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

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Bob Rae.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

There is no respect for workers in this place if somebody can talk like that at a time when we are discussing 400 workers who lost their livelihoods. They got zero, thanks to the government's inaction.

Government members sit here and make jest of that. That is a shame. That is an outrage. The reality is that at a time when the corporation had billions of dollars in cash and billions of dollars in assets, the rest of the Nortel workers lost 37% of their pensions because nobody would stand up for them.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's presentation today is yet another regurgitation of the NDP speech that we have heard some 140 times over these last hours here in the House. We completely understand, as do all Canadians, that NDP members feel obliged, given the news from their national convention that they are not true to their union roots, to use this grandstanding process as an opportunity to prove to their base that they are true socialists.

When are the members of the official opposition going to realize that Canadians across this country overwhelmingly want the postal service back? They want their mail. Seniors, families, small businesses and businesses all think it is time to vote this legislation in.

Members of the official opposition must stop this charade. They are not convincing anybody.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the regurgitation the member talks about was a speech I wrote at 2:30 this morning. I did not check with anybody else's notes, so if it sounds familiar, it is because people in our party come from the same place. They come from a place where workers are respected for their contributions to this country.

The reality is very simple. If there had not been a lockout by Canada Post, we would not be here today. It is as simple as that. If you end the lockout, you will end the problem.

We have offered to work with the government. Our leaders have talked to the government, and we are prepared to end this debate the moment the government makes the right decisions on the offers made.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I realize, of course, that members are probably going on little rest, but we encourage hon. members to use the best language they can in respect of their colleagues.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on the bill, I will take a brief moment to bring to the attention of the House the recent death of Hay Mu Tha Kyu, a 15-year old resident of Ottawa who tragically drowned in a lake not far from Ottawa.

There will be a memorial service for him today. I think those who knew this young man and knew the family would certainly want us to pay our respects to him. He was a Burmese refugee. I know he was well known by people in this community and by members of this House. I wanted to take a moment to pay my respects to him and his family. It is quite a tragedy.

The bill we are continuing to debate today is fundamentally about how we are going to operate as a democracy.

I think this situation touches on things like responsible government. Yesterday I quoted two former Reform Party Conservative members who were very adamant about the use of closure. We have seen this government not only bring in closure but bring in closure before a bill was even presented, which is perhaps unprecedented.

If we go back to the 1840s and look at what responsible government meant, it meant that we would have representatives in the legislature who could speak on behalf of their constituents to be able to oversee law and legislation. When closure comes in before a bill, it undermines responsible government.

I will quote again two well-known Reform Party Conservatives. On May 12, 1998, Chuck Strahl said the following:

Brian Mulroney's government on closure was a pillar of virtue compared to what the Liberal government has done since it came to power. It continually uses this hammer. It is not a matter of negotiation. It is just too bad: “It is my way or the highway”.

It is unfortunate the government has decided to go this way. It is a trend. It does not bode well for this institution that the government has decided this is the way to force through legislation, controversial or not. The government is just doing it.

That was Chuck Strahl on May 12, 1998.

On November 22, 1999, the leader of the then official opposition said the following:

Mr. Speaker, the government's idea of democratic government makes a mockery of the very concept.

It uses closure and time allocation to choke off debate in the House. It stacks committees and committee hearings.... How can such a government possibly be pretending to exercise democratic leadership in government when it behaves in that way?

That was Preston Manning. It was Preston Manning who wanted to actually clean up politics and have more accountability.

I am going to go right from what Mr. Manning said to what this government had promised in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, because what is also missing in this debate is the idea of accountability.

Right now the head of Canada Post is appointed by the Prime Minister. Mr. Chopra was appointed by the Prime Minister.

What was in Bill C-2? There was an amendment that the NDP got in, which was accepted by the government and passed. It was called the Public Appointments Commission. The Public Appointments Commission would finally bring in merit-based appointments. Appointments would no longer be based on who one knew. We would have merit-based appointments and oversight by Parliament. That goes back to responsible government.

The government never brought it into force.

We had no parliamentary oversight in terms of the appointment of the person who heads Canada Post. Who is he beholden to in the end?

It is just like the Senate. When someone is appointed solely by the Prime Minister, appointed with no oversight by Parliament at all, who will that person be responsible to? It will be the person who put him there. There is no mistake about it.

I have heard the other side talk about democracy from time to time. I leave them with the former leader of the Reform Party, the former opposition leader, who talked about closure. I asked him if this is what the Conservative Party has become.

On Senate reform we have seen half a loaf. We have seen that all their friends go into the Senate. In terms of who is appointed to agencies, boards and commissions, we have seen that accountability is really to who one knows.

What happened to those members of Parliament who were going to clean up politics and have accountability? Right now they would pass a bill that would not only bring in closure, but would bring in terms as well.

I am hearing the members on the other side saying that they will.

Let us look at what is in the legislation. The government would bring in not only closure, but wage demands that are lower than the offer that was on the table, an offer that been freely negotiated. I wonder what happened to the ideas of accountability and reforming democracy.

We believe it is not too late. We believe there is an opportunity, if the government wants it, to amend this legislation so that we can have a fair deal for people and make sure that for once Parliament will give Canadians what they want, which is to see people work together for the betterment of the country.

We are not seeing that today. Sadly, we are not seeing reform, but government using tactics and power.

Finally, the government was elected by 40%. Conservatives say they got a majority, but they did not get a blank cheque.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this theme of 60% not voting Conservative in the last election. I would point out to my friend that 70% did not vote NDP, 81% did not vote Liberal, 94% did not vote Bloc and 96% did not vote Green, all of which rates a big so what.

Since we have had more than two parties in Canada, there have been 28 elections, 16 of which have been majorities. In only five of those cases did the winning party have 50% of the vote. It did not happen during any of the three Jean Chrétien majorities or the three Trudeau majorities, so to suggest or imply that somehow our majority is not legitimate is, I think, a little rich.

I would also make a comment on the Public Appointments Commission that my colleague brought up. We had proposed a man, Gwyn Morgan, who was incredibly well qualified and would do the job for a dollar a year. However, that side trashed him unmercifully. It was a disgraceful display of vigilantism and it robbed Canada of one of the finest people that would ever have graced that position.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are the following. We still do not have a public appointments commissioner. For the government to throw the whole thing out because it could not have its way is unfortunate.

What Preston Manning came to Ottawa to do is gone. It evaporated as if the corpse of Preston Manning is lying there, and there is nothing left.

In fact, the Conservatives decided to use all the tools. I just heard the member compare the Conservatives to the Liberal Party, which used to be an example of what government should not be doing. The Conservatives say they are not quite as bad as the Liberals were.

What happened to real reform, real change and real accountability? All we see now is closure, using the big boot and, unfortunately, the undermining of Canadians. When most Canadians see what the government has done, they will wonder what happened.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wear on my lapel a pin depicting two shovels in memory of the union workers who passed away recently from workplace injuries and accidents.

I would ask my hon. colleague to talk about the importance of workplace health and safety. How did we arrive at the point that we now have workplaces that respect workers and their need for health and safety in the workplace?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question, and while I am on feet I would remember Peter Kennedy, a worker here on the Hill, who passed away while working to keep us safe here. That was a tragedy, and we are still not sure exactly what happened.

The new members may not know this, but a couple of years ago there was legislation brought forward to make sure that we had health and safety laws brought into force here on Parliament Hill. However, the law was never promulgated. This means that workers here on the Hill do not have the same rights of health and safety that every other worker in Canada has. That is up to the government to do.

We fought hard to make sure health and safety would be there for all Canadians. Sadly, on the Hill it is not.

We have to make sure we are vigilant on this issue, because health and safety are paramount. Unions fought for it, ordinary Canadians fought for it, and that is why we have it today.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to confess to my hon. friend across the way that I am not sure where he is going with this and what this has to do with the business before the House today. Every chance I get between now and when this closes I am going to keep asking these questions until I get an answer.

Delivery in Canada by Canada Post is declining. It has fallen by 17% since 2006. Its workers are well treated by the corporation yet what the members opposite are suggesting is to spend more on benefits than can be afforded over the medium or long term. Already members at the top end are entitled to seven weeks of vacation. Their pay is 17% higher than what is found in a private sector equivalent. The unfunded pension liability is $3.2 billion. How on earth does he propose that Canada Post make up for this let alone provide additional benefits down the road when the market appears to be falling. I agree Canada Post is an essential service, albeit a declining one.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It is very simple. You actually negotiate fairly. If you follow the logic here, it is bring in younger workers at a different level of pay, and, guess what, their contributions will be less. It is not going to help them with the unfunded liability. What you can do is actually sit down with the workers and say, let us figure out this problem. You do not legislate them back to work and legislate terms. That is not how you solve a problem. That is the problem with this government, and that is the problem with this legislation.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to speak to this critical issue that is before the House of Commons. Like my colleagues, I have taken my place here to represent my party during this historic debate; however, I found that even when I am not here my TV is on and I am listening with continued interest to this debate.

My New Democratic colleagues have defended with passion the rights of workers. While we are debating back-to-work legislation that impacts on our postal workers, the core of this debate has to do with the government's pro-corporate and anti-worker attitude. The Conservative government initially undermined the collective bargaining process by making it clear early on in the process that it would not hesitate to legislate workers back to work. It brought in legislation when Air Canada was in the midst of negotiating with its workers, and it did so again a week later with Canada Post. This is not about protecting the economy, as they like to pretend, this is about undermining the collective bargaining process and reversing the gains workers have made over the years.

The bill before us is nothing short of an attack on workers. Conservative members may rise and pretend to care about workers. But the truth is Bill C-6 is not about resumption and continuation of postal services, it is really an assault on collective bargaining. No one in this room denies there is an impact on people and businesses, however, the fact that Conservative members insist on denying pension cheques are not being delivered because of the lockout is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.

Do they actually believe Canadians do not know the difference between a rotating strike that ensures critical mail is delivered and a complete lockout by the company? Who are the naive members of this House? My constituents understand the difference. In fact, all northern Ontarians understand the difference. Northern Ontarians have the right perspective on this government's horrible piece of legislation.

As I have noted previously, many generations have made their living as miners. They have been proud members of the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Auto Workers union. I am a proud member of USW Local 6500, having worked at Inco for 34 years. I proudly held many positions in my union. Whether as a shop steward or as a picket captain, I took my responsibilities seriously. Health and safety were foremost in our thoughts because our work was so dangerous, however, these standards came about because the workers organized and pushed the government to introduce health and safety standards.

We know this Conservative government has always had a fundamental dislike for workers' rights because they have always placed corporate profits ahead of decent wages. CUPW has taken a responsible approach. The union believes in a modern postal service that is universal, public, affordable and green, that maintains, improves and expands services and promotes economic growth in our community.

Between 1997 and 2000, Canada Post has recorded over $1.6 billion in net profits. Since 1997, Canada Post has paid over $0.5 billion to the federal government in dividends. Throughout this time Canada Post has been among the most trusted and self-sustaining public institutions in the country. Why? Because postal workers have done their job. They have delivered the mail on time all the time. They have been professional and have worked to keep the public's faith in our public postal service.

Instead of standing up in this House and congratulating the workers for their dedication to public service, we have the Conservative government attacking their rights. Again, I feel that I need to remind my Conservative colleagues across the way that with respect to strikes we have never taken a strike vote lightly.

In 1978 and 1979, my union spent nine months on the picket line. I was married with two young children. The strain on our family was severe, but at no point did my wife complain. At no point did I waver in my determination to fight for our rights. At no point did my brothers and sisters at USW Local 6500 complain. Why? Because management was unwilling to bargain in good faith, which is exactly where we are again today.

I have mentioned before how this legislation is contrary to the International Labour Organization convention. It contravenes the fundamental right of all workers to organize and bargain collectively.

New Democrats believe that this legislation is a clear signal about where the Conservatives intend to take labour relations in this country. Conservative members have refused to acknowledge that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been trying to bring proposals to the bargaining table and address health and safety issues around Canada Post's new sorting machines and delivery methods. And, contrary to the myth being perpetrated by members of the Conservative government, CUPW has also offered proposals for innovation and expansion of the public postal service.

Canada Post's focus on concessions has made it impossible to negotiate. Back-to-work legislation is unjust and unnecessary. It is quite clear to us on this side of the House that the government lacks a true understanding of the impact of wage rollbacks on the economy as a whole. After all, these workers are not sending their wages and pension benefits to banks in the Bahamas or Swiss secret accounts. They are spending that money at businesses in their communities.

Decent wages help the housing sector, the retail sector, the transportation sector, and help create jobs and spur the economy. They also lead to increased tax revenues for the government. It is basic economics.

Northern Ontarians understand the value of good wages. They understand the value of a defined benefit pension plan. They understand because they experienced firsthand how good wages and good pensions benefit their communities.

Canadians across the country are watching this debate. They are watching with great concern how the government is undermining the only process unions have to negotiate fair wages and pensions. This renewed trend by the Conservative government runs contrary to the values of Canadians. It runs contrary to the values of my constituents.

I will be here, alongside my NDP colleagues, fighting for the rights of workers against a government that is blinded by ideology and influenced by corporate donors. This bill is a black eye for Canada, but it is not too late for this legislation to be amended. We just need the government to have an open mind and negotiate in good faith.

I would like to share with the House some of the emails we in the NDP have received supporting our stance and the CUPW workers. I will not read them because there are too many.

If the government was really interested in delivering the mail, all it has to do is unlock the doors. If the doors are unlocked today, the postal workers will be back to work Monday morning and the mail will be delivered, as they have done over and over again.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's speech. I know he has been working on it for the last couple of days.

It is my second Saturday in Ottawa since I was elected five and a half years ago. The first Saturday that I spent here was for a wedding and it was much more enjoyable.

The question I have is very simple. New Democrats have been saying that all we have to do is call Canada Post and tell them to unlock the doors. Does that mean there is a commitment from the NDP that it will tell the union that if Canada Post unlocks the doors, the union should make a commitment not to have rotating strikes and sit down and negotiate?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot do anything about the first Saturday that my colleague spent in Ottawa. It was his choice to go to a wedding.

However, he cannot blame us for this Saturday. All he has to do is to come down here, walk this way and speak to the man who is pulling the strings. Do not go talk to the puppet, but speak to the man who is pulling the strings. Then this strike would be over on Monday morning.