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

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I must interrupt the hon. member for questions and comments.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Out of respect, I wanted to wait until the member finished his speech.

I want to address a point that he made in his speech. I realize the member is new to the House. He made an insinuation about the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. I can assure him that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca has been a strong advocate of workers' safety, particularly the workers across the country that go to his riding.

I want to give the new member a chance to show respect, to stand in the House—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I appreciate the comment, but that is a point of debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of State for Transport.

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

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in the House on a point of order. I have not risen to make a point of debate. This is a proper point of order.

Standing Orders 16(2) and 18 have been repeatedly violated during the time the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl was speaking, but it is not the first time. The level of decorum is getting rapidly worse. Standing Order 16(2) says that when a member is speaking, no member shall interrupt him or her. Standing Order 18 says that no one shall have offensive words used against them.

We are losing the thread here and I ask the Speaker for help to ensure we maintain the higher level of decorum that we had at the beginning of the 41st session.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is correct. These are part of our Standing Orders. Order in the House is dependent on the goodwill of all members and the debate must occur with respect to all members in the House. I would ask everyone to remember that as the debate continues and I will certainly enforce the rules of order.

The Minister of State for Transport.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the economy. If the member was—

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you confirm with the desk officers that I actually received 10 minutes? I do not think I did.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I am advised that, despite the interruptions, the hon. member has received more or less 10 minutes. However, I want to add that it becomes disjointed when there are continual points of order that are really not points of order, but questions of debate. I ask everyone to be mindful of that as well.

The hon. Minister of State for Transport.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to jobs. We are approaching a work week on Monday. This Canada Post work stoppage has caused significant damage not only to Canada Post and its future but also to the economy of Canada. If the member were really interested in preventing jobs from being lost, we would get this legislation done over the weekend.

We get their point now, loud and clear, that the NDP are beholden to big labour. We understand that. If there were any doubt before, it is abundantly clear that the NDP are holding on to their biggest link in Canada, big union bosses. However, there is a bigger picture here, the needs of Canadians and small businesses to get on with their lives. What the NDP are doing this weekend in this filibuster is preventing normal life in Canada from occurring.

Could the member not simply allow the legislation to move forward? We get the point of the NDP, but we need to get on with the bigger picture, and that is to be here in Parliament for Canadians.

Will the member support the government's legislation?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, if the Conservatives got the point, they would take the legislation off the table. Let me answer the question with the end of my speech, that the attack on postal workers must not be tolerated, that the attack on rescue centres must not be tolerated, that the attack on Canadian labour must not be tolerated. Our way of life, the Canadian way of life, must be defended. I was not supposed to be here today, but the line has been drawn. I could be nowhere else.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his eloquent speech to the House today and for the passion he brings in representing his community and to this issue.

Given that this is a lockout by the employer, in fact a strike by the employer, in which the government has now chosen to intervene and take the side of the employer, could the hon. member give us his opinion of what the long-term impact will be on collective bargaining, not just for postal workers but for any groups of working people in the country, as a result of this very damaging bill before us today?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, let me answer that question with another part of my speech that I did not get to because I was interrupted by the Conservatives opposite.

I had a conversation yesterday with two union leaders in St. John's, one of whom told me a story about a senior postal worker, a women with 30 years' of seniority. She does not need to be on the picket line. She can retire any day because her pension is safe, but she heard the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons on Thursday and it motivated her to walk the line. It motivated her to continue the fight, because what is so important and what long-time workers see as so important are the pensions and benefits for the people coming behind them. That is what is so important.

I hope that answers the hon. member's question.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, mind-boggling, unacceptable and outrageous are some of the adjectives used to describe the government's attitude and the way it is handling this matter. I do not know whether the government has really not understood anything or it is just trying to prevent Canada Post workers from continuing to provide services to the public. The sole purpose of that action is to create a precedent that will enable the government to impose its vision every time.

Today, I am asking this Conservative government to put the interests of Canadians ahead of partisanship and ideologies. This government, elected by only 40% of Canadians, has a duty to serve the interests of the whole population, as it has promised many times before and after the May 2 election. I do not understand why this government, which made so many promises before the election, is now depriving Canadians of services and seriously harming the Canadian economy.

It should be noted that Canada Post subsidiaries and its joint venture annually spend $2.8 billion on goods. Therefore, we are not just talking about the businesses that no longer have access to Canada Post services, but about Canada Post itself, which provides those services, thereby creating 300,000 additional jobs that are currently being threatened. The economy is a daily topic of discussion. There are 585 domestic flights scheduled for Canada Post services. There are also 100 delivery vehicles and 18 rail services. All that money is being lost because the Conservatives have shut down our Canada Post services.

Job-creating small businesses are waiting for postal services to resume, so that they can send their bills and receive their cheques. The government could end this crisis immediately by allowing the employees to return to work, resume services and negotiate with their employer in good faith and on an equal footing.

From the beginning of this crisis, the government has not just interfered and imposed its vision; it has run a propaganda and smear campaign demonizing Canada Post employees. Once again, as my colleagues have pointed out many times, the government is trying to polarize matters, create conflict and divide Canadians.

The Conservative government knows full well what it is doing. Its plan is clear: cut services, privatize Canada Post and create a precedent. In the meantime, this government has no qualms about depriving people of services and putting a squeeze on family budgets. The government keeps saying that we are responsible for this situation even though the government, and the government alone, can put an end to the lockout and let Canada Post employees resume the work they never wanted to stop doing. But that has never been the government's priority. It is perfectly obvious that its priorities are elsewhere. The government is there to serve the CEOs of large corporations, banks and oil companies. The government is asking employees to make concessions and tighten their belts, as if Canada Post were truly in trouble, and all the while, its CEO is collecting a salary in the neighbourhood of $500,000 with bonuses. That is insulting; it is a slap in the face to all Canadians.

Today, the hon. members across the way have targeted postal workers. Tomorrow, they will target other public servants. And the day after that, will they take aim at all workers? Yes, the Conservatives must make their friends happy. It is much more enjoyable to go off and play golf with the heads of big business than to mix with the average Canadian and the real workers who make our economy go round.

Apparently, this government, with its irresponsible policies, is oblivious to the pride Canadians have in their postal service, one of the best in the world, one of the most efficient, one of the most accessible, a service provided by the Crown, a service that is not yet in the hands of the private sector. But for how long?

Canada Post employees have always done an excellent job serving Canadians from coast to coast, rain or shine, at an extremely reasonable cost. I really do not know how the hon. members across the way will be able to look their letter carrier in the eye after passing this special legislation. Nor do I know whether they could have taken this approach prior to the May 2 election. It is a classic move. They disregard Canadians and serve the interests of their cronies at the beginning of their mandate, and then, come election time, they claim they are going to help the economy.

This government has the power and the duty to put a stop to this crisis immediately. It can intervene right now so that employees can go back to work and negotiations with the employer can resume.

At this time, the population is being held hostage for ideological reasons and partisan purposes. This government has to act. Yesterday, while we were debating here, the Prime Minister was not even in Ottawa, but he just had to add insult to injury. And even though he prevented the members of this House from returning to their ridings to celebrate the national holiday, he went to Quebec himself.

Be that as it may, it is not stopping: the calls keep coming in, and I continue to get emails from worried citizens who are asking us to continue our work. I think that this government is distancing itself even further from the population, and isolating itself. It has been completely blinded by its partisan goals. This government, which has no consideration for workers, is conducting a veritable disinformation campaign by continuing to accuse us, while all of the power rests with it: all it has to do is lift the lockout and send the parties back to discuss what would be best for both of them and their new collective agreement.

I wanted to add that a few hours ago Martin Victor sent me a message saying that he had been sleeping on his couch for two nights in a row in order to follow the debates on Bill C-6, and he added that he was willing to die on that couch in order to see this bill defeated.

There was a 64% turnout in the last general election. At this time, the population is worried about the debate and constituents are getting in touch with us to tell us about their concerns. My colleagues across the way say that they are only receiving emails from small businesses. That is logical, because the people in their ridings are writing to us, because we listen to them.

People from Prince Edward Island, where no NDP members were elected, unfortunately, are writing to us to thank us for our honesty and solidarity. Scott Gaudet wrote to me to say he was happy to see a new way of doing politics in Canada. He said he was disgusted with this harsh law.

The NDP is asking the government, which is accusing us of delaying the process, to order an end to the lockout so that employees can return to work and their collective agreement can be ratified in the manner agreed to.

For a while now, much has been said about the eight months of talks that have taken place. Personally, I am still looking for information about that matter, but I would like to know how many rounds of talks took place over these eight months. How much time was spent at the bargaining table? It is all well and good to say that the parties negotiated for eight months, but if they only met a few times over the course of these eight months, then the Conservatives are waging a public disinformation campaign. I am quite tired of all of this and I am also anxious to go home, but I am extremely proud and pleased to be here defending my fellow citizens.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will just read this email. It says:

Members of Parliament:

I am following the debate on ParlVu, and it seems frustrating to me that in trying to follow some of the things that some of the Hon. members are discussing, it seems like the majority of them have not read Bill C-6..

I know this is a lockout....

Can the members not read that the very first provisions require the EMPLOYER to end the lockout? That the very next subsection prohibits the EMPLOYER from impeding employees from returning to work? Can they not read that C-6 requires the EMPLOYER to resume respecting the collective agreement until a new one can be put in place?

Can they not read section 13 which states that nothing in the act precludes the Union and the Employer from agreeing on a new collective agreement before the bill comes into force?

I find that some honourable members are wasting our time and tax dollars by not reading Bill C-6 and properly interpreting its intent.

Will the NDP quit constructing straw man arguments and focus on the bill?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

We have all read the bill many times over. We have also familiarized ourselves with the measures proposed in this special legislation. Of course we support an end to the lockout, but we certainly do not support basic wages that are 18% lower, an increase in the retirement age and reductions in annual leave entitlements.

We oppose the so-called “orphan clauses“ pursuant to which newly hired young persons from my generation would enjoy fewer benefits than workers already in the labour force. Obviously, the NDP cannot support two-tiered systems. While we do want the lockout to end, we certainly do not want it to end under these conditions, with special legislation that will deny these new workers their rights.