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

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I had the chance to visit my riding yesterday. I met people who have placed their confidence in us and they asked me something. It was a young couple, Marie-Josée and Martial, who have just had a baby. They are now the proud parents of two little boys. They mailed in the documents to claim their parental leave. Everything is all tied up. This young couple needs their money to make their mortgage and car payments and to survive.

Will the member opposite work with this House to call a vote on this bill so that Quebeckers and Canadians can start receiving their mail again on Monday?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my former MP—since I once lived in his riding—that I would like to work with the government and with him in our vast region. We are already bringing forward proposals. Let us end this lockout. It will all be settled and people will get their mail.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the members opposite are all in fine form this morning. I am also pleased to see so many ministers here. It is comforting to know that the government truly wants to end this crisis in an honourable way.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say that he went to his riding and that people support him. Oddly enough, I just read in the newspapers that 53% of Quebeckers support the NDP. Our popularity is up again in the polls. With these polling numbers, not a single Conservative member would be elected if there were an election tomorrow.

I am here to defend the rights of postal workers and indeed of all workers. They government wants to dictate the collective agreement for postal workers. The government is not even giving the two parties the chance to negotiate.

It is odd that this government—which wants to redefine the role of government and wants a government that does not intervene as much in public affairs—has used this sledgehammer to meddle in the first labour dispute involving a crown corporation. It did not use this level of intervention to prevent the devastating crisis we were forced to endure because of all kinds of speculators in 2008. The government did not intervene then. But when postal workers want to preserve the gains of past generations, maintain their buying power, it quickly intervenes to keep them in line.

Perhaps the Conservatives are telling themselves that their actions will disrupt the labour movement, that they will scare the postal workers and other workers who are fighting to maintain their buying power. But they are wrong.

I know that many members on the government side hate unions, and they candidly admit it. They do not like our country's labour laws. They do not like the right to freedom of association; they do not like health and safety laws; they do not like minimum wage legislation. I know that some members opposite firmly believe in the invisible hand that guides the economy, the one that pushed us into the 2008 crisis and that is currently pushing countries like Greece, Spain and Iceland towards bankruptcy.

It is up to the general public and us to repair the damage that this hand, insensitive and unqualified to make society more fair, has wrought on the savings of small investors and families. The people are the ones suffering from the financial sector's lust, those small investors who lost $40,000 billion during the crisis. But the government did not intervene then.

Canada Post is telling its young employees that it can no longer ensure that the current pension plan will be available for future generations. That is strange, is it not, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary? Canada Post can no longer guarantee pensions for future generations. Yet, our companies are making record profits year after year. Our banks are making record profits year after year. Canada Post Corporation is also making profits. So why reduce benefits for young workers?

I feel that if we cannot understand the Conservatives' objective, the objective of these ideologues, we cannot understand the situation. It is incomprehensible that a crown corporation making $281 million in profits is asking young workers to accept lower wages and no guarantees in terms of pension plans. Where is the logic in that?

On this side of the House, we believe that pension plans are essential and that all Canadian workers should be able to have a pension plan to help them to live their later years in dignity and get out of poverty. The mere $1.68 a day that this government is offering is not going to help our seniors get out of poverty.

On this side of the House, we do not believe that the unions are too big. On the contrary, we believe that they should continue to grow and that more unions are needed. More unions should be created in our businesses and throughout the world to provide balance and ensure that the wealth that is generated benefits everyone, that it is redistributed.

A recent study showed that the purchasing power of the average Canadian worker increased by $1 a week over the past 25 years. People are not idiots or fools. They know that, today, it takes two salaries to support a small family. Even with those two salaries, they have difficulty buying essential commodities and paying for heating and electricity. Meanwhile, billionaires in Canada and throughout the world are growing richer. It is not normal to live in such a society. Our role, as members of the NDP, is not only to tell the government that we do not agree with Bill C-6 and the hypocritical role that it is playing in this dispute, but also to help all workers maintain and improve their working conditions.

On this side of the House, we do not believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand. We also do not believe that Canada Post negotiated honestly and in good faith. It negotiated in such a way that the government was able to introduce Bill C-6. Coming out of the election, the Conservative Prime Minister said that he was satisfied with the result because, finally, the debate would be clear. For once, I agree with him. It is true. The debate is very, very clear.

On this side of the House, it is clear. The NDP wants postal workers to maintain and improve their purchasing power, working conditions and pension fund, and it wants the young people who are hired by Canada Post to have the same conditions and benefits that have been negotiated over the years.

On this side, we want Canadian workers to have access to job security, and real protection against unemployment and illness. Clearly, our objective is not to produce more billionaires, but to increase the number of families that do not live in poverty. That is our vision for the future of Canada, and each time the government attempts, by various means, as it is doing with Bill C-6, to weaken the work world, we will be there.

Soon, we will have third reading of the bill and we will introduce amendments. I hope that the hours we have just spent here will lead the government, in good conscience, to find an honourable solution to this crisis. Each amendment could be discussed endlessly, but we will be here. We must find a solution to this crisis. I encourage the members opposite to reflect, in good conscience, and to find solutions.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. He talked about how we need more and more unions and how we need redistribution of wealth, two hallmark policies of socialism. I thought when the NDP went to the Vancouver convention they were talking about removing socialism from their party constitution. I was happy to hear that, because socialism does not work.

Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing not of money but of misery.” That was Winston Churchill, one of the greatest leaders of the previous century. He knew what socialism was and he recognized it for the dangers it provides.

The NDP also talk about democracy and the democracy of the union. Now, why are thousands and thousands of Canadians across this country forced to join unions? Why must they join a union to be a teacher? Why must they join a union to be a postal worker? If they are democratic, why can they not have a choice?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, in what a demagogic way my words have been twisted. I never said that Canadians must join unions. I said that we hope that there will be as many unions as possible. In fact, in modern western countries where unions exist and wealth is distributed, life expectancy is higher, there is less illness, and social services are well supported. Those countries have the most vibrant economies. We need only look to Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

This is the basis for my comment about the need for unions. In countries where there are no unions, people work for 10¢ an hour and have no services—no health services or social security. That is the logic behind my comments.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord. Over the 37-hour debate, the sound of a broken record has been reaching my ears from the other side of the House. The same arguments have been brought up over and over. The Conservatives claim that the NDP is to blame for the 37-hour debate, since it refuses to accept the bill the Conservatives have tabled. There are specific reasons why we do not agree with the bill.

However, we have proposed alternatives to the bill, which the government knew we would not support. We proposed that the government replace the bill with back-to-work legislation that would not affect the workers' right to a rotating strike. We proposed that the government replace it with a bill that would extend the collective agreement by a few years, so that the two parties could come to an agreement naturally. Instead, the government presented us with a bill that imposes unfair conditions on employees and forces a return to work in violation of the free bargaining provisions. Therefore, I ask that my colleague tell me which of the three options proposed he prefers and whether that option would help us go home sooner.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is obvious that withdrawing this immoral and unjust bill would be the best solution. Postal workers have told us that if the government withdrew the bill and the Canada Post Corporation ended its lockout, the workers would return to work today. What are they waiting for to withdraw this bill? What are they waiting for to end the lockout? What are they waiting for to negotiate in good faith instead of pursuing a hidden right-wing political agenda? That is what we are wondering.

Canadians are wondering the same thing. Where is the government headed when it comes to workers? What does it intend to do about our rights and our existing social benefits?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people in my riding of LaSalle—Émard and tell them how it feels to be away from my riding to discuss issues that are very dear to me. I would imagine that every member in the House feels the same way. I want to repeat how incredibly proud I am to be part of a team that is standing up to protect the fundamental rights of workers.

The legislation put forward by the government, Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, could, in the short term, achieve the goal of getting postal service back on track. But the long-term impacts of passing this legislation are still unknown. The reason the members of the official opposition are so vehemently opposed to this bill is that they believe it will have far-reaching long-term consequences.

What bothers me about this bill is that the conditions of the new collective agreement have been decided in advance. The government is putting shackles not only on the workers, but also on the employer and on the arbitrator who will have to decide the matter. What worries me about this bill are the long-term effects of the conditions being imposed, a concern that has been raised articulately and exhaustively by my colleagues. The conditions being imposed will lead to reduced incomes and a lower standard of living for the middle class. And that includes working conditions and future pension benefits.

In the long term, this measure will jeopardize the economic recovery that is so important to the current government, as well as Canada's future economic stability. Even more troubling is the fact that this lockout and this bill will only serve to poison labour-management relations. These conditions create a two-tier system of new hires versus existing employees, something that goes against the values of fairness that Canadians hold so dear.

Canada Post is part of our daily lives. It is a public service that ensures mail delivery to every community across this beautiful and vast nation of ours. Unfortunately, the lockout and Bill C-6 send mixed messages. The job actions taken by Canada Post management—service interruption on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the lockout—were a draconian response to the rotating strikes initiated previously. The government responded by introducing Bill C-6.

What message is the government sending to Canadians? First of all, they are being subjected to the effects of a lockout, and small and medium-size businesses are suffering financially. Unfortunately, the long-term impact of this government's actions will be the erosion of the very notion of public service. Why do we need public services like Canada Post? Because they provide an affordable service that meets the needs of all Canadians, regardless of where they live across the country, from coast to coast, from the far north to the south.

The Public Service is also a large employer, one that offers interesting working conditions for its employees and provides them with a standard of living such that they can help the country's economy to flourish. It is also important for us to remember that as Members of Parliament, we are part of the Public Service, in that we serve all Canadians, regardless of where they live.

I am disturbed by the fact that this government is trying to turn us into a society where the legitimate right to collective bargaining to secure attractive working conditions will be denied and where collective rights will take a back seat to economic interests.

I am proud to be part of a team that stands united in its opposition to Bill C-6, which threatens the right to freely negotiate a collective agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that a lot of people are being harmed through this work stoppage at Canada Post. We need to go back to October. There were some eight months of negotiations that occurred, three months in January into the spring with conciliation, a month with a mediator that was appointed.

Clearly, this is a stalemate that will not be solved by the parties. We saw the rotating strikes, which cost Canadian taxpayers, who, ultimately, own Canada Post, some $100 million. Today, the postal workers from coast to coast who are part of the losses that are occurring, postal workers in places like Peterborough and right across this country, are not being paid and some of them are on disability. If we could pass this bill, they will start being paid immediately. They will go back to work, postal service will resume and we will have put in place a solution.

the New Democrats constantly tell us to take the locks off. They know that is not a solution. They know that is simply a path to another impasse. It is more uncertainty for Canadian businesses and postal workers who just want to go to work. I keep hearing about young workers. I can say that if positions open up at Canada Post in Peterborough or elsewhere, there will be no shortage of young workers. However, I hope Canada Post does not engage in ageism because I believe new hires should be open to people of any age, not only young people.

I hope the NDP members soon come around because the pain and suffering they are thrusting upon Canadians extends to postal workers, too.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I did not hear any question. However, I did listen closely to the comments of the government member.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the thoughtful and well laid-out arguments that my colleague made to try to explain to the public that might be watching the charade that is unfolding in front of their eyes as the Conservative government, the architect of this whole problem, stubbornly maintains its manufactured crisis and yet tries to pitch the blame on the NDP.

I wonder if my colleague would take a moment to sum up her thoughts in that regard.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to remember that the lockout was ordered by Canada Post, a crown corporation. If government members are concerned, especially in light of the economic losses that are apparently mounting, the solution, quite simply, would be to advise the management at Canada Post that a lockout adversely affects economic growth and has a destabilizing effect on Canada's economy.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak English very often, but I will give it a try. I have just received via Facebook a rather interesting message from an Anglophone, someone whom I do not know, who lives in a riding in British Columbia. He is asking the following question and I would like to pass it along to the member for LaSalle—Émard.

He said: “Remember when unions crashed the stockmarket, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no taxes? No? Me neither”.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a clear illustration of the strength that a community that stands up for the rights of workers can have. Currently, the economy is out of control and the profits of large corporations are not being redistributed. That is partly what is being expressed here and what we want to rectify. We want to see a power relationship in which a community, where there is strength in unity, can defend the rights of workers.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government tells us that we should accept this bill because the proposed agreement includes salary increases. That is irrelevant. If the government is waiting for us to approve this bill based on that argument alone, it is going to be waiting a long time.

I even wonder if the government has read its own bill. If it had, it would have realized that we are not rejecting this bill because of a single aspect.

If we cannot make ourselves understood by the government, if it refuses to hear us because it believes it is above everything that happens in the House, let us try something else. Let us try to make the government understand that we are refusing to approve this bill because Canada Post workers are asking us to do so, and not only are they asking us to do so, but they are explaining why.

Here is an example a Canada Post worker sent me. He points out that one of the issues with the collective agreement that Canada Post is trying to force upon them is very important for future postal workers, and that is the shortage of workers and the demographics of the new workforce that we will see in the future.

First of all, the new contract would reduce the salaries of new employees from $24 per hour to $18 per hour. He explains that the new workers available for hire will be Aboriginal people and newcomers to Canada. These new workers will work for lower wages and reduced benefits, making them a separate class of workers and citizens. Once again, it is an insult to see co-workers being treated as second-class citizens.

There will also be retirees, and young men and women trying to support their families. They deserve a decent salary, the one that Canada Post already pays for the same work. Equal pay for work of equal value.

The many issues also include, as he points out, preserving sick leave and other benefits. In his letter this worker begs us not to let Canada Post cut their sick leave. For nearly 40 years, Canada Post has included sick leave in its offers, and the cost of this measure has not prevented Canada Post from making profits during the past 16 years.

Moreover, although the figures vary depending on the source, from 10,000 to 20,000 positions would be eliminated over the next 10 years. That means that Canada Post would have less vacation leave and other costs to pay. This worker cannot believe that, with these savings, Canada Post executives could no longer afford to provide sick leave for those whose jobs will not be cut. These sick days are a form of insurance. Some workers use them and others do not, so they are not a heavy burden on the system, as suggested by the executives.

His letter also mentions the high workplace injury rate and the many employees dealing with chronic physical ailments.

The union members are also affected by high rates of depression and mental illness, most of which are due to the high level of stress in the workplace, something that even the Canada Post executives have confirmed.

They even declared themselves to be champions of mental health. Despite this, they tried to cut sick leave instead of leaving current programs in place to help employees. Canada Post is saying that it wants to make the corporation a model employer, but its actions do not match its words.

Canada Post is saying that revenues are down, but it has done everything possible to shoot itself in the foot in terms of customer service. It is as though the company were purposely trying to fail on this front. It has cut the number of service counters and staff, both in rural municipalities and in large cities. How can Canada Post make money if it has no employees behind the counter to sell products and services?

There are long line-ups and not enough employees to serve customers. In the post office where this postal worker works, there used to be two customer service staff. Canada Post got rid of them a few years ago. Needless to say, sales have dropped significantly. The other service employees are trying to serve customers, but they do not have the necessary time or training, so there are no performance guarantees.

In addition, management is not available to respond to clients' needs. Clients are referred to a 1-800 number, which is now run by a private company. The employees are also required to fill out all of the paperwork required by management, which further reduces the time they have available to help customers. Customers must fill out forms themselves. High error rates slow down processing and create a lot of dissatisfaction.

The range of services needs to be increased, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. It should not get harder for them to send parcels. Many of the problems at Canada Post have nothing to do with the work or wages of employees.