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

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague comes from a strong labour background, which has also shaped the community I am from in Thompson, Manitoba, and here I am thinking in particular of the work done by the steelworkers.

I would like to ask him if he could elaborate on the value of having unionized workplaces. We hear so much criticism from the other side. Is it not the case that the process of collective bargaining has managed to bring so much benefit to communities across our country and truly raise the standard of living in Canada?

Rather than hearing such contempt for the work of unionized people and workers, could this member talk about the benefits of their work?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to repeat that this lockout could be over on Monday if the government unlocked the doors.

We all know what collective bargaining means. It means that the workers in those communities will have decent wages that they can spend in their communities on a house, a new car, or at local malls, compared to workers who are not unionized, who are working at minimum wage and have to shop at food banks.

Trade unions are very important to the economy of this country.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to many nostalgic comments across the way about the old labour movement and the unions back in 1946. I am wondering if the members opposite recognize that we are in 2011 and that we have just come through a great recession that has damaged so many countries and from which we are just recovering.

I am also wondering if they will listen to Canadians who are dealing with problems today, as well as the postal workers who want to get back to work, who want to earn money and be productive.

When will they realize that we are not in the old socialist days of the good old union? We are in 2011.

It is leadership that we need in this Parliament. Leadership looks ahead. We are not looking in the rear-view mirror at what happened in the past. We need to look ahead at what we will be dealing with in the future.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. We are in the 21st century. However, the government, along with this member, would like to bring us back to 1946.

Today, modern unions give their members the right to vote on collective agreements, unlike what the government wants to impose on workers.

As the hon. member was saying, back in the 1940s people were starving. There were a lot of people who were hungry back in those days. However, it was because of good trade unions that we were able to raise the standard of living so that people could have a good life and afford to put their kids through college or university and pay for health care. Everything is good, but the government would like to take us back to 1946.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, Canadians voted for change. The Conservatives like to say and let it be known that Canadians voted for the following:

a stable, strong, national majority government.

The ship should be called the SS NMGO from now on. That will be my name for it, shorthand.

It is as though Dorian Gray was admiring himself in the mirror believing that he was still young. Canadians did not vote for a majority. They voted for change, and they are disappointed because they believed that things would be done differently, here, in Ottawa. I can see the members opposite. They are tired and spent from defending this bad ideological law. Canadians deserve better than this. That is what we get when we allow ideologues to introduce their legislation and when they are not prepared.

I feel sorry for the members on the other side who have to defend this sloppy legislation of their leader. I had a conversation yesterday with a member of the government. The member regrets that politics in Ottawa has become so leader-centred that members must follow party leaders in every decision he or she makes. I feel sorry for that member because I feel that our caucus is based on respect and teamwork, not the leader. We respect our leader, but he respects us too. He would not present legislation that the caucus would not support.

I truly feel sorry for all members on the other side of the House who have to follow their leader's sloppy legislation, this back to work legislation.

I do not think the members opposite believe in this legislation. They have to get up to defend this terribly sloppy legislation.

Canadians voted for change on May 2. They wanted to see Parliament work differently. The Prime Minister wanted to win the trust of Canadians. Canadians trusted him to make incremental changes. He betrayed Canadians with this legislation.

I have a message for the Prime Minister and his increasingly restive caucus, that we will not let up. In four years when Canadians see how the government legislates and betrays the trust put in them by Canadians, we will be on that side. We will be the government.

The Liberals have asked us many times what we would do to this legislation. We would take the final offer out of the legislation. It is a bad way to legislate. There are judges, academics and experts who say this is not the way to legislate. It does not work. It puts all the weight on management's side. It shows bad faith on the government's part for taking the side of management. This is not a fair way to proceed. This is not the way to legislate workers in this country.

The other thing that we would change is the wage offer clawback. The government is being so unfair to workers by offering them a lower wage than the corporation itself offered. All Canadians know that is a bad way to proceed; it is a slap in the face of all working people in this country.

Some people may look at the postal workers and say, “Oh, they have it cushy. They have a good life.” These postal workers work their hardest, working their bodies to the bone. They deserve all of our respect. The government does not respect those workers with this sloppy legislation.

Apart from that, the government is sowing the seeds of inter-generational strife. It is dividing the older workers versus the younger workers. The older workers will have more benefits, the younger workers will have fewer benefits.

This is not a way to bring the country together. We need real leadership. This is not leadership but an ideological push of sloppy legislation to appeal to a very narrow base of voters. This is not what Canadians asked for when they elected a stable majority government. This is not a stable government. This is an irresponsible government because it is not taking care to properly craft legislation. It was less than two weeks ago that the Minister of Labour, at the Conservative Party convention, said that it was too early for back to work legislation. That was less than two weeks ago.

It was too early then, but on the last day of Parliament, its last sitting day, that was the time to introduce this legislation. All of a sudden it had become time, very quickly.

This legislation has been a spoke in the wheels of negotiations between the two parties because it sends a message to the management side that it does not have to negotiate in good faith. The government has been all about divide and conquer.

Some people in my riding have complained about cutbacks in the infrastructure of the postal service and the fact that it has been centralized. I want to speak to that.

The government speaks a lot about reforming the postal system and how it is not working anymore. However, Canada Post made $281 million in profits in 2009, much more than in previous years. Workers of Canada Post delivered more than 11 billion pieces of mail in 2009. It is a profitable corporation. The workers and the people who have supported all the changes that have happened deserve more than this terribly sloppy legislation.

I would like to read a letter, or in fact an email. We are not getting letters anymore. This is from a constituent: “We are writing to let you know that we support wholeheartedly the striking postal workers. It is clear that the issues in this strike go beyond the workers' immediate financial concerns. As serious as those are, there are forces at work in North America which hope to degrade the power of united working people.”

The constituent continues: “Throughout this continent, unions made the benefits of industrialization available to the masses. Within Canada the postal workers have been at the vanguard of the fight for such essential and just matters as maternity leaves and reliable and sufficient pensions.”

Let me say that this party will stand behind the working people of this country and will defend their rights, whether it is today, tomorrow, the next day, or the next four years. We are here to defend the rights of workers to bargain collectively.

Canada Post Corporation is not bargaining in good faith. The CEO makes more than the Prime Minister of the country, with a 4% increase every year. The union offered to stop rotating strikes if Canada Post Corporation came back to the table and reinstated the contract temporarily. Canada Post Corporation refused. Why? They knew this legislation would save them in the end. Why would the corporation negotiate in good faith if they knew that the government was going to back them up?

To the leadership and to the caucus of the government, take off the locks and let the workers get back to work.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member opposite.

I would ask him to take into consideration a few things: the state of the world economy, the situation in Europe, the situation with Greece, the challenges the United States faces with respect to deficits and debt, the modest economic recovery we are seeing in Canada, and the realization that disruptions to the economy now are clearly undesirable and create further risk to the modest growth we have in the Canadian economy.

Does the member not recognize that such disruptions as this work interruption are harmful to the Canadian economy itself and are a risk that we ought not to take at this time?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I thank the hon. member for his question. I agree the recovery is slowly happening. However, we do not build recovery by stopping people from working.

There is a lockout on these workers. When working people are allowed to work, they start stimulating the economy. We have to let the system work out the way it is supposed to work out rather than intervene.

The government said it was not going to be interventionist, but obviously with this legislation it is intervening in the bargaining process. It is intervening in the ability of postal workers to get back to work. Not letting these postal workers work is actually harming the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to intervene one more time.

In my first two speeches in this place I very rigidly tried to explain the evolution of and reasons for the trade union movement. I did this because I know that across the way not too many people really understand. I thought in fairness, to help the debate, I would try to help bring that understanding forward.

In a debate like this, with the very reasoned question that came from the Minister of Finance, the reality is that we can raise the level of debate. We can stop the silliness of name-calling or whatever. However, what concerns me is that this particular piece of legislation has a direction in it that will define an “us and them” in this country.

I referred to 1946 because this was when the workers felt they had to push back. We do not want to create a climate like that again.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member. It seems the current government is dedicated to dividing and conquering the Canadian people by separating out these postal workers from the rest of Canadians.

The New Democratic Party believes in the evolution of things, and that all these rights for workers have built up over time. We strongly believe in evolution. I do not see that belief in evolution on the other side.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about email messages. I received a phone call from a local businessman who has an art gallery. Unfortunately, as a result of the union action and the NDP action, the flyers for a great event at the art gallery could not go out. The businessman expressed his concern, as did many others.

The longer the NDP delay this process with their filibuster--all Canadians are quite disgusted by the filibuster going on here--and the more the NDP speak on it, the more Canadians realize that the NDP have ideologies that are basically self-serving and serving their union leaders instead of Canadians.

Why do the NDP disrespect Canadians so much, after they were elected?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, I think it is the government that is disrespecting Canadians. The member's comments show his disrespect for the democratic process. This is a democratic process we are undertaking. It shows Canadians that the Prime Minister cannot just shove through sloppy, badly written legislation.

I have sympathy with the small business owner who is unable to send his flyers out, but it is the Conservative government that refuses to intervene to stop this lockout. It is the government that is stopping the work.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity--on Thursday afternoon, June 23, 2011, according to the calendar right in front of me--to speak to the House and to Canadians who may be watching.

We do have, I think, an obligation to explain to Canadians why we are here. Why are we here on a Saturday afternoon after two days of debate? The calendar says it is June 23. It is a technicality, because we have been talking since then.

It is important to know why we are still here. We have to understand what this debate is all about. It is called Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. However, it is very much a misnomer. There is no need for legislation to resume and continue postal services. The postal services are run by the government through a crown corporation.

It does not take three days of debate in the House of Commons. It does not take legislation. It does not take the kind of legislation we have here. All it takes is a phone call.

The Prime Minister needs to pick up the phone, phone the CEO of Canada Post Corporation, and say take off the locks. The postal workers want to work and deliver the mail. We do not need to be here to do that.

This legislation must be about something else. What is it about? I think Canadians are wondering what it is about.

It is a Saturday afternoon, and the post is not delivered on Saturdays or Sundays anyway. It will not make a difference if we are here one or two days. We are here trying to solve a problem. However, the government has decided they want to manufacture a crisis for a particular purpose. What is that purpose?

Parts of that purpose can be found in the legislation, but parts of it are coming out in the debate over the last couple of days. We can hear the kind of message that government members and the government itself are trying to send.

The parliamentary secretary for the Prime Minister talks about union bosses and thugs. That is part of their message. Their message is anti-union: oppose the organizations trying to improve the lot of workers. These are “special interests”, supposedly. The Minister of Finance says that is what they are.

Let me speak about some of the special interests of the postal workers. I saw a message from one of our staffers that reminded me that if we think this is just about postal workers, we should think again.

Does anybody in this country think that we should not have maternity leave, for example, or that maternity leave is a bad thing? Where did it come from? The first maternity leave in Canada was negotiated by the postal workers with Canada Post Corporation. It is now the law of the land. Everybody takes it for granted. Where did it come from? It came from workers seeking to improve the rights of women in the workforce through collective bargaining. That is where it came from.

At the time, I am sure members opposite would have voted against it in the House. That was “special interests”: we need legislation to stop this kind of collective bargaining from going on.

That is the kind of attitude we are seeing expressed over here.

I heard a member yesterday get up and read with approval a message from a constituent complaining about how these postal workers are looking for better conditions when they have decent jobs with pensions. She was talking about her grandson, who considered himself lucky to have a job for three days a week.

I feel sorry for a person who believes that. I feel sorry for someone who feels they are lucky to have a job three days a week in a country like Canada, one of the richest countries in the world. I feel sorry for someone who feels that way.

The member opposite is now talking back. The member opposite, instead of saying that he too feels sorry, says that these people, the postal workers, should also feel lucky to have jobs.

I am sorry, but that is not good enough. But that is part of the message the government wants to send to the people of Canada, that they should not expect to improve their lot in life.

The government wants Canada Post Corporation to impose a two-tier system. New hires would be paid less than the people who are already there. New hires would not have the same kind of pension protection as the people who are there. There will then be two groups of workers inside the post office. That is the kind of system that is being encouraged by the government. The minute the post office is closed the government brings in legislation that not only deals with the manufactured crisis like we have but imposes a rate of wages less than what the profitable corporation had on the table.

We have a system of free collective bargaining in this country. We are supposed to have an opportunity for bargaining in good faith by both sides in a collective agreement. Bargaining in good faith means one side puts an offer on the table that it is prepared to abide by and the other side bargains back. It is a democratic process. The postal union has a mandate from 97% of its members to bargain a collective agreement. That is the kind of process that goes on in this particular organization.

A negotiation process was going on. Canada Post Corporation made $280 million in profits last year, which it turned back to taxpayers. It was prepared to put an offer on the table to its employees as part of that process. The government said it would impose a wage less than the one this profitable corporation offered. What is that about? Is that about the resumption of postal services? No. That is about trying to send a message to Canadians telling them not to expect to be part of this country's prosperity, not to seek a wage increase because the government will legislate it down.

One of my colleagues talked about the CEO. The CEO of Canada Post Corporation makes $350,000 a year. Apparently he received a 33% bonus last year. He also has an automatic 4% wage increase every year. There is such a thing as sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander, but what we have instead is the government encouraging an increased wage gap. The wealthy CEOs and the higher ups get their wages increased but the people working at the bottom get their wages decreased. The government will make that gap different in one of the most prosperous countries in the world. That is wrong, but that is the message the government wants to send.

That is what this legislation is about. We are here to fight against it every step of the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a couple of the statements made by the previous speaker.

The fact is that the dividend that Canada Post has acquired in the last little while has gone directly back into reinvesting in modernization programs at Canada Post so that it can provide efficient, effective and timely delivery of mail.

The member also suggested that the government can simply unlock the doors. The government does not get involved in the day to day operations of Canada Post. What we are trying to do here is bring together two parties that have not been able to agree. That is what the legislation would do. It would provide a vehicle to get the post moving in the country as soon as possible. That is what we are debating today.

The NDP filibuster is just delaying what Canadians want. I think Canadians regret having elected a whole lot of people beholden to the union movement. This is harming Canadians. Please let us get the mail going. Will the opposition stop the filibuster and support the government's legislation?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we all want to see the mail moving. Nobody wants that more than the postal workers, who some days ago made it very clear that they are prepared to continue to negotiate and to continue to work under the existing agreement. It is simply a matter of taking the locks off the doors and that would happen.

I am glad to hear that over the last couple of years some of the dividends have been put back into the post office. We have a good quality post office but it could be better. Other services could be offered. That is a good use of that money. Some of it was offered to the workers and the government wants to take it back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the member for St. John's East and earlier comments about the history of the unions, which some government members question.

I recall a very old retired coal miner from industrial Cape Breton who told me he must have gone into the mines very young, and he remembered how young he was when he recalled coming home one day crying and saying to his mother, “You should have told me”. He was a coal miner at the time. She said, “What should I have told you?” He said, “You should have told me there was no Santa Claus”. That is how young he was when he went into the mines.

Would the hon. member for St. John's East agree with me that unions gave us a great deal but that they must not be idealized and glorified? Everything changes over time and all unions are not perfect and all corporations are not evil. How does he respond to that?