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

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here now is absolutely not a waste of time. The government is on the verge of taking a step I believed could never be taken. It is about to trample the rights of workers.

Each minute we spend talking about that will never be a waste of time. Even if it takes many more hours to get through to this government, I think it is well worth it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is to reiterate, as we all do, why we are here. We are here because the government seems to be working hand in hand with the board and management at Canada Post. I suggest that an historical review of what has gone on would show that there was probably a lot more co-operation than is seen now and that would probably be appreciated by most Canadians.

Again, the reason we are here at 5:45 in the morning is not because anybody particularly likes speaking in the House of Commons at this time on a Saturday morning, but because we want to ensure, given the government is not—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am sure hon. members will be interested in hearing what the member for Hamilton Centre has to say. I would be delighted if we could keep the noise down to a bit more calm in the chamber.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out to me by one of the hon. ministers, looking at the calendar, that it is actually still June 23. That is part of the magnificence of being here, that not only is it June 23, it is also June 25.

The fact remains that we are here because we want to do what the government has not done, and that is to give the union and the management an opportunity to negotiate a fair agreement in their own way and in their own time.

We know the government, of course, is playing a game, and it is evident if you take a look at the chronology we have been through. There was a rotating strike action, meant to put pressure, not to shut down Canada Post but to put negotiating pressure on management, which is done all the time with transnational corporations or entities. It is a ramp-up, and ideally it is meant to prevent a lockout and a strike. It is a tactic that is part of negotiations, and it is not an attempt to stop the work of Canada Post.

During that time the union offered to management the following deal. They would end the rotating strikes and be at work everywhere, all the time, in return for management acknowledging that the workers would work under the current collective agreement and that it would act as if it had full effect and force of law. That is pretty reasonable. It is not as if they threatened to do something or said they would do one thing if the company did not do another thing. They began their rather modest tactics.

We all know that did not last very long, a couple of weeks. During that time management told the union that some pressure was being put on them and it was causing a little problem here and here, and they asked the union to stop doing that. The union said they were quite prepared to stop doing that, but all they asked was that the company honour the current collective agreement while they continued to negotiate.

Just as a little aside, you would wonder why they would not accept that, because it does sound reasonable. It would have been one more very positive step, actually. It would have been a good show of cooperation. They could have agreed on a period of time and taken two or three weeks and had it as part of negotiations. If it did not work, they would be back where they were, but if it did work, they would succeed in the ultimate goal, which is to reach a peaceful, agreeable collective agreement.

One wonders why management would say no. One idea, which sounds strange and bizarre--you would not think this would really happen--is that it is possible that maybe they had some inkling, a bit of an idea. They got out the Ouija board, checked around, phoned some of the psychics to try to get a sense of what might be going on, on the government side. Going to the psychics might be a really good start.

They managed to figure it out: “Well, it sounds like there might be legislation that is going to order them back to work, so why would we do something that would negate the government stepping in? We'll just stay where we are, let the rotating strikes continue, and, sh, sh, we know the government is going to quietly introduce legislation that will solve our labour relations problems and we do not have to sit down and bargain any more.”

I do not know if that happened, but it sure makes sense. It makes a lot of sense. That is one of the answers, when we have so many questions here without answers.

I hear somebody muttering from somewhere in the ether about conspiracy theories. Maybe, but we are open to whatever other conspiracy theory any hon. member can come up with. Looking at what is going on in reality makes no damn sense, so something has to be going on.

Then the government introduced incredibly heavy-handed, unfair, mean-spirited legislation.

Then they used the argument that this could not go on, so they locked them out, and they watched the government bring in legislation that forces them back and forces management to pay less money than it agreed to in the negotiations.

Then to justify what it is doing, the government says it had to do that because they were not at work, and if they are not at work the mail cannot move, and if the mail cannot move it is going to cause economic hardship. That is how it justifies its legislation, which in reality makes no sense at all. Had they followed what was offered the first time, which was to negotiate under the current collective agreement, we would not be here. If they had not locked them out, we would not be here.

All roads do seem to point to the cabinet room of Canada. That seems to be where we are.

It is mind-boggling that it is happening. I want to emphasize that the wage increase that was negotiated fairly at the bargaining table is being reduced by the legislation that is supposed to help the economy. I do not know how putting more money in the hands of Canadians who spend that money is supposed to be harming the economy, but that is the bizarre reality that is here.

It is quite appropriate, actually, that as I speak it is Saturday and as I look at the table it is Thursday. That makes about as much sense as the negotiating procedures that have been followed by Canada Post and supported by the Government of Canada.

I will not get to my last point now. I will pick up on it in a few days, because we will be here for a while.

I want to weigh in behind a lot of my colleagues who are referring to the fact that they see this as a piece of the generational issue that we ought to be talking about. I know there are some in the Twitterverse who are ridiculing them. That is unfortunate because we have a serious problem. Of course, it is the young people who see it, because the problem will not really manifest itself for another 10, 20, 30, 40 years, right around the time they will be in the prime of their lives and right about the time our children or grandchildren will be in the prime of their lives.

Given where I am in life, I want to thank them for taking the lead in making sure that this House acknowledges and addresses the issue of the growing gap that exists today, how much wider that gap is going to be, and the harm that is being inflicted on our younger generation when our role here collectively is to make this a better place for everybody. That is why we are here, and we will stay here until we achieve that fairness.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I can say about listening to my colleague in the House is that I do not have to wear an earpiece when I do it. I am a little worried about the hearing of his colleagues on the other side, though.

One of the responsibilities that we as a government have is to ensure that we are looking out for the citizens of Canada, to ensure that they are protected when they cannot be at the table in these negotiations.

One thing I would like to point out is clause 13 of the bill, which says:

nothing in this Act precludes the employer and the union from entering into a new collective agreement at any time before the arbitrator makes a decision and, if they do so, the arbitrator's duties under this Act cease

Also, in clause 11 there is a 90-day provision for the arbitrator to make his decision.

So there is a risk for both parties in here if we go into this arbitration decision.

It seems to me that that clause is the best of both worlds. We have a bill that allows us to get people back to work and at the same time it gives 90 days for a parallel process to happen, whereby the two parties can come up with an agreement. But we can get people back to work, we can get the mail, we can protect our seniors, and we can protect our small businesses.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his attention and for the question.

I will admit to him that during my time at Queen's Park I had a couple of colleagues who were threatening to file complaints under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I think they try to avoid that here by moving me around so that I am not screaming in anybody's ear for any prolonged period of time.

I do my best to keep it down, but you know what? When you do most of your speaking in a union hall, some things just never leave you. I will do my best to try to keep my tone down. I always fail, but I do try.

I accept the question as being a fair and serious one, and I will respond in the same light. My answer to the question is that the first choice always in bargaining in a free democracy is the arrival of a conclusion that both sides accept that they freely entered into. When people are ordered and forced back to work, the first option is removed. That is why we are here. We want to give that first option of reaching a free and fair collective agreement at every opportunity, and we will stay here until that objective is reached.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to touch base on the question that was just asked.

The member was saying that there is a provision in there that would actually allow for collective bargaining to continue. I just want to ask my colleague, and I know he has looked at the bill, if he saw any incentives in there to allow for that collective agreement to go on. When the government actually put this bill together, did it actually remove something from the employer, such as their bonuses maybe, to give that incentive a chance?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

It really is strange that the board of directors and the management of Canada Post, who deal with the finances of the corporation every day, should conclude that, as tough as things are, they have room to offer a certain amount of money in negotiations for wages and yet the government comes along and says, “No, no, Canada Post cannot afford that. We say, from over here, that Canada Post cannot afford to honour the commitment of wages that they already made in free and fair negotiations.” But there sure seems to be lots of money to make sure the CEO gets his $661,000 a year.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is rich hearing this member get up in the House and pretend that he cares about workers' rights when he had that one opportunity in the province of Ontario as a cabinet minister, and his actual record is that he tore up the collective bargaining agreement that 30,000 provincial workers had, threw it away, cut their salaries by $2 billion, and forced them to take 12 unpaid days off. Then he wrote a song, he and the other NDP members, and the member for London—Fanshawe, and called it “We are all in this together”. They went around a piano, sang it, and thought the workers would feel really good about it.

He gets up in this House and pretends he cares about workers when his record is just the opposite. When he had the opportunity, he screwed workers. He and his government tore the contract up, cut their pay, and forced unpaid holidays. That is the record he is trying to defend—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The member has used up the time allowed.

We have 30 seconds left for the member for Hamilton Centre.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope we get an opportunity to do this a little more fuller in terms of responses. But in 30 seconds, the first thing I would say is that the people of Hamilton Centre decided in the follow-up election that I should be returned to Queen's Park twice more after that and four times here.

I would also take a look at what he and Mike Harris did when they came in after 1995. We are still picking up the pieces of what is left of Ontario after he and his wrecking crew got through.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the hon. member might, in order to facilitate and help us here a little bit, have a copy of the social contract in which he reduced workers by $1.9 billion and in which he did force them to take 12 unpaid days off. I wonder if the member might have a copy of that agreement that he, as a cabinet minister, and the member for London—Fanshawe forced on the employees of Ontario available to us.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That is not really a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.