said the Canada Post tactic is consistently to refuse to negotiate until it gets a strike mandate from the workers.

The government talks about eight months of negotiations. There was no such thing. Canada Post would not come to the table. It did not come to the table until the workers had no choice but to take the strike vote and then it locked them out.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post made nearly $300 million in profits in 2009. To be exact, it made $281 million in profits in 2009.

We do not have the numbers for 2010, which is actually a little surprising. I thought those numbers were supposed to be released two months ago. We are a little surprised and have to wonder why these numbers have not yet been released, and whether there is any connection with the current labour dispute.

In any case, we are talking about nearly $300 million in profits in 2009 and 15 years of profits. Canada Post has turned a profit for the past 15 years.

Also, as we heard earlier tonight, Canadians are satisfied with the services offered by Canada Post and with what this crown corporation represents to our communities.

There were rotating strikes that partially, but never completely, interrupted postal services. However, the employees were willing to continue working under the conditions of their old collective agreement.

Looking at all this, we wonder where the problem lies and what crisis made the Government of Canada allow Canada Post to lock out its employees—this is not a strike; it is a lockout—and deprive all Canadians, including small businesses, but really all Canadians, of a service that they appreciate, that they need and that is vital.

Where is the crisis that, on top of all that, is making the government want to impose back-to-work legislation that contains many completely unacceptable clauses? Things like pensions, for example, come to mind. Several issues are unacceptable. For instance, it is imposing wages that are lower than what Canada Post itself was willing to offer.

We do not understand what is happening. The Conservatives talk about the best interests of the Canadian economy. Yes, the economy is important, essential and vital, sure. However, this expression reminds us of the best interests of the nation. Our question is, best compared to what? Compared to the interests of Canadians, to the interests of workers?

We in the NDP believe that the economy exists to serve people, and not the other way around.

When we hear the Associate Minister of Defence questioning the right to strike, as we heard yesterday, and when we go over events that led workers who exercised their legitimate right to strike and who were prepared to go back to work to be locked out, we have doubts. We shudder, even. We wonder how far this government will go and who will be the next victim.

I am thinking, for example, about the people—and we see this a lot in Quebec—who are fighting for unions at Wal-Mart. What is going to happen, not only to those people, but to many others who want to use legitimate, recognized methods to secure acceptable living and working conditions? What is going to happen to them? Who will be the next victim? What treatment does the Conservative government have in store for Canadian workers as a whole?

With this bill, the government is targeting not only the postal workers, but all of us. That is why all of my colleagues have received so many emails from people who wanted to testify to this and who feel threatened themselves. I will not read you an email, but I will tell the House what a taxi driver told me a little earlier. I do not imagine he belongs to a big union. He told me to stay the course because the people need us.

I say to that taxi driver: yes, I am going to resist with all my strength, along with my colleagues in the NDP caucus, and we will be here day and night to resist and to stand up not only for the postal workers but for all Canadian workers and all Canadians. Because we cannot allow this government to undermine workers' rights in Canada, nor can we allow this government to undermine the Canadian postal service, a service that all Canadians believe in, which is more than a service, it is an institution.

We know what the post offices represent in our small towns and villages all across Canada. Mostly, it is the presence of the government in all the regions, from coast to coast, as you say in English. A settlement like the one that Bill C-6 intends to impose will create a situation at Canada Post that will be terrible and intolerable, poison labour relations and undermine the excellent service that all Canadians have come to expect.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to welcome this new member to the House. I am wondering something about her speech. The New Democratic Party has historically been very open to union leaders and is known for its ties with them.

How can she think that her party has an objective position? How can she think that her party represents all Canadians? Surely there is now a party that represents a sample of the Canadian population and that thinks about the interests of all Canadians. How can she think that the NDP truly represents Canadian interests?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. This question gives me the opportunity to reiterate that the debate is not about union leaders, but about the workers and their families, their children, their parents and all Canadians. It does not concern just a small group, like Canada Post managers, the big banks or major industries, but all Canadians.

This gives me the opportunity to repeat the argument I made earlier, namely that the economy exists to serve people, not the other way around.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the profits that have been made over the years at Canada Post. In fact, for the last 15 years there has been considerable profit. She asked why on earth the efficiency of Canada Post and the fact that Canadians are very happy with their postal service is never mentioned and why it is not front and centre.

I wonder if perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the government and the corporation wants to create the impression that somehow workers are not doing their job and that somehow Canadians should be dissatisfied. It certainly helps the government in terms of its propaganda in regard to Bill C-6.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question.

It is clear that this legislation is sending the message that the workers are guilty in some way. It is Canada Post workers who are being punished by this legislation and who are being offered wages that are lower than what the employer offered them.

We are punishing them as if they were guilty, while throughout the process, their behaviour has been completely legitimate. They were prepared to return to work by accepting the conditions of their former collective agreement, while they were actually doing a job that Canadians appreciate.

I like to say that Canada Post is an institution that is respected across Canada. Why do we now want to punish the workers? I am at a loss for words.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to wish a happy Fête nationale to all Quebeckers who celebrated this great holiday yesterday. I am sure that right now in my constituency there are still people celebrating, even though it is now 4:15 a.m. I would like to say hello to them. Perhaps they are watching me before going to bed.

Unfortunately I was unable to be with them for the Saint-Jean-Baptiste festivities. For that I would like to apologize. However, I am certain that the people in my constituency fully understand the reasons why I am here today. We have been obliged to remain here, in this House, and it is very important to explain the reasons for our absence from the riding.

It is very simple: we cannot let this bill pass without standing up for the workers of our country. I am also very proud of what our caucus has done today and in the last few days. The members of our party have indeed stood up together for the country’s workers. For it is not only the workers at Canada Post that will be affected, but all the workers of our country.

This bill sets a dangerous precedent that reveals the hidden agenda of this government, that being the privatization of public services. The NDP has always fought to preserve what we have achieved and to maintain our good public services, and that is what we are doing again today and what we may be doing again in the days to come. In spite of what anyone may say, Canada Post cannot and will never be replaced by a private corporation that will continue to offer the same good universal services as those offered previously.

The government seems to be taking only some members of the public into account. In the last 24 hours—and even more—of this debate about postal workers, I have not seen a single member of this government rise to talk about and stand up for postal workers. One might think that the hon. members on the other side of the House take mail carriers for second-class citizens and believe that they deserve no better than other Canadians. They constantly tell stories about people not receiving their letters or their cheques, about small businesses in difficulty. If it is so important to them to get the letter carriers back to work, all they have to do is call the CEO of Canada Post and ask him to unlock the doors so that the workers who want to work can finally return to work.

That is in fact what the workers were doing before the lockout, before Canada Post decided to close the doors: they were working, engaging in rotating strikes that were doing virtually no harm to Canadians. Even the Minister of Labour said that there were not many complaints and that no major disruptions had resulted, as the Conservatives are trying to claim.

The postal workers were very respectful, for they know that the service they provide is essential to the lives of many people. That is why they took care to demand their rights while ensuring that service to the public was still provided.

Here the government is once again trying to divide Canadians. It is once again trying to pit two groups against each other. In this case those groups are the postal workers and other Canadians. I would like to remind the government that the letter carriers and postal workers are Canadians as well, and that they too deserve acceptable living conditions, consideration and respect.

The Conservatives like to give examples of people suffering from this lockout, but I have also received messages from letter carriers who are pleased with our work and who admire the battle we are now waging for them. One letter carrier in my riding wrote me a message this morning that has given me even more energy to keep up this fight. In his message he says that he is recently retired from the postal service and was always well treated by Canada Post, but that now things have gone too far. He feels that the government is turning back the clock. He says that he lived through many strikes and that they are what gave him what he has today. He wishes to thank our leader, my colleagues and me for what we are doing for them. It is signed Robert, from Sherbrooke.

I want to reassure my constituent and say to him that we will continue on until this bill is amended and made acceptable to all the workers of this country.

This bill is retrograde—and “retrograde” is no harsh word I am using here. No, for not only has the government had the nerve to create a special bill to send the workers back to work, but it is sending them back with worse conditions than those already offered by Canada Post. How dare it make the management offer even lower? I totally fail to understand the government’s approach here. As my constituent said, the government is turning back the clock with this sort of measure.

If the government were serious and really wanted the mail to finally move, it would take the locks off the doors of Canada Post.

But how do we expect Canada Post to bargain with its employees when the government wants to impose a bill that dictates the employees' wages and working conditions? This is nonsense. The government is telling the employer that it does not need to bargain with its employees, the government itself is going to decide for them what conditions they deserve, and they will not be able to bargain, they will only be able to accept the legislation. I cannot get over what this government is doing. I say to myself that at this time of night, surely I must be dreaming, because I do not understand how the government can be introducing a bill that is this disrespectful.

I am happy to be here in the House at this late hour to fight for the rights of these workers, who have the same rights as all other Canadians. I really do wonder how the members who are going to vote for this regressive bill are going to be able to look their letter carrier in the eye the next time he comes to deliver a letter to them. If I were in their shoes, I would be ashamed. I will be proud to greet my letter carrier and to be able to tell him I was here in 2011, and I did everything in my power to ensure that he could continue to have decent working conditions.

I would like to quote Denis Lemelin, the president and chief negotiator for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, who said: “… we make no apologies for refusing unreasonable concessions demanded of us by a profitable company.”

Over the last 15 years, Canada Post has made $1.7 billion in profit. And this is the corporation that wants to cut its employees' wages and take more money out of their pockets, when it is making profits and its executives are again going to pocket bigger bonuses, one of them amounting to 33%, if I recall correctly.

So I condemn this bill as it now stands and I will be voting against it.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning. The member gave an enthusiastic presentation, although I would question the accuracy of it.

We all know the reason we are here. It is not because of rotating strikes, a lockout, or even the government legislation. We are still here because of the NDP's stubbornness in not allowing this legislation to go forward and these things to move ahead.

I have a bit of an emotional reaction to what the NDP is doing. I come from Saskatchewan, a province where the NDP has done massive damage over the decades. Pretty much everything it has done in my province has been negative for the province. For many years it restricted land sales in agriculture. It nationalized and almost destroyed the potash industry until it was sold to private interests and now it is one of the major industries in the world. When it comes to resources, one of the failed provincial leaders made the statement that they were going to be left in the ground until there were better prices. By the time the resources began to be extracted, Canada was decades behind its neighbours who had developed them.

I have watched New Democrats represent special interest groups over the years, and I saw it again these last couple of days. They are not really that interested in the workers, they are interested in the union bosses. We see that in other areas. In agriculture, for example, earlier one of the members mentioned the Canadian Wheat Board. We see that they are not interested in farmers but in the leadership.

It was really brought to the fore this evening during the vote. We saw that the New Democrats themselves are not all that interested in this. It is more of an exercise for them to show off for their union bosses. We saw that only 70 of their 103 members voted in favour of their own motion.

I am wondering if he can comment on why his own members are not interested in supporting their position.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

In his speech, my colleague strayed a little from the topic we are discussing today. I would like to assure parliamentarians that all the New Democratic Party members of this House have stood firm and will continue to do so throughout the days to come by voting against the bill, which is not respectful of workers. It is not just Canada Post workers who will be affected, it is all workers in Canada. The NDP is not just on the side of the union or the union bosses, it is also on the side of all workers in Canada. That is why we will continue to fight, for days and hours.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much liked the hon. member's speech, and I am interested by one aspect in particular.

That is the relationship between the union movement and progress in society in general. Could the hon. member talk a little more about that? It would be very helpful.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his excellent question.

That unions have allowed our society to make great progress is a fact. The person who wrote to me also mentioned that in her 15 years of hard work she defended their interests and managed to get decent working conditions that let them lead a decent life, as every Canadian would wish to do. This is in part due to the unions who succeeded in defending their interests and in winning concessions from their bosses, who often do not view their employees with much respect.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly correct the record. The member said in his speech that members of the government have not mentioned the postal workers. I was here from 8 p.m. last night until 6 a.m. this morning, and I can say that we did hear members of the government speak the voice of postal workers. That did happen.

I heard an opposition member for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect say that it is a democratic right to hold up the House to speak that voice. We acknowledge that, but there is a democratic right and then there is just right, and this is not right.

It has been a productive debate, do not get me wrong, but it became repetitive at about 3 a.m. Now it is 24 hours later. Canadians find it frustrating.

Speaking as a new member of Parliament, it is very frustrating that the Liberal colleague who is sitting way down there asked a question that did not get answered. He asked a direct question. It did not get answered.

When will the opposition quit beating its chest at the expense of Canadians and end this debate by bringing forward its solutions or by voting for this legislation?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to reassure the hon. Conservative member. If he makes no concessions, we will not accept this bill and we will keep saying what we have been saying for several days, as long as the government refuses to budge. We will do so until things change.

I would also like to tell him that we are ready to introduce amendments in due course, when we are in committee of the whole, if necessary. I will be very pleased to work with all hon. members.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak on this critical issue.

The workers of Canada Post have been locked out. That is right: they have been locked out. They are not on strike. They have been locked out.

This is not a strike. The workers are “locked out”, a term should give us all nightmares. I am sure we all remember very clearly that not so long ago the Prime Minister himself locked parliamentarians out of the House of Commons.

It was not the fault of Canadians that parliamentarians were locked out and it not the fault of Canadians that the workers at Canada Post are locked out. In our case, the government locked us out. Is it not a coincidence that it is the government once again that has put the padlocks on? Canadians are the ones who are affected when the government padlocks government doors.

Postal workers want to go back to work but they cannot. Why can they not go back to work? They are locked out. Heck, posties even tabled a proposal to keep the old contract in place in negotiations. Canada Post refused and shut down the mail service. Canada Post locked its workers out.

Five days later, to compensate Canada Post for locking out its workers, the Conservative government introduced legislation that imposes a contract with an extremely regressive wage settlement. Given the fact that it takes time to draft such legislation, one can only conclude that the government was prepared to wreak havoc on the workers. One can only conclude that Canada Post was aware of Bill C-6 and willingly chose not to negotiate in good faith.

That is a shame. Workers got locked out and now we are trying to force them back to work. They did not go on strike.

Let me refresh your memory on this regressive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

This government has put forward a one-sided and irresponsible piece of legislation. With the bill, the government wants to impose an agreement in which wages are lower that those that Canada Post had offered. That is unacceptable.

Another important element of this debate is the move to defined contribution pensions. The phenomenon is blatantly one-sided. If defined contributions are absolutely as necessary as we hear, it would seem logical that management at Canada Post would be happy to lead by example and change its pension plan first.

Do not hold your breath, Mr. Speaker. These plans are far worse than defined benefit pensions. There is not a CEO in Canada who would trade a golden parachute for the gamble of the defined contribution pension.

For the benefit of those who are just taking in this debate, I will explain what a defined contribution pension is. With a defined benefit pension plan, an employee receives a set monthly amount at retirement. The amount received is based upon the participant's salary and length of employment. The retiree receives that amount plus cost of living increases every month for life.

These are the kinds of pensions most of us are familiar with. These are the kinds of pensions that allow seniors to live in dignity.

The great advantage of the defined benefit plan for an employee is that the employer bears the risk of market downturns and actuarial mistakes and is responsible for topping up deficiencies at the time of retirement. This allows individuals to retire knowing to the penny the kind of lifestyle they will be able to maintain.

Confident that they will be able to afford a reasonable retirement, these people can plan their lives accordingly. They will not have to worry if they want to put kids through college or university. They will not have to worry that they might not be able to afford to retire and have to save every cent they can to guard against that.

In contrast to traditional pensions, where the amount of the benefit is defined, there is the defined contribution plan. This plan is so named because it is the amount of the contribution that is defined. Employees contribute a portion of their salaries into a retirement account where it can be invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, et cetera. Some companies make a matching contribution up to a certain percentage. The account grows through contributions and investment earnings until retirement.

In a defined contribution plan, there are no guarantees about how much, if any, of your money will be left when you retire. The risks are placed squarely on the individual employees. We know what happened with the economic downturn that the Conservative government did not believe was coming.

These pensions can be profoundly different for employees who have very similar work histories. Here is an example. Imagine that a person retires at a time when markets are performing well. Due to good fortune and impeccable timing, that person's benefit will be higher as a result. If another person with exactly the same pension and roughly the same amount invested retires six months later but during a market downturn, that person may find benefits dramatically reduced by comparison.

It does not sound very fair. It is pension roulette, at best. We saw that in the recession. Many pensions around the world saw reductions in benefits of up to 40% in 2008. That is not good news for those retirees, to be sure.

I have had many calls from seniors who, holy crow, had to start selling their homes and moving into apartments. They did not even know if they could afford the rent. We have too many seniors living in poverty in Canada as it is. The trend to defined contribution pensions could well place even more seniors in poverty in the years to come.

Where is the commitment on the part of this government to actually do something about this phenomenon? From this side of the House, it does not appear to exist at all. This attitude is the antithesis of J. S. Woodsworth's famous line, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”

Take a look at the horrible lockout that miners in Sudbury went through recently. They spent a year on the picket line fighting the introduction of defined contribution pensions for future hires. We should think about that. These hardrock miners understood that the shift in pensions would be such a gamble for future hires that they sacrificed a year of income, delayed retirements for a full year, and walked picket lines in the heat of the summer and the cold of the winter.

My husband was one of those miners. They showed dedication and the courage of their convictions. Those miners fully understood the spirit of Mr. Woodsworth's quote.

That obviously is nothing the Conservative government can relate to in the least. This was about the future workers in the mines and the future workers in all other jobs. Again, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”

I cannot get it out of my head. It speaks of the disconnect the government has with everyday Canadians. If the government operated under that mantra, we would either be debating legislation to change the pensions for this place to defined contribution schemes or, at the very least, debating a more balanced piece of back-to-work legislation.

However, we are not, and it is nothing less than a national shame.

In closing, I will reiterate my objections to the way the government has so obviously taken sides in this dispute, the dangerous debate about the privatization of Canada Post that is a side effect of the lockout imposed on Canada Post employees, and the risky proposition of defined contribution pensions.

We need to stop this race to the bottom that has gone on for far too long in Canada. We need to see the value in an economy that is defined by its human capital; an economy that values good-paying jobs, instead of attacking them in order to validate the desire for cheap portable labour; an economy that is not all about sweetheart deals for the business elite and nothing but concessions from hard-working Canadians.

We have heard the government say that it wanted to have a stable government and that is why we went into an election. Let me tell members what a stable Conservative government means: unstable wages, unstable benefits, unstable pensions, unstable services, unstable employment, unstable economy and unstable life.

Shame on the Conservative government.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, it was the NDP and the Liberal Party that forced this unwanted $300 million election upon us, and it was Canadians who chose a strong, stable, national majority Conservative government. That is how we came to be here, and I am very grateful, because that is how I find myself in this hallowed chamber.

This is not about picking sides. I can assure the member that the Conservative Party values the hard work of our postal workers. It is really about the economy, as I heard at the door and as I am sure everyone heard at the door.

There are still too many of our neighbours who are looking for work. In Canada we have had a very successful economy over the last number of quarters. I believe it is for seven quarters that we have had consistent growth, and that growth compares very favourably with the rest of the world. We need only look at Greece, where they are holding out their hands again for a second round of funding from the EU. The United States is looking at possibly entering a second recession. We are doing incredibly well in Canada.

Does the hon. member not honestly feel that by having the workers go back to work and getting mail delivered, we might actually improve the economy?