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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her passionate speech.

To answer my Conservative colleague's question, I would simply say that maybe the person who sent him the e-mail should read clause 16 in its entirety. The clause reads as follows:

Nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to limit or restrict the rights of the parties to agree to amend any provision of the new collective agreement, other than its term as provided for in subsection 14(1) or the salary increases referred to in section 15—

Perhaps my colleague could explain to the person who sent this e-mail to the Conservative member that we are well aware of the many orders issued to the employer. However, there was also a restriction with regard to clause 16. That is what we have been trying to get across to the Conservatives for several days now.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks. Actually I am reading the same clause myself. They say we have not read the bill. That shows just how the Conservatives view the public: as ignorant people who do not do their work.

Excuse me, but we also do our work. Yes, we have read the bill and many other documents. We are informed and we do indeed have sources. We would not accept clauses like that.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, we all know how technology has changed the requirement for mail delivery in Canada. Many of us sit here with our computers. I listened to the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing last night talk about having no access to Internet and wanting more Internet services in her riding.

According to the NDP platform on the web, the NDP is actually advocating for broadband access for everyone, something with which I agree, but it would reduce the number of people employed in the postal service.

While it is all well and good to grandstand about more services and pay, could the member tell me which job she advocates eliminating in her riding?

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has 30 seconds left.

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

Madam Speaker, I will keep it brief. Under the current offer to letter carriers, the time they spend delivering the mail will increase from four hours to six hours because the machines will sort the mail for them. This will lead to a reduction in the number of employees.

Our proposal is designed to encourage these jobs and get the workers back on the job as quickly as possible. I certainly do not think that our proposal would reduce jobs that much when compared to this offer.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, where are we now? That is the question on everyone's mind this morning. What facts have been established thus far? What facts do we agree on?

The first thing we agree on is that Canada Post management decided it did not want to negotiate the renewal of its employees' collective agreement because it felt that the workers' demands would compromise the growth of Canada Post, keep it from reaching targets, harm its competitiveness and derail attempts at streamlining. In the face of this refusal to negotiate, the workers decided to put pressure on their employer, Canada Post. In addition, these pressure tactics, rotating strikes, were not intended to disrupt services offered to customers but simply to disturb Canada Post management's peace of mind.

As in all collective bargaining, pressure tactics are intended to force a compromise, to highlight the importance of employee co-operation to ensure that the company is operating well. And it has been established that the employees' union had more than 9,000 workers on standby to ensure the continuation of essential services. These employees, conscious of the needs of the customers who are dependent on Canada Post's services, did not want to harm the public, neighbours, friends, business owners, family members, etc.

It has been established that the impact felt by Canadians since the start of this dispute was not caused by Canada Post's employees, but by the actions of its management. We have said it often enough that no one can deny it any longer: things started to deteriorate for the public when Canada Post management declared a lockout.

This measure, which is hardly novel, is different because it affects a sector of the public that is dependent on postal services, which have a near-monopoly. It has also been established that the government acted hastily by intervening in this dispute, by appointing itself judge and jury, when there was no indication that the situation was degrading to the point of immobilizing the postal service. Again, there was no indication, before the lockout or before this bill was introduced, that public services would be compromised.

For days the government has been saying that Bill C-6 was necessary. Day and night we have demonstrated, and we will continue to demonstrate, that this is untrue. The government is content to repeat, like a broken record, that the collective agreement expired eight months ago and that the situation could not continue. Do eight months of negotiations, if they can even be called that, really represent a critical delay given that the employer was not even co-operating?

Many examples of past negotiations to renew expired collective agreements show that a delay of eight months is nothing out of the ordinary. In Quebec, we have seen much worse without the government getting involved. Take, for example, Quebecor and the Journal de Montréal dispute. The lockout lasted over a year—not just several months; over a year.

The government claims that the difference is that Canada Post offers an essential service. That argument does not hold water because, and I will say it again, the unionized workers at Canada Post planned to have 9,000 employees available to work and provide services. Unionized City of Montreal employees, police officers, firefighters and other professional bodies offering truly essential services have been negotiating for over a year without a collective agreement. Eight months is not enough; it is not a justification and it does not threaten the delivery of essential services to the public.

Eight months of negotiations do not justify the government's intervention, particularly when the unionized workers have committed to continue providing services. Eight months is not even a significant precedent, never mind a length of time that requires government intervention.

These are the arguments that the government has been presenting for days to convince us to allow Bill C-6 to pass. These arguments do not hold water and the government and the opposition parties both know it.

So what is the truth? What is the justification for this situation? What is the government's plan?

The government is saying that it wants to find solutions. So why does it not tell us the truth, show us its plan and Canada Post's plan, and tell the House today the real goals of this charade?

Is the government allowing this exceptional process that is keeping us in the House for a historically long period simply for ideological reasons, or does the government have a larger motive? I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is not making the Canadian public go through this simply to satisfy its ideology. That would be too sad. But if that is not the reason, then what is?

Since September 2010, there have been discussions in England about the future of the Royal Mail. The government is talking about rationalization and the possibility of privatizing the postal service because it is losing money.

In Germany, 20% of the postal service was privatized in order to pad the coffers of the government corporation that was losing money. In Belgium, postal services were privatized because they did not make the desired profit. In Denmark, postal services were privatized because their performance did not live up to expectations. It was the same thing in Finland. Even Japan is currently considering privatizing its services.

However, Canada Post has generated a profit of $1.7 billion over the past 15 years. Then why are we having this debate today? Why are we taking our cue from countries with services that lost money when not only does Canada Post make attractive profits, but it provides exceptional service for less than what is charged in Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, England, Japan, Australia and the United States? Why are we attacking Canada Post workers when, unlike all the postal services I mentioned, our crown corporation's performance is exceptional?

Should we not instead be thanking and recognizing these employees who make Canada Post successful? Is the real issue the fact that, in this wave of privatization across the globe, Canada Post is one of those rare, profitable public corporations and this makes it very appealing to private investors?

Can the government state today in the House that it is not subjecting Canadians to this ordeal simply to pave the way for the possible sale of Canada Post? Can the government state that it is not doing all this to break the union, lower wages, increase profits and make the product more attractive for private investors?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is remarkable that here we are a couple of days in and we still hear the exact same arguments. In fact, I am sure I have heard that same speech before.

Regardless, we have heard a number of members talk about the wages being paid to the executive at Canada Post.

I received a number of emails from local postal workers in Peterborough. They had no choice about joining the union. It is mandatory. One postal worker wrote to me, and I will just read the part where he said:

This union is corrupt!

This union charges $80 a month in fees and is not accountable to anyone on where that money goes.

This union organizes union conferences for its top brass in foreign countries like Fiji and Maui.

That exact same union will not allow its members to vote on Canada Post's last offer. That union member had no choice about being a member of the union. Now he would like a choice as to whether or not he could accept Canada Post's most recent offer. The NDP is standing in the way of that. Would the NDP not encourage CUPW to allow its membership to vote on the most recent Canada Post offer?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member has understood correctly. I am talking about the salaries paid to Canada Post executives. I think that he has simply got the wrong person.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to let my colleague know that I really enjoyed her speech, as it shed light on the situation for me. I also want to ask her a question, as I am not sure I understood correctly. If my understanding is correct, the situation is very serious.

Am I right in my understanding that this government has fabricated a situation from beginning to end in order to push Canada Post workers into being incredibly productive, so that the government could sell Canada Post to the private sector in the long run? Did I understand that correctly?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes, that is correct, Madam Speaker.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this debate has been going on for quite some time, and my constituents are very interested in having a resumption of mail service. They are not really interested in whether it is management that is at fault or if it is the union that is at fault. All they know is that they are not getting their mail. They need their mail for the good of their businesses. They need it for the health of their economy. They need it to meet payrolls.

Families need those payrolls to be able to put food on the table. The New Democratic Party is carrying on a filibuster that is preventing a law that will allow workers to go back to work.

I hear in the hon. member's speech that it is because the New Democratic Party members think there is a wage decrease in the proposed legislation. I counted it up. There is a 7.5% wage increase in the legislation. That is an increase in excess of what many of the people in my constituency are receiving.

Has the hon. member looked at the bill? Is she aware that there is a 7.5% wage increase?

Would the member not agree that it is a good idea to give workers the opportunity to go back to work, have the benefit of that wage increase and allow our economy to have the benefit of the mail service, rather than having our economy crippled at this fragile time?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, the lockout should be stopped, so that the union leaders can negotiate with Canada Post. It is up to them to resolve the situation.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Madam Speaker, we have just heard the government House leader wonder why the filibuster is occurring.

It is becoming readily apparent to members of this chamber that the government exercised options here. The government exercised options in its tabling of the rules for how this debate would proceed. It did not set any limits on the time period for the debate.

The standing orders established what the time of speeches would be. Unlike other bills the government has introduced, for which it set limits on the time for debate at each stage, for this bill the government did not do that.

It did it for the HST debate. It did it for the budget implementation act. It did it for the mega-trials bill. It did not do so in this particular instance. It could have when it tabled government Motion No. 3, and it did not.

Why not?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, the other side has the answer. The question should be put to them.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the big question here, as we know, is why the Conservatives are backing the lockout by Canada Post and why they are intervening in such a biased way in something that should be a labour dispute between employer and workers.

Labour disputes happen in virtually all modern market-based economies. They are a fact of life, and it is a normal situation for market-based economies. Therefore, I am surprised at the government. It says it is in favour of small government, yet we see it intervening in this way and as we know, the Conservatives are anything but small government.

The Conservatives have formed the largest government we have had in the history of Canada. It has the largest deficits and the largest number of cabinet ministers. It is a heavy-handed government that is interfering in our collective bargaining process.

Whatever happened to the supposed Conservative goal of small government? It is not there, not that I can see.

Now the government is interfering in labour market negotiations in a way that is nothing less than a violation of the Charter of Rights for Canadians.

If the Conservatives do this now on this issue, where is it going to end? Are they going to step in every time there is a dispute in the marketplace? Are they going to legislate every time two sides do not agree on something? It is worrisome.

Let us be very clear. We have no postal service right now because Canada Post shut down the service completely, backed by the government. It has locked its workers out, encouraged and backed by the government. It seems clear to all of us.

Instead of introducing legislation to end this lockout, to resume rotating service and negotiation, to get both sides back to the bargaining table and to get the mail moving, the government has decided to interfere with the rights of collective bargaining and impose a settlement even below what management had originally suggested.

Canada Post is being rewarded for shutting down the mail service that so many Canadians rely upon. This is a dangerous precedent, regardless of the particulars in this labour dispute or any other.

Knowing the mindset of the government, from now on will any large corporation in Canada, whether crown corporation or other critical corporation, simply refuse to negotiate and just wait for the government to interfere and legislate people back to work? Will Canada Post be encouraged in the future to just hold our postal service hostage and hold Canadian mail recipients hostage any time it does not feel like bargaining?

This is a dangerous path the Conservatives are leading this country down. It is one that can lead us to more entrenched positions; more, not less, labour unrest; and more, not less, interruption of services that Canadians use. In the future, what incentives will there be for corporations to bargain in good faith or to settle?

The government should not be in the business of imposing labour contracts for businesses or workers. It is not free or fair collective bargaining. It is not letting the process work. It is not the way it has been building and developing for decades. It is wrong-headed.

I am also left wondering if this has something to do with the government's desire to increasingly privatize Canada Post services and reduce services to Canadians, as they have been reduced in my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North to small communities. It is Canadians living in rural and remote areas who are going to suffer the most. My riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North has 31 communities, one large one and 30 small ones, and they have been increasingly impacted by Canada Post's reduction in services. The people in those communities feel threatened by this trend.

Canada Post insists it is still respecting its so-called policy of not shutting down rural services itself, because it can just throw up its hands and say there is no alternative. The government is supporting Canada Post in that.

The irony here is that Canada Post is profitable. It does not need to shut down rural services any more than it needs to privatize or walk away from the bargaining table in labour negotiations. As we know, it has been highly profitable for many years. The CEOs are well paid. Some would say they are quite overpaid. They have been getting much larger increases than the workers have been asking for.

I can agree with one thing that the Conservative government has been saying inside and outside the House, which is that we want to see the mail moving again. Both sides want to see the mail get moving. It is a shame that we have this impasse and that we have to have this impasse. It is mostly within the government's power to do something about that, quickly, in an hour, a day or a couple of days at the most. I hope it will reconsider.

I am a small business person. My businesses, like many across the country, rely on the post office for services. Many businesses rely on the mail to ship their products, including mail-order businesses. Many of them are waiting to send or receive cheques.

Canada Post's lockout and shutdown of all services has negatively impacted small business more than it has most Canadians, although all Canadians are negatively impacted.

It is also impacting the workers who want to work but who have been locked out of their jobs in the same way that Canadians have been locked out of their delivery services.

Let me talk about a worker from Red Deer who has worked for 37 years and used almost no sick leave during his entire career. Then he became very ill just as the lockout was happening. He was denied benefits, of course, because Canada Post locked him out.

My office has also talked to workers in my own riding. There is a single mom of two children, a 20-year veteran who has worked Canada Post, who needs medication to stay alive and be able to support her family. Like many Canadians, she has a mortgage to pay, but because Canada Post has locked her out, she can no longer afford to pay both. Her family either has to give up their house or give up the life-saving medicine.

It is our duty as parliamentarians on both sides of this House to figure out how to get the mail moving again and how to get people in these kinds of situations back to work so that they can receive the benefits they sorely need.

The other thing I would like to comment on is a big issue, but I am not going to go into it in big detail. It is the pension issue.

There is a real problem here in Canada. The Conservatives need to decide what they are going to do about seniors in Canada. They were resistant to the idea of giving us a CPP system that people can live on.

The NDP suggested basically a doubling of benefits so that people could actually live on CPP. If the government is not going to do that, in the short term it should at least allow a defined benefits program for crown corporations, public service workers and other workers in Canada who need sufficient money in retirement and need the security of knowing that it is coming and they will actually be able to live on it.

What is at stake here is much more than just the way the government has handled this one labour dispute. It is about the precedent set by interfering with the collective bargaining process. The right to organize and the right to collective bargaining was affirmed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, most recently in 2007.

The court ruled that collective bargaining was a right, not a privilege, protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Collective agreements are central to freedom of association, according to the courts.

The court also said that substantial interference with collective bargaining over essential rights violates Canadians' freedom of association. In 2007 the court found that the charter gives the same protection for collective bargaining as is contained in the international labour conventions that Canada has ratified internationally.

In interfering with free collective bargaining and imposing its ideology, the government is dangerously close to violating fundamental freedoms that generations of Canadians have fought hard for.