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

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. We of course can select the information we put before the House. Some members chose to put forward those kinds of remarks and I think they are regrettable.

Also, I think the title of the bill now before us for debate is a bit of a misnomer. It is called “An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services”. One would have thought that what the bill was provided for was to unlock the doors of the postal service. Instead, the choice is to continue to point fingers at the postal workers. Of course, we are on a weekend so we do not have postal delivery, but on Monday, the reason why there may or may not be continuation of service is that Canada Post has locked out the workers. I find the naming of the statute rather peculiar.

It also appears to pervert the very role of arbitration, which is to bring together the parties and have a determination made in a fair way and in fairness to both sides. As many colleagues have pointed out, including the colleague who spoke before me, what the government has done is step outside of what has already been negotiated and agreed to in imposing lesser benefits to the workers.

A lot of my colleagues have also raised concerns with the effect of the bill before us, in that it creates a double standard and hypocrisy. In the wake of the $40-billion deficit created by this government, in the wake of the gift of raises to senior staff, and in wake of deeper tax cuts for major corporations, therefore leaving less revenue available to care for seniors and to provide advanced education, affordable housing, and affordable child care, many of these postal worker families are already hard-pressed. What this legislation will do is make sure that the next rung of postal workers will be even more hard-pressed and will join that class of citizens who are in debt.

In many ways, it is a manufactured crisis. We have been following a number of situations throughout North America and across the western world where we in fact have a manufactured crisis. A lot of Canadians are concerned about the manufactured crisis in health care when in fact, if our governments would intervene, we could solve access to health care, access to child care, and equitable access to advanced education.

I just want to share with the members some of the feedback I have received from my constituents. As there is limited time, I will provide one of the most heartwarming stories that was passed on to me.

One of my constituents phoned my constituency office and decried the action taken against the postal workers. She talked about last winter. We had a record snowfall and cold temperatures, and then a huge melt, with ice and major water to walk through, and still those postal workers continued to deliver the mail. She was particularly heartened and almost in tears at the fact that her postal worker kept in touch with a senior neighbour who was not picking up her mail and then managed to get neighbours to intervene. The woman was really ill and they were able to intervene.

We are talking about human beings here. They are not just numbers. They are real people who deliver an incredible service to fellow Canadians. I think that should be kept front and centre in this debate.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over these past hours I have been listening very carefully to all sides of this debate. It is a very sad day for Canada when we see the suffering that is happening outside of these walls, out on the streets in our cities and rural areas across this nation, because the mail is being held up. Businesses are being hurt. In here, everybody knows, as Canadians know, that the reason this is happening is that the opposition is putting in place every roadblock possible. In fact, one of my constituents called and said, “This is going to be a fine example of what an opposition could do if it ever got into government, and it never will.”

I think we need to be very cautious and start thinking about Canadians. Pass Bill C-6 and do not allow the committee of the whole to go on and on, because Canadians are watching and they are very intelligent. The only thing that has been paid attention to is political agendas from the opposition, not the good of Canadians. I made that statement because Canada is at risk in this economic downturn.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not receiving their mail because Canada Post has locked up the post office. I do not understand why there are these repeated claims. The honest reply to all of our constituents should be that Canada Post made the decision to lock the doors to the post office. Indeed, we would like to have this addressed. We have called for the removal of those locks.

As I have mentioned previously in debate here, where was the government when my constituents and many constituents were calling for the return of their mailboxes that had been removed and the reopening of the post offices that were closed? Where was the government in protecting the interests of seniors, who now have to go much further simply to mail a letter to their grandchildren?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what will come out of these discussions is the role of the Minister of Labour within the government. Historically, it has been clear that the role of the Minister of Labour was to keep the social peace, to ensure that labour disputes do not go on for too long, and to ensure that all Canadians have the right to speak, to be represented and to negotiate a collective agreement.

But, right from the outset, right from the first move in the Air Canada matter, the Minister of Labour wanted to get involved by imposing special legislation to supposedly save the Canadian economy, though the company was saying that the service was not at risk. We have found out that the Minister of Labour is now someone who is stirring up social problems.

The government will no longer be able to take action to solve a problem, because it has lost its credibility, it has sacrificed it. I think that is quite a shame, and I would like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton to tell us what kind of credibility is still attached to the role of Minister of Labour.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the issue of where the credibility is, I could share a letter from one of my constituents, written to the Prime Minister and copied to me. It says:

This is to express my disgust at the way that the postal strike has been handled. Forcing postal employees back to work at a cut in salary and a salary less than that agreed to by Canada Post can hardly be considered just and fair. Our postal employees deserve better than this. The astronomical fines they are threatened with if they don't return to work also does nothing to help the situation. Why were they locked out? They made sure that important cheques to seniors, etc., were delivered during their rotating strikes. I think this exhibited good faith, much better than that shown by the government.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my second speech by sharing with members of the House, the constituents of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, all Quebeckers and Canadians my firm intention to continue this fight beside the NDP members who have shown me, day after day, how amazing they are.

We have been gathered here for many hours to defend rights that are fundamental, in my view: the workers' right to speak, the right to dignity, the right to negotiate with an employer in good faith and, above all, the right to be heard.

What the government has been proposing is not a balanced agreement, but an imposed contract. You are putting a gun to the employees' heads and, in so doing, all Canadians—and I mean every single Canadian—are being held hostage because of this lockout. Small businesses and the public are worried about not getting their mail, and rightly so. I understand their concerns. All the government has to do is to remove the locks and let the two parties negotiate properly. It is important to recall that mail was being delivered during the strike. The union was ready to negotiate, while continuing to provide postal services, which are essential.

The government is sending a very negative message to the unions: there is no point in fighting because we will get what we want from you anyway. With this message, the government is literally trampling on the history of our country, the history of these people who fought tooth and nail during the industrial revolution and significantly improved the lives of everyone: my grandparents, my parents, the people of my generation and future generations. I do not have any children, but I am still fighting for them, for all these children, all these young people, all these young adults. I am fighting for the next generation.

What message is the government sending to them right now? Be rich, own a multinational corporation, be the CEO of a big oil company or a bank; otherwise, the government will not do anything for you because you do not matter to it. Once again, we are creating a gap between the generations, between younger and older workers. It is as if we are telling young people that we do not need them, that we prefer to pay them less because their work is not as valuable as the work of their counterparts.

This is also a struggle against social inequalities because the middle class is once more paying for the government's ideologies. I know that they are probably going to call me a nasty socialist, a nasty unionist, a left-winger, but that does not bother me. What is important to me is the rights of the workers, of all workers.

I have always understood, but now I understand even better why the word “progressive” is no longer next to the word “Conservative”. This word is the extreme opposite of the government's ideologies. The government is not working for a better society. It is working to set society back. It is working to undo the improvements that have been made to the living conditions of all Canadians.

We are talking here about workers' rights, but this is not the first time that the government has wanted to implement policies that jeopardize the rights acquired by Canadians. Let us remember when it wanted to reject the Kyoto accord and deprive future generations of a healthy environment. Let us also remember when it wanted to refuse to sign the agreement on aboriginal rights, jeopardizing the rights of first nations children to have access to a quality education, like all other Canadians.

Let us remember all the proposals to improve employment insurance that the government rejected for no good reason, preventing unemployed workers from living with dignity. Let us remember when abortion rights were threatened, leading Canadians to fear that we would return to the dark days when some women bled to death after trying to carry out their own abortions with knitting needles. Let us remember when the government cut taxes for large corporations, again making the middle class and organizations pay by cutting programs essential to the healthy development of our country.

This crisis is a calculated crisis brought about by the government itself. And the government wants to put the blame for this crisis on us—us, the official opposition that works with, and especially for, the people.

The government has a hidden agenda. This is the first offensive, but the war that the government has declared on the middle and working classes has just begun. Let us make no mistake, the government regards workers, and thereby Canadians, with contempt. It is shameful to see how little the government cares for people, not just Canada Post employees, but also the waiter at the neighbourhood restaurant, who at times has to count on the generosity of his customers in order to pay his rent, the shoe store assistant who has to sell a lot of shoes in order to afford a pair for herself, the carpenter who builds houses for us with the sweat of his brow in all kinds of weather, the chef who stands over his stoves even in the oppressive heat of mid-July, and the clerk at the corner store who spends all night on her feet at her cash register and still has to keep a smile on her face.

With this attack on Canada Post workers, the government is attacking all workers, each and every one of them. It is attacking their legitimate right to negotiate improvements to their working conditions. It is attacking their right to a decent standard of living. It is attacking their right to live in dignity. It is also attacking their families' standard of living.

The government will find that it has the New Democrats to deal with. To show how serious my message is, how deeply in my soul it is rooted, I will end my speech in the same way as I ended my previous one.

We will fight for a fair and just country where no one—and I mean no one—is abandoned and cast aside.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate for some 30 hours and I am shocked with the rhetoric and amount of socialist propaganda that fills the House. I was born and raised in communist Poland and I never imagined that I would hear this in the House of Commons. Some of that rhetoric I know by heart.

Members are hearing over and over again how determined the opposition party is to fight for the rights of workers. What about the rights of employers? Do they not have rights? Are they not Canadian? Are they not the ones that provide the workers with a place to work?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to inform the House that another Canadian soldier has just been killed in Afghanistan.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot read Bill C-6 because I do not really understand what we are arguing about. If we were arguing about a specific thing, it should be very clear. We are hearing stories about the labour movement in Canada at the beginning of the 20th century, but at this moment we should be focused on the bill we are debating in the House.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Yes, I have read the bill, as have all my colleagues. To suggest that we do not read our documents is almost an insult.

The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville mentioned just now that he was shocked. I too am shocked by this government's desire to privatize everything and trample on people's rights, and by its refusal to listen to what Canadians genuinely need.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to join with my colleague in saying that information has just been received that a member of the Canadian armed forces has been found dead in Afghanistan. We sincerely convey our deepest regrets and sincere sympathies to the family.

As we progress with the debate on Bill C-6, it is evident there is a flurry of activity on the floor of the House of Commons. It appears we may be moving into committee of the whole very soon. The debate itself at second reading may be collapsing soon and there may be amendments that may come forward.

Has the New Democratic Party been able to achieve any consensus with the government that it will accept any of the amendments which the NDP may be in the process of proposing? If there has been no consensus achieved, I am wondering why we are doing this at this point in time. From a purely tactical point of view, would it not have been better to try this at 4 a.m. when a tactical advantage could be achieved? If the NDP is doing this in the middle of the day, what exactly is the game plan?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

First, I, too, would like to express my condolences to the soldier's family. Because of the Conservative government, the troops are still in Afghanistan.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for some respect from my colleagues.

All I have to say to the hon. member's question is that we, the NDP, are asking for nothing but an end to this dispute. We want people to get their mail and workers to get back to work with decent conditions. The government simply has to unlock the doors.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with all the courtesy we have come to expect from the Conservatives, they tried to make the members of the House and the Canadian public believe that they alone represent the people in the regions and the various aboriginal communities in this country. These people need postal service and often do not have access to reliable Internet service. Even cell phones and BlackBerry smartphones—which government ministers love to check during question period instead of listening to their colleagues' questions—are not always reliable in areas as remote as Kuujjuaq, which is in my riding.

In remote areas of my riding, communication methods complement one another and do not compete against one another. I know that the concept is likely difficult for the Conservative government to grasp, but that is the case.

People want to have the choice of sending an email, mailing a letter or making a telephone call. The Conservatives must understand the concept of choice.

Was it her difficulty understanding this concept that led the Minister of Health to take advantage of the fact that I was not in the House to launch a personal attack against me? I do not know and I do not hold it against her. However, I would just hope that, the next time she wants to debate, she will at least have the courage to do so when I am here. I would be happy to discuss the difficulty villages have accessing clean drinking water; health, education and environmental issues; climate change; or any other issues with her. I would take the time to talk with her about it.

If it makes them happy, I will let the Conservatives continue thinking that they are the only ones representing the people living in Northern Canada. However, this is not true. In reality, the ridings of Western Arctic, Churchill, Skeena—Bulkley Valley and my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are all represented by members from the NDP.

Our main objective is to come to an agreement as quickly as possible in the labour dispute between workers and management at Canada Post. This agreement can easily be reached. To come to an agreement that is acceptable for everyone, all the government needs to do is remove the clause that sets out the salaries and does not provide the arbitrator or the two parties involved in the dispute with any flexibility.

In actual fact, the members opposite have to do only one thing to return to their respective ridings and that is to ask the Prime Minister to call on the Minister of Labour to remove the salary clause from the bill.

In short, the Conservative members must realize that they have the power, should they choose to work with us, to end all this. They have the power to ensure that Canada Post ends the lockout. They have the power to ensure that people start receiving their mail again.

Imagine. If they would stop being so stubborn, we could return to our ridings and spend time with our constituents. We will all see each other again soon enough in the fall and we will have the opportunity then to conduct more in-depth debates on issues that are of concern to all Canadians. Right now, people are waiting for us to do something about this labour dispute.

It is important to remember that the two parties in the dispute have been trying to reach an agreement for over eight months. After eight months without results, it is time to start making things happen. The workers used the tools that were available to them and that are part of their rights—rights guaranteed by the highest court in this country.

With respect to means of applying pressure, the workers decided that it was vital to ensure that Canada Post's basic mandate be maintained, that is the distribution of mail to people in all cities and regions of our country. That was the rationale for rotating strikes.

Canada Post's principal mandate is not to make a profit. It is to ensure that Canadians, no matter where they live in our country, can send and receive mail.

Turning a profit is not its mandate because previous governments sold off the most profitable components of this crown corporation over the years.

Nevertheless, we are talking about a crown corporation that has made millions of dollars in profit over the past few years. This is not a company that is being restructured or that must sacrifice pension plans and reduce workers' salaries just in the hope of surviving. No. We are talking about a corporation that, to avoid negotiating in good faith, locked the doors and mailboxes, preventing people from having access to the service.

Does the government realize that all it has to do to resolve this impasse is to work with us to remove the unacceptable clause on salaries contained in the bill? This clause, by the way, offers wages that are lower than those on the table when the employer decided to stop Canada's mail service.

That is the issue, the injustice visited on the workers, who had proposed extending the collective agreement while negotiations were under way. Extending the term of the collective agreement for the duration of negotiations is also included in the bill. It is a clause that we support because it is fair and gives negotiations a chance.

The unjust clause that sets terms and conditions for the arbitrator is quite simply unacceptable. The government has no reason to step in for the employer. The government has no reason to restrict bargaining rights.

The members opposite have the choice and the power to end this stalemate if they decide to work with us.

It is time for the Conservatives to start working with us so that Canadians can have their postal service back.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, being First Nations, and coming from a paramilitary organization, the RCMP, and having been on duty on July 7, 2006, when two members were fatally shot, and we had to bury them a week later, my thoughts and prayers are with the military family on today's loss.

What I hear today is very hypocritical. I have read that the CEP, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 302, from which the MPs of the NDP hire, has not had a bargaining agreement for three years.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge River is looking for someone for her office. It is a permanent full-time position at a salary of $47,852. The salary level is subject to clauses 12 and 21 of the collective agreement. I think it is a little hypocritical to try to hire people who have a non-existent act.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comment. Since he did not ask me a question, I will take this opportunity to talk about this conflict again. I would always be delighted to do that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member said that there is no question there. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is for questions and comments.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member from Essex is correct. It could be a question or a comment. However, I am not sure that it was necessary to point that out at this time.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the comment, but I also understood the accusation of hypocrisy. That is what I understood.

So I would like to go back to a few points that I mentioned in my speech. I believe it is essential to go back to the real issues of this debate that we have been having here for several days.

It is very easy to end this stalemate. We have suggested some courses of action, and the Conservatives can accept them now.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague from the north in looking for solutions to some of the issues that face us today.

During the last Conservative government, we saw the government absolutely change the nature of Canada Post in the north by taking away the food mail program from Canada's north. The alternate program that has put in place does not allow people to have their choices, and it is causing great disruption in our communities.

Perhaps my colleague would want to speak about this, because of course, his communities, like mine, are tremendously impacted by these types of government decisions.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was indeed an important program. The trend set when the government changed the program and imposed new rules was like what they are trying to do with what we are dealing with here today. I do not accept that.

What needs to be done in this particular program for the north, which is so important, is that the government should sit down with the first nations people, the service providers, the chambers of commerce in the different regions, and so on and so forth, and iron out something that will suit everybody and make everybody happy. That is not happening.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to take a few moments to recognize all of my colleagues who are here in the House and have been up for 30 or 40 hours now, who are here to continue to fight for our party’s values and to defend the interests of Canadian workers and families.

We all had events planned in our ridings for Quebec’s national holiday. Yesterday, my colleague from Hamilton-Est—Stoney Creek was supposed to celebrate his 11th wedding anniversary with his wife. My colleague from Newton—Delta-Nord was supposed to spend time with her family, who made a special trip from England to see her. We all want and need to go home to our families. Our families need us, but Canada’s families need us more.

An even greater need has brought us here to the House, and that is the need to fight together in an effort to make this government understand that its place is beside workers and that it has a duty to render a fair and just verdict.

I would also like to pay tribute to workers across Canada who are fighting for their rights. Postal workers are fighting not only for their own rights, but also for the rights of all Canadian workers.

Since the debate started, I have heard Conservative members talk about this being a “joke”. Is that how they see our commitment to defending the interests of our fellow Canadians? For them, it is a joke? Is there anything more important than being here trying to find a solution that both parties can agree to?

We have all spoken at least once to say what we think. We have heard heated, poetic and passionate speeches. Some members explained very clearly what makes Bill C-6 unlawful. Others proposed specific solutions that both parties could have agreed to. But nothing changes. It seems as though the members opposite, already blinded by their partisan purposes, do not want to listen to us, do not want to understand Canadians and, most of all, do not want to change their minds.

They continue to cling to reasoning that defies logic. They will not let go of their beliefs, however faulty they are. But I have noticed one single half-positive point, one little sign of evolution: the hon. members opposite now dare to utter the word “lockout” in place of the word “strike”. But they just mutter it under their breath, almost whispering it, as if they wanted no one to hear them say it, as if it were a swear word. But it is not a word that came from the workers; it came from Canada Post. The hon. members opposite must get used to that idea.

They would have us believe that this lockout was imposed by the union. How ironic.

How often have my colleagues and I tried to explain the difference between a strike and a lockout, between a rotating strike and a lockout?

Let me sum it up for those who have not yet grasped the difference. A rotating strike is a partial work stoppage. Let me explain “partial” very clearly. Canada Post workers decided that, in order not to harm the Canadian economy and in order for Canadians to continue receiving the service to which they are entitled, they were going to keep delivering the mail. The strike moved, in a symbolic way, from one municipality to another. In no way did the rotating strike put the country's economy in peril, since the mail continued to be delivered. The aim of the strike was simply to make people aware of the unacceptable conditions that the employer wanted to impose. It was not meant to endanger small and medium-sized business activity nor was it meant to keep cheques from seniors or from those receiving employment insurance benefits.

A lockout, on the other hand, is a work stoppage imposed by the employer. On June 3, Canada Post decided to end mail service and to put padlocks on the doors. It held its employees hostage, employees who wanted to continue delivering the mail at the same time as they were demanding their rights. But above all, Canada Post is holding Canadians hostage, since Canadians can no longer receive their mail.

Striking is a right for all workers. They have the right to negotiate their working conditions. It is not up to the government to step in for the employer, especially when we know what its goal is.

How can we possibly suggest such conditions to the workers? What image do we want to give to our young people? Canada Post employees are there every day. They accept working conditions that are increasingly difficult. They carry heavy bags that cut into their shoulders. They collapse under the weight of the mail, have to fight inclement weather and heat waves, and sometimes walk for hours. Should they also accept unfavourable wages? Why? Because their employer is not profitable enough?

Still, let us recall that Canada Post's most recent revenues are estimated at over $281 million for the year. Let us also recall that the CEO of Canada Post received the modest sum of $497,000 for his good and loyal service, and that he gets a bonus of 33%, on top of his annual salary. And we are supposed to believe that Canada Post is suffering from the recession and that that is the only reason driving the cuts to its employee's benefits? No. The real reason is that this employer knows that it is supported by the government, and so many other employers will follow suit if we do not put an end to this type of thing immediately,

The employer proposed certain salary increases during the negotiations, and then the government interfered and put forward a contract that offered less. This contract is, quite simply, unfair. It not only fails to meet the employees’ demands, but also undercuts the salary offer made by the employer. What kind of world are we living in?

It is neither the government’s role nor its responsibility to impose such contracts. What the government is proposing is, quite simply, unilateral and irresponsible legislation. It flouts the right to negotiate a collective agreement. The government’s actions do not give the two parties an opportunity to properly negotiate an agreement.

The government should not interfere in this conflict, or in any other similar conflict. This debate is not only about the Canada Post issue: more than that, it is about the right of workers to negotiate with their employer.

Canadians fought long and hard for a fair and just work environment. They fought heart and soul for decent wages and basic benefits so that they could provide for their families.

Locking out these employees and forcing them to accept a contract while trying to take away their hard-earned savings will set us back many years and create a dangerous precedent. Canada Post employees refuse to be the victims of an unfair clawback scheme that will take money out of their pockets. They refuse to have their rights undermined, as well as the rights of all the people who work for other large employers and friends of the government.

They refuse to have their rights trampled on, but they are ready to go back to work. They are ready to start delivering mail to their fellow Canadians again. They just want to be treated fairly. They want to be treated in a manner befitting their work. They are asking neither for the moon nor for favourable treatment. They are asking only to be paid fairly for their work. They want to be able to feed their children and provide for their families. They want to be able to retire without worrying about whether they can make ends meet.

How will the government explain to young people who want to work at Canada Post that they are welcome to work there, but they will be paid a lower salary than employees with more seniority who do the exact same job? Are we not endangering the Canadian economy by acting in this way?

Inevitably, our young people will navigate towards companies that respect their employees, if there are any left, with this government. How will Canada's economy be able to recover when we can no longer replace workers who have retired? Is it the government's intention to jeopardize a service as essential as the post office?

The Conservatives will have to explain to us the long-term viability of such a contract. If they are really concerned about Canada's economy, they should stop telling us to pass this bill and go home. Let them make an enlightened decision for once and end the lockout to allow Canada's economy to keep running. Let them end the lockout to allow both parties to resume negotiations and come to an agreement that will satisfy everyone.

Canadians are being held hostage and they know who is doing it. Not Canada Post employees, but their employer who, together with the government, is attacking the rights and the advances that our parents and grandparents fought for. That is why Canadians support the workers at Canada Post. Why do they support them? In a word, because they know that they could be the next on the list if they let the government get its way.

The quality of life and the social justice that we enjoy in this country are indisputable rights that we will defend to the bitter end. On May 2, we were given a mandate to represent our constituents, and we will do so with honour and respect. We will stay here. We are ready to go all the way. We will stay on our feet, without complaining, and we will continue to fight for all the workers in Canada who are counting on us to represent them in this House.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my condolences to the family and friends of our fallen soldier. They do what they do over there so we can do what we do here.

There is a clear track record on this side of the House that the government stands with working families. However, we hear a lot of speeches and rhetoric on the other side. As it is the opposition party, we all understand that.

I will highlight a couple of examples of when the party opposite had the opportunity to be in government.

In Ontario, it put a major assault on workers' rights with the social contract, which made people who were making as little as $7.50 an hour take 12 unpaid days off a year.

In 1999, the Roy Romanow Saskatchewan government ordered nurses back to work after just 24 hours--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they were not making $7.50 an hour. Those were the people on welfare who were told to use bent cans of tuna to feed themselves.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Langley.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a continuing pattern of that member interrupting so that he can make a statement and be involved in debate. It is inappropriate. It shows disrespect to Parliament and it should not continue.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member is quite right in the sense that points of order ought not to be used inappropriately and I would urge all hon. members not to do that. Earlier today, about 27 hours ago I believe, we had this conversation. If the member for York Centre could quickly put his question.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that last night over 30% of members on that side did not show up for the vote, is that party--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is rising on a point of order.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is new, but he should know that he cannot say whether members have been here or not. He is referencing the fact that members were not here and it is not according to the rules.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology is rising on the same point of order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no member was mentioned. It is a public record that last night we had a vote. I urge all viewers across Canada to check it out. The NDP was missing 30% of its caucus. The member opposite--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate that this discussion has taken place for a couple of days. All hon. members know, or ought to know, that you cannot refer to whether another member was or was not, is or is not in the chamber. That is correct.

Having said that, referencing the number of votes that were cast one way or another in a previous vote does not violate that principle. I would encourage all hon. members to allow our colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes an opportunity to respond to the comment that was made by the hon. member for York Centre.

The hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the use of the information that the hon. member is giving us. We have all been here for many hours to support the Canada Post workers and all workers across Canada. That is the purpose of the position we are taking here.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Just to clarify for all hon. members, when you rise in questions and comments you have an opportunity to make a comment or ask a question. You do not have the right to continue to talk until you ask a question. At some point, the time may expire before you ask a question or you may in fact not be asking a question.

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the postal workers have been locked out. They are trying to be forced back to work. I would like my colleague to comment on that. Has she seen this before? How does she think they feel? This is similar to having a spouse thrown out by the other spouse and the police bringing the spouse back and saying he or she must be allowed to stay in the home.

I know the postal workers had indicated they were prepared to deliver the cheques to seniors and others. Did my colleague see in the legislation that the employers were able to lock them out?

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

The Canada Post workers actually want to return to work, regardless of what the hon. members opposite may say. And the lockout does not allow them to do so whereas the strike was making that possible. That is the problem in a nutshell. The dialogue seems to be going nowhere. There is a complete lack of understanding.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #26

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. The next question is on the main motion.

(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #27

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Ms. Denise Savoie in the chair)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to open this session of the committee of the whole on Bill C-6 by making a short statement about the proceedings.

This is the first time many hon. members will be participating in a debate like this, and I would like to explain how we are going to proceed.

The rules of debate are as follows.

No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes at a time. Speeches must be strictly relevant to the terms of the clause under consideration. There is no formal period for questions and comments. Members may use their time to speak or to ask questions, and the responses will be counted in the time allotted to that member. Motions do not need a seconder, and members may speak more than once. Finally, members need not be in their own seat to be recognized, just to make my job a little easier.

The committee will now proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

Before we begin, I would like to ask those members who have amendments to please bring them to the table.

(On clause 2)

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Chair, today I am here to address the committee of the whole regarding the Government of Canada's proposed legislation, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

Before I start, I would like to sincerely thank my parliamentary secretary, my colleagues and all of our staff for their exemplary efforts. I am once again reminded of how strong a team we are on this side of the House.

This extraordinary bill has been introduced in the House as a result of an unresolved labour dispute between Canada Post and more than 50,000 employees of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers urban operations unit. Now that the work stoppage has continued, regular postal service has ceased. Canadians are turning to Parliament for a solution. That is what I am here to talk about today.

Context is important so that the extraordinary measures in the bill can be better understood. Let me start with three important points.

First, a reliable postal service without interruption is an important part of what keeps our economy running smoothly.

Second, when that service is interrupted, or when the reliability of that service is put into doubt, it does more than just create an inconvenience. Costs are incurred, and they are paid by Canadian families and Canadian businesses.

Third, many months have passed since this labour dispute began and there is no end in sight at which the parties can reach a settlement on their own.

Given these facts, Parliament has an obligation to act and to do so in the best interest of the Canadian economy.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Chair, in your opening statement, you told us that you would strictly apply the rule of relevance. The minister is supposed to be discussing clause 2, but she is just making a general introduction.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member but, as all hon. members know, clause 2 is quite broad and it can include these types of comments.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, after so many hours of listening intently to the debates from the other side of the House, I thought it would more than appropriate that members would take the next 10 minutes to understand.

The important part here is that Canada Post is vital to the economy. It is indeed one of Canada's largest corporations. It is a $7.5 billion company, employing some 70,000 people right across Canada. A vast majority of them have union representation. Canadians rely on the services of Canada Post for many reasons.

Canada Post sorts and delivers 11 billion pieces of mail every single year. It remains a vital part of how we stay connected to one another as a country, but it is also important as a business in Canada. It helps companies grow. It plays a key role in how bills gets delivered and paid on time and ensures that parcels reach their destinations.

Canada Post is an integral part of what keeps Canada in business and puts money in the pockets of many citizens. From the small business owners who invoice and get paid via mail to the companies that rely on the mail to issue bills, process orders, and receive payments, this is a service that matters a lot. Similarly, for taxpayers waiting for a tax or HST rebate to arrive or for citizens in rural and northern communities who rely fundamentally on the mail for many of their essential services and communications, Canada Post is a vital service.

For months, Canada has been dealing with uncertainty surrounding postal services. The collective agreement covering the union, the largest bargaining unit at Canada Post, CUPW, expired earlier this year and parties began their talks back in October of 2010.

In spite of there being both conciliation and mediation assistance, an agreement has remained elusive, and as of May 25 the parties acquired the legal right to strike or lock out. That presents a risk not just to mail delivery service but also to the good health of Canada's economy on the whole. That is a risk that Canadians simply do not want, nor is it one that they should have to endure.

The work stoppage at Canada Post is expected to have an immeasurable impact on our economy, resulting in losses of about $9 million to $31 million per week. Every day that means more jobs at risk, more productivity lost, more challenges for businesses, and more uncertainty for consumers.

My third point is that every other avenue has been tried to bring a full and lasting resolution to this dispute. Quite frankly, the time has come for Parliament to do the right thing and intervene. Consider how much has been done over the last eight months by the Canadian Government in order to resolve this dispute.

On October 4, 2010, notice was served by the union on the employer to commence collective bargaining, and they held negotiations from October to November. In January of 2011, the union filed a notice of dispute and asked Labour Canada for help in conciliation, and a conciliation officer was appointed at the end of January.

Through February and March, the conciliation officers met with the parties. On April 1, the conciliation period was extended further to May 3 in order to allow the parties to continue. During that time, the conciliation officer met with the parties.

On May 3 they were released from conciliation and on May 5 a mediator was appointed. Throughout the month of May and into June a mediator from the labour program's Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service met very frequently with the parties. Unfortunately, despite all of these efforts, the parties were unable to come to an agreement. Even as recently as eight o'clock this morning attempts were made to help the parties reach a deal and they bore no fruit. Something needs to be done and that is why we are now acting with this extraordinary measure.

The act itself provides for the resumption and continuation of the mail service by Canada Post. It brings an end to this growing uncertainty that has characterized much of the dispute itself for many months. The act also imposes a four-year contract and new pay rate increases. That will mean a 1.75% increase as of February 1, 2011; 1.5% as of February 2012; 2% as of February 2013; and 2% as of February 2014. It also provides for final offer selection, which is a binding mechanism on all outstanding matters.

Furthermore, and most important, in making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided for specific principles, the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility for both short-term and long-term viability, and competitiveness of the corporation itself. They will maintain the health and safety of its workers and to ensure the sustainability of the pension plan.

The terms and conditions of the employment must also taken into account a solvency ratio in the pension plan that does not decline as a direct result of a new collective agreement and that Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates, operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.

In other words, it is a decisive approach and it is aimed at resolving this labour dispute.

Some may argue that collective bargaining is a process that has to be left to run its course, no matter how long it takes. However, the facts tell us that the parties in this dispute have tried again and again, month after month and no agreement has been reached and, indeed, there is no agreement in sight.

So what is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a solution before we act? Well, we cannot wait until our economy is damaged, until jobs are lost, until businesses and families are actually hurt. Not only is that unreasonable, it is actually unfair to Canadians. They did not ask for the labour dispute and they should not have to pay the price for this and for having it dragged on as long as it has.

Canadians are counting on their government to provide mediation, conciliation assistance, and we did that when the parties were unable to reach a solution. Now it is up to the Government of Canada to act in the best interests of all Canadians and of our country's economy.

As I said before, this is not the Government of Canada's first choice in how we would like to see this labour dispute resolved, but this choice is the necessary one. All members of the House should join me in giving the proposed legislation the support that it deserves.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The exception to the rule of relevance that I cited in the case of the minister's speech applies as we discuss clause 2.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Chair, you will not be surprised to learn that, on our side, we do not share the minister's analysis, but out of respect for your function, we will still try to briefly talk about clause 2, which is the one we are supposed to be studying. At the same time, we would like to review what has happened over the past 72 hours because there is something fundamental about that.

The fundamental principle of acting in good faith underlies all work in matters of the relations between employers and employees.

Let me start with clause 2, which deals with the interpretation of the bill, and I will go in order. It says:

2. (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.

“arbitrator” means the arbitrator appointed under section 8.

We will have the opportunity to go back to this with our colleagues because we have some amendments to make.

Arbitrator means the arbitrator appointed under clause 8. That is a good place to start on our analysis of clause 2 for one good and simple reason. An arbitrator by definition is someone who will use his or her experience and ability to look at what is before him or her and come to a decision that is the fairest under the circumstances, based on all the information that is placed before the arbitrator. Interests of both sides will be taken into account and the fairest decision rendered.

The government across from us will allow no such thing. As we will see when we get to the clause, it is stacking the deck.

The conservative government has absolutely no intention of allowing an arbitrator to work freely and fairly under the rules. I know what I am talking about because twice in the past 72 hours we thought we were on the verge of a negotiated agreement. The minister must be extremely tired, because we heard her say in the past few hours that she never talked to us. The fact is we did talk to each other. I talked to her and my colleagues also talked to her. We did so through her staff and we tried to ensure that what is provided under clause 2(1) concerning the arbitrator would respect the tradition, the rules and the right to collective bargaining between employers and employees.

In recent weeks, similar strategies have been decried, condemned and blocked by the courts. Again this week, a binding ruling was made against the same Conservatives. In that case, the judge went through every section and paragraph and condemned the Conservatives' blatant lack of good faith in a situation very similar to the one with which we are dealing.

Good faith is the basis of all work that gets done in matters of labour relations. This week we had a devastating decision against the Conservative government from the Federal Court, in a fact situation quite similar to the one that presents itself here today. In paragraphs 86 to 92, we realized rather quickly that the government was again repeating the behaviour that was denounced by the Federal Court. This is the basis for labour law. This is the basis for collective negotiations.

As we will see, the bill contains what we call an orphan clause. It would reduce, by 18%, the entry salary and we would wind up discriminating against younger people, because they would be the majority of the new hires. We are told that this is just the way it will be in the world run by the Conservative majority.

In the same way, back in the 1960s, we would have been told, regarding a collective agreement that had one wage scale for men and a lower one for women, that this was just the way it was. One wage scale for older workers and a lower one for younger workers is just the way it is in the Conservative universe. A clause in a collective agreement that said once a woman was expecting a child she would lose her job, 50 years ago, that was just the way it was. Today, the Conservatives are trying to turn back the clock in matters of rights, and that is what we are standing up against.

Staying with our analysis of clause 2, the next definition is of “collective agreement”. It means the collective agreement between the employer and the union. In this case, we give the expiry date of the previous one.

I will state this in French. A collective agreement is supposed to be a convention agreed to by the employer and the union. One can see why they need to be reminded of that, because the bill does not allow any convention or agreement whatsoever. The conditions are being dictated by the government which, as we know, imposed a lockout. The government is preventing employees from returning to work. The Conservative government and Canada Post are working hand in hand to undermine labour relations. We also had proof of that over the past 72 hours. They blame the employees and they attack them after kicking them out. They point the finger at them and tell them there is a problem in that they are refusing to work, therefore making special legislation necessary to force back to work employees who want nothing more than to work. But it is the employer that padlocked the doors.

Let us read the next definition in clause 2:

“employee” means a person employed by the employer and bound by the collective agreement.

That is an interesting notion, being bound by an agreement collectively arrived at between employer and employee. When we respect every clause of the legislation, we withdraw conforming ourselves to the Charter of Rights and the Labour Code. We withdraw part of our work because we are trying to negotiate. The service was not interrupted, except when the employer locked the workers out. That is where the problem started.

The employer is the Canada Post Corporation. I can assure you—and my colleagues and I experienced this during the past few hours—that when we and the union were supposed to be told about the result of negotiations and discussions with Canada Post, there was interference on the part of the government.

There is no distance whatsoever on the part of the government, that is trying to send a message to all public sector unionized workers, if not to all employees in Canada, by telling employers not to worry, that the usual rules don't concern it. They can be suspended as it pleases, it will come forward to adopt new laws to repress the rights of their employees; it will stand up whenever there is an issue, and always in favour of management.

That is the Conservative reality.

“Minister” means the Minister of Labour.

We are talking about the Minister of Labour. The very title is supposed to suggest equality among the parties. Instead, we have a new minister of management.

We have a minister of management.

Everything is in favour of management. Even when her closest associates, who are supposed to be able to represent her, caused things to move forward a little, on behalf of the government, she disavowed the work they had done. Her associates were thrown under the bus. The small steps that we thought had been made have been completely forgotten, set aside by the minister and her government because it was out of the question for the employees to gain anything at all at the end of this exercise. The Conservatives are going to use their majority to try to crush people, but there is a little surprise waiting for them. The message they are putting out has indeed been understood by the workers' movement everywhere in Canada. The government should hear the clock ticking. It is congratulating itself today. Let it rejoice, but I can guarantee that the men and women who work throughout Canada, and those who have been fighting for their rights for generations, have understood what is going on very well. Like us, they are going to stand up to the government every time it tries to use such tactics in the future.

Finally, clause 2 states that the union concerned is the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

Union means the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to use the time at my disposal to express our appreciation and congratulations for the honesty, integrity and good faith demonstrated by the entire union team. In recent days, they made every possible effort to come to a negotiated settlement. Their efforts were thwarted by the Conservative government's clear intention to attempt to crush them.

That comment remains relevant in the discussion of clause 2 because the clause and its definitions lay out the approach to labour relations that we can expect in the next four years. In those four years, people all over the country will know that they now have a clear choice. Some people will suppress their rights, even rights recognized in subsection 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as freedom of association, guaranteed by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions that culminated with BC Health Services, Fraser and the decision we had this week. But one political party will stand up for the rights of Canadians and of workers, and that is the New Democratic Party.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, as you indicated from the outset, clause 2 certainly gives one a fairly wide range of topics to touch on.

Over the course of the last number of hours and day this debate has gone on, we have been able to put our concerns with the bill out in the public eye and have articulated the position of the Liberal Party of Canada.

We believe, and have stated from the outset, that the legislation was heavy-handed. We thought the legislation was restrictive and would handcuff an arbitrator to come forward with a more fair and reasonable deal for workers, and we identified that throughout the course of the debate.

After listening intently to what has gone on over the last number of days in the debate, I do not know if there was much more said at 4:15 this morning than was said at 1:10 Friday morning. That is why we had called for amendments early and why we had asked to present amendments early. We articulated our amendments early on in the debate. I felt at that time that, as opposed to this bill as we might be, we all have a basic understanding of mathematics in this caucus and we have a pretty good idea as to what the outcome will be. We would have preferred to have the amendments tabled but we have presented our amendments and we look forward to the chamber ruling on them.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, I wish to say a few words after the night we just had. First, I want to acknowledge and thank all the House and security staff. I think they should be applauded for spending all this time with us. This whole filibuster has wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.

The problem with clause 2 is that we have a bad bill before us and there is also this ideology of the official opposition, which wants to drag things out, even though it knows full well that, given the government's majority, this legislation will inevitably pass.

As for us, we said from the outset that, in accordance with our role, we wanted to propose amendments in a constructive fashion, so as to show that we are able to respect the right of workers, while also respecting the citizens who want to receive their mail. We did not want to drag things on, and our action was not influenced by ideology, whether from the left or the right.

The problem with this whole issue is that I heard the minister say she would rather protect 33 million Canadians than 45,000 workers. However, these workers also happen to be Canadians. It is somewhat strange to try to divide people when we are supposed to find solutions. We could have saved a lot of time if, in the definition of “arbitrator”, the minister had allowed this arbitrator to have full control. Indeed, given his or her experience and expertise, an arbitrator is capable of finding a common ground for both sides.

We could also save a lot of time, knowing full well that the employer made salary proposals but that the bill includes lower salaries. That is totally ridiculous. Our television viewers, who now number more than four or five, will finally see how this whole thing will turn out. I find it rather sad that this House was used to wage a small war between the Conservatives' right-wing ideology and the NDP's left-wing ideology.

If we want to resolve the situation and abide by the Constitution of Canada, we have to be pragmatic. In 1997, I was on the other side of the House, and back-to-work legislation was introduced, but it was after a general strike, not a lockout. And here their slip is showing, since just before that we had Air Canada, and so we have the government's pattern right in front of us: it denies workers their rights, and very certainly, every time we have a little problem, its definition is going to mean that we will have back-to-work legislation.

This is a very sad day today. I hope that on Monday people will remember on both the official opposition side and the government side that a lot of people are going to be ill-served. We could have avoided this entire debate if things had been done properly.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, to begin with, I will say that the Bloc Québécois has also presented amendments. However, we knew from the outset of this debate that it was tainted for the simple good reason that the government is acting prematurely by introducing this special bill, which is obviously intended to muzzle the union and tie its hands.

The employees had in fact started to use pressure tactics. It must be understood that the pressure tactics were rotating strikes. Never, but never, was the public as a whole penalized, whether in Quebec or in Canada, for the short time the pressure tactics lasted before the lockout.

That is why, in my opinion and the opinion of everyone we have talked to, whether or not they support unions is of no importance. The customers as well, the people who, it seems, were sending a steady stream of email to the Conservatives, told us they had not been affected by the rotating strikes, except when the strike was at their location. But it was no worse than when there is a holiday. We had one recently, and unfortunately we were not able to participate in the festivities for the national holiday. But it is a holiday, which means there is no mail or postal services. The same thing happens when there are rotating strikes. So they could have continued the pressure tactics and, most importantly, the negotiations, without the apprehended disaster happening, the one the Conservatives have told us about throughout this long debate, involving another economic crisis. These were one-day, narrowly targeted strikes, in very different areas, from one day to the next, that lasted only 24 hours

The public as a whole, and the people I have spoken with specifically about this, never blamed the workers for what happened. Obviously it is never pleasant not to receive the cheque you are waiting for, and everyone is aware of that. That is why the government should immediately have taken a mediation approach, not picked up a bazooka to kill a fly. That is the big difference between the Conservatives' approach and the approach adopted by the various opposition parties who have spoken in this House.

From the outset, we knew the outcome that is unfortunately going to come about in a few minutes, after everything that has happened. As was the case for Air Canada, the government is once again acting prematurely. I do not think this was unplanned. It was entirely out of self-interest. What the government wanted is the outcome it is going to have: to come down squarely on the side of Canada Post. The shot has been fired across the bow of virtually everyone who works in the public service: watch out; unfortunately, the Conservatives have a majority.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I note that clause 2 is a little more vague and open to interpretation, and allows for broader issues to be discussed than other clauses, and so I rise to say a few words.

To begin with, as the official opposition critic for labour and workers, I too would like to thank those employees who have worked so hard over the last few days to ensure the smooth running of the democratic process, and for making it possible to debate these issues in the House of Commons. I am referring to the security and restaurant staff, the pages and everyone who has helped us. Singling people out often means forgetting others, which is certainly not my intention. We would sincerely like to thank every employee.

[An hon. member]

No thanks to you.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

That shows the arrogance of the Conservatives, “no thanks to you”.

I would like to stress the importance of this debate in the House of Comments and thank our new members. I wanted to thank the government for providing us with this forum. It has been a good training ground for new members. They have had an opportunity to deliver speeches and ask questions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

There is nothing wrong with commenting on people who are learning how to do their job. There is nothing improper about that. I am simply drawing members’ attention to one of the positive aspects of this debate. The government claimed that it did not interfere in the bargaining process. For better or for worse—and it was recorded—the postal union and Canada Post held discussions until almost midday. The postal union therefore had an opportunity to return to the bargaining table with the employer. One thing we did was to give the parties an opportunity to try and settle this labour dispute. That is what the Minister of Labour has always wanted. These people have to engage in a dialogue; we are not like the Liberals, who just wanted to stay home and allow this negotiation not to take place. That is what matters.

What have we accomplished? I will soon leave here proud to say that we saw things through until the end and did not simply stop because we wanted to go home because July is around the corner. We have worked hard and I want to thank all members on both sides of this House. That is democracy at work, and that is what we have just seen here. The representatives of the people have had an opportunity to express their views on a very important subject.

I want the record to show that taxpayers’ money was not spent needlessly. While chambers of commerce and all manner of organizations are there to protect employers, Canadians need to hear how important it is that workers have a fundamental right to be part of a union that represents them. The government referred to the unions as big bosses.

We shall talk about wages later, in the bill for the collective agreement. This is one of the government’s demands or proposals. How many members would like two different salaries the day they are elected to the House of Commons--one for newcomers and one for those with the most seniority? That is what the government wants now. It wants two wage classes, as if there were two classes of citizens. Are we prepared as members to pass a bill that would give newly elected members a lower salary than members who have been here for 15 years? We would never want to pass such a bill.

So let us respect the workers. The government has this opportunity. Let it at least give an arbitrator the opportunity to make a decision that is not dictated by the Government of Canada, by the Conservatives. Let the workers negotiate their collective agreement with the conciliators or the arbitrator.

Furthermore, the Minister of Labour should remember what her title is. She is the Minister of Labour, not the Minister of Industry. The labour minister is here to represent workers, not to table bills that offer less than the employer offers. The government says it does not interfere in employer-employee negotiations, yet it tables a bill which reduces wages and management's offer. If that is not interference, I wonder what is.

The Conservatives may believe this, but the citizens and workers of our country know that it does not work that way. Certainly they do not believe what the government is telling them, namely that lowering the employer’s offer is in the workers’ best interest and that it is not taking the employer’s side.

With the little changes we are asking, it is to be hoped that the government will have a heart, if only a little heart, for the worker’s lot. In their speeches through all the hours that have passed here since Thursday, not a single time have the Conservatives talked about the workers. They have talked only about other people, not the 45,000 postal workers who deliver our mail. They have never congratulated them. They prefer to say that 33 million Canadians need their mail. If they need their mail, then Canada Post should take the padlocks off the doors.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of clause 2 will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

Order, please. As this is a different kind of vote, I should like to read the procedure. I should like to remind the hon. members that the voting will begin with the Chair asking those members who are in favour of the clause to all rise, row by row. As the Clerk counts the members on my right, they will sit down, row by row, followed by those members in the rows to my left.

The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote from the previous recorded vote to this clause, and we will follow that procedure through the rest of the clauses.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare clause 2 carried.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

[See list under Division No: 27]

(Yeas 158; Nays 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 3)

Shall clause 3 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, I believe if you seek it you would find agreement to apply the recorded division of the previous vote to this vote, with Conservatives voting yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the NDP will vote no.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, the Liberal Party will oppose.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, the members of the Bloc Québécois vote no.

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

Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare clause 3 carried.

(Clause 3 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 4)

Shall clause 4 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you will find agreement to apply the previous recorded vote to this clause, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, the Liberals will be voting no. I ask that we add the vote of the member for Cardigan please.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

We do not record names of voting members but we will record the number.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.

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

Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare clause 4 carried.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 5)

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you will find agreement to apply the previous recorded vote to this clause with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, Liberal members will be voting no.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.

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

The Green Party will be voting no, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare clause 5 carried.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 6)

Shall clause 6 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. Chief Government Whip.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you will find agreement to apply the previous recorded vote to this clause, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, the Liberals will be voting no.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.

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

Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Clause 6 is carried.

(Clause 6 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27.]

(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 7)

Shall clause 7 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. Chief Government Whip.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, I believe if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the previous recorded vote to the current clause, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, the Liberals will vote no.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.

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

Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare clause 7 carried.

(Clause 7 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27.]

(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)

(Clause 8)

There is an amendment to clause 8 that I am going to read:

That Bill C-6 in clause 8 be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 3 with the following:

The minister must appoint as arbitrator a person that the minister

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Chair, the proposal regarding clause 8 seeks to recognize and respect the responsibility of an arbitrator. If a collective agreement of any industry, whether in the public sector or elsewhere, is violated, the parties can choose an arbitrator who, at the end of the process, will issue a ruling on the interpretation of the collective agreement.

I have never seen an arbitrator become involved in an arbitration process while knowing in advance what his decision would be. If that were the case, an arbitrator would not be needed.

The clause in the bill reads as follows: “The Minister must appoint as arbitrator for final offer selection a person that the Minister considers appropriate.”

If at that time the final offer is made automatically, the arbitrator is being told what to do. The arbitrator's job is to make that decision. The arbitrator is a qualified individual. He or she is an individual who the two parties decide on together, or the minister makes a decision as to who the arbitrator will be. The person that the minister or the two parties decide to accept has to be a qualified person who understands the subject and is able to make the decision.

That is why we said that the government should not participate in the negotiations by telling the arbitrator in advance what to do or not do. The arbitrator should make the decision.

Whenever the legislation provides that the arbitrator must make a decision on a final offer, the employer wins. One only has to look at the precedents to see that. Whenever such a situation occurs, the employer always wins. This is why we are saying that the clause must be changed.

The bill and even our amendment provide that “the Minister must appoint as arbitrator ... a person that the Minister considers appropriate”. If the person is appropriate, why tell him to select the final offer?

In the past, because of the final offer clause, the arbitrator has always sided with the employer. Once the employer has made its offer, the arbitrator examines the situation and finds that there is too much difference between that offer and the offer made by the union and the employees. The arbitrator must then select between the two offers, and he has no choice but to select a final offer, instead of using his judgment.

Whose judgment are we talking about? It is that of the arbitrator appointed by the minister. The minister has selected a qualified arbitrator. To tell that arbitrator in advance that he is not qualified is to insult him. The fact is that he is qualified to do the job. He must be able to be fair to both parties and to society. He must take everything into consideration.

This is why we are saying there is no possible negotiation between the two parties if the government gets involved in the negotiation process by introducing in the House of Commons a bill which says in advance that the arbitrator must select the final offer. The employer does nothing and does not have to negotiate, because the government is doing all the work for him.

Even this morning, the government advised the employer to go and negotiate in good faith. The employer replied that it no longer wanted to negotiate, because it was over. In fact, the employer went so far as to say that if it were to negotiate, it would offer less than what it offered in its last offer, earlier this month. It is obvious that any new offer would be less, because the government has already introduced a bill that also provides less.

That is why the Conservatives have got it wrong. Or they have not got it wrong and they intend to hit the workers. I have said this to them several times and they did not like it. What have the postal workers done to the government for it to hate them so much? Why do the Conservatives hate the workers so much that they are asking the arbitrator to select the final offer, which is lower than what the employer had offered?

That is why I asked, and I said it publicly. I will say it again: when a crown corporation makes a proposal of 1.9% and the government comes in and says no, it is not 1.9%, it is 1.7%, what have those workers done to the government that the government hates them that much?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

What did they do to you?

What did they do? That is why the government is going to have to think about it. Is the government going to hit on the men and women, on all those workers, and all those who are coming up? People will remember that. Men and women who work hard see that their government, the one that has this big majority, this solid majority in the House of Commons, the members of the Conservative Party, will never speak for them in the House of Commons because they do not count. In all we have done since Thursday, they have never spoken for men and women, never.

What have they done for the workers? We have a bill that is less than we had—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, what is the definition of "relevant"? Are we going to keep going on and on and talk about everything or are we going to talk about clause 8 and the arbitrator? If they do not like themselves, let them sort that out in therapy, but we would like to know what clause 8 is.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Yes, clause 8 concerns the arbitrator. I would therefore ask the hon. member to alter his presentation accordingly and address his comments to the chair.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Chair, I know it is also tiring for the member from Bourassa when we talk about workers. That is his problem. I understand that, but we have rules to follow, and I am prepared to follow them. I know he finds it tiring for us to be here, and I accept that. I accept the fact that in 1997, the Liberals also forced workers back to work with lower wages than the employer had offered. I accept that, and that is also tiring for them today.

I am asking the government to show respect for the arbitrator's authority in this clause. The arbitrator is a qualified person who will be appointed by the Minister, so let the arbitrator do his or her job.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Very briefly, Madam Chair, this clause speaks to the ability of the minister to be able to appoint for the purposes of final offer selection. Final offer selection is indeed a legitimate means of arbitration. In fact, it is one that ensures the public that each party puts the best offer on the table. It actually encourages a rapid decision-making process, and indeed, when there are issues that are very much apart between the parties, it is the most appropriate method to use.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Chair, that statement from the Minister of Labour really shows a lack of understanding of how the system works, not just in Canada and not just at the federal level, but in every province and territory in this country.

The reality is that the final offer selection process was developed in professional sports in the United States. That is where it came from, so it is no surprise that the government is particularly interested in it. It worked there. One would have one employee, or maybe two to three, and a very narrow range of issues that had to be dealt with. Final offer selection worked quite well and still works quite well in those circumstances.

It is an absolute failure in a situation where we have a large workforce, as we do here, with 50,000-plus employees, members of the union, and then as well, because there are so many people, a large number of complex issues.

I will ask members to pretend that they are the arbitrator. One gets a list of 10 issues from the employer and a list of 10 issues from the union. One has to choose all 10 from one and reject all 10 from the other. There may be a great proposal from the employer on the pension issue, a lousy one on the wage issue and a lousy one on pay equity, but it is all or nothing. That is what the arbitrator has to do because of this clause and a number of the others, clauses 9, 10 and 11 that are forthcoming. That is why we made a series of amendments to give the arbitrator discretion.

Again, we have seen the way the government has attacked our judiciary to try to take away judicial discretion. It is doing exactly the same thing here. The bottom line on this is that the government is taking away that discretion and narrowing the ability of the arbitrator to do his or her job. The end result, and this is what all of the academic studies have shown where final offer selection is used, is that it benefits the employer to the detriment of the employee.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, without having the background in labour relations that my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh has, I know that we have voiced our concern with regard to final offer selection.

His background in regard to the process coming from the sports arena is absolutely right, but aspects of that have bled into public service contracts, where we have seen final offer selection on an issue-by-issue basis. There may be 10 issues listed, and the arbitrator can pick and choose the best offer from management or from the union people on an issue-by-issue basis. Even that would be less egregious than this particular approach to solving this problem. Certainly we have a great deal of concern with final offer arbitration.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment to clause 8 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, I believe if you seek it you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous recorded vote to this motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, NDP members will vote yes.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, Liberal members will be voting yes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes yes.

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

Madam Chair, the Green Party will be voting yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The amendment is defeated.

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 8 carry?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous recorded vote to this motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there agreement to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, NDP members are voting no.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, Liberal members are voting no.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.

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

Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Clause 8 is adopted.

(Clause 8 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On Clause 9)

I will read the amendment proposed by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

That Bill C-6 in clause 9 be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 3 with the following:

“and duties of an arbitrator under sections 60 and 61 of”.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Chair, just briefly, sections 60 and 61 of the Canada Labour Code provide authority to the duties and powers of the arbitrator. The attempt by the government, as drafted now in clause 9, is to limit the discretion and authority of the arbitrator.

I'll just mention one item. More specifically, because of the way clause 9 is drafted now, it does not allow the arbitrator in any way to conduct mediation. Anybody who has been involved in labour relations for 50 years knows the value of that tool to arbitrators. It oftentimes speeds up the process, makes it less costly, and most often achieves the result that we always want in labour management relations, which is that the parties reach a settlement themselves as opposed to, as in this case, having it thrust upon them because of the way it is drafted.

The only other point I would make is that it also allows the arbitrator to look at various methodologies in terms of when he or she is conducting the arbitration process. This provision as it is now, and the rest of clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11, will restrict the arbitrator to only using the final offer selection process, again severely limiting the arbitrator's ability to do the job properly.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, this clause is there to ensure that certain powers in the code that would be contrary to the intent of this legislation are removed from the arbitrator's abilities.

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

Madam Chair, I would urge members of this committee to think about even one small change in the way Bill C-6 is now drafted. This is reasonable. It is the Canada Labour Code, and greater flexibility in the hands of the arbitrator makes so much sense. I would hope that committee members might rethink this and that we would not just vote as a bloc again.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the results of the previous amendment to this amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendment negatived)

We will apply the results of the previous clause to clause 9.

(Clause 9 agreed to)

[See list under Division 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

(On Clause 10)

On clause 10, an amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 10, be amended (a) by replacing line 35 on page 3 with the following: "matters; and" (b) by replacing lines 38 to 40 on page 3 with the following:

of the new collective agreement.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Chair, I am going to defer.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

I am pleased to rise and speak in favour of this amendment. Our preference remains stopping the lockout and allowing the sides to return to free collective bargaining in accordance not only with the laws of our country, but also international conventions, UN resolutions and the long and proud tradition in most jurisdictions in the western world.

The union has offered, well before this legislation came forward, to return to work and bargain under the old contract. Instead, the government moved forward with this draconian and backward bill that would tie the hands of the arbitrator and damage labour relations both within Canada Post and across Canada.

The government has seen fit to impose a contract that is bad for our postal service and bad for the people who work so hard there to make it one of the best postal services in the world. The government tried to sneak in these objectionable terms quietly, hoping that the opposition would go quietly into the summer. It is basic to our democratic system that workers are allowed to engage in free collective bargaining.

We in the NDP are serving notice that we will not let the Conservative government quietly take away the rights of Canadians. We will not let it quietly launch an assault on the rights of working people to collective bargaining.

This amendment introduced by my friend and colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh helps untie the hands of the arbitrator so he or she can do the job he or she has been tasked with doing.

I am pleased to lend my support to this amendment and urge all hon. members to respect the working people and their constituents by supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the results of the previous amendment to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendment negatived)

It seems that a second amendment to clause 10 has been proposed by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

That Bill C-6, in clause 10, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 3 with the following:

"(2) The submissions referred to in subsection (1) must include"

Debate, the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Chair, I only want to make one point. In one of those series of meetings that we did not have with the minister or her staff, it came out very clearly that the government has decided that any back to work legislation is going to contain final offer selection process. The Conservatives are so ideologically driven in so much of what they do and it shows up here. This amendment would clear the final offer selection process off the desk of the arbitrator allowing the arbitrator to do his or her job properly by allowing whatever is the proper methodology that would be instituted to get settlements as rapidly and efficiently as possible.

I want to make this final point. The amendments we have been trying to get through, and this one in particular, do not preclude the arbitrator on a specific issue from going to final offer selection process. If we narrow the issue down enough it can work, as we have seen in the professional sports situation. But here a methodology is being used in a broad sweep that does not work across the whole sector. It is a sledgehammer approach and it simply will not work. We will see abuses constantly coming forward.

I want to repeat that the government has now decided that all back to work legislation is going to contain this clause. We are going to have a regime of really bad collective agreements as a result of it.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Chair, it is important to point out that the concept of final offer selection is the most rapid and efficient one possible. That is why we have used it. Indeed that is why it was used in 1994 with respect to the west coast ports and in 2007 with respect to CN and the resumption of its service. This is not something new. Although I may not have the length and breadth of understanding of many years of the law, I certainly understand the most recent years of the law.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results of the previous amendment to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare this amendment defeated.

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 10 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results on clause 9 to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 10 agreed to)

[See list under Division No: 27]

(Yays: 158; Nays: 112)

(On Clause 11)

On Clause 11, there are several amendments. We will proceed with the amendment by the Liberals. For the sake of clarity, the reference is 5114336:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 19 to 36 on page 4.

The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso on the amendment.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Yes, Madam Chair, that is lines 19 to 36 on page 4.

Our amendment addresses what has been talked about in several past amendments, the fact that final offer selection is of great concern. It is not a preferred way to go. Certainly the arbitrator will be handcuffed if the guiding principles in this legislation are held to.

When we see the reference to the arbitrator having to identify benefits that are consistent with those incomparable postal industries, that raises a flag, because there are no other comparable postal industries to Canada Post. It is unique in itself. There are private companies that provide very similar services, but they are not a national service provider. Certainly, if we are to apply that type of business model, then rural and remote areas that are not profitable will see no service. People in those areas will not be able to pay for the cost of those types of services. We are concerned that this compromise the unique nature of Canada Post.

As well, with respect to the short- and long-term viability of Canada Post, Canada Post has been a profitable corporation in recent years and we are not comfortable with that approach. We think it further handcuffs the arbitrator.

Finally, the taking the pension plan into account, as has been mentioned prior, we think what is at play is an obvious attack on defined benefits pensions in this country. This causes us great concern. That is the intent of our amendments and we would hope to seek support for those amendments.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Chair, we looked at the amendments that were presented by the then Liberal government in 1997, the guiding principles that were embedded in its back to work legislation for postal services. We actually improved on the language in order to ensure we had a decision in a short period of time that made sense to the parties. We also adjusted it to reflect the issues specifically in dispute with the parties today in recognizing how far apart they are, the viability and importance of Canada Post, as well as the importance and viability of the pension plan. The fact is it is the Canadian taxpayer who has the responsibility for any unfunded liabilities of the Canada Post pension plan.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the same results apply as the previous amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the amendment defeated.

(Amendment negatived)

The next amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 13 on page 4 with the following: “pute on that date; and”.

Debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Chair, the reference is to lines 10 to 14, and not 13.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my understanding that the numbering is different in English and French.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Chair, I will propose that all four of these NDP amendments to clause 11 be dealt with at once.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Therefore, may I dispense with reading these amendments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Moved by the member for Windsor--Tecumseh:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:

“(2) In making the decision referred to in subsection (1),”

That Bill C-6 in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 37 to 41 on page 4.

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 5 with the following:

“paragraph 10(1)(a).”

Debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh on these amendments.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Chair, we have heard the argument from our Liberal colleague from Cape Breton—Canso as to why we should be making these changes to clause 11. It very much restricts the arbitrator. As I have said before, Clause 11 is a continuation of that restriction on the arbitrator. It takes away the arbitrator's discretion, making it impossible for him or her to do an adequate job.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the same result as on the previous amendments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendments negatived)

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska reads as follows:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 4 the following:

“ (1.1) Despite paragraph (1)(c), in order to settle any matter remaining in dispute, the arbitrator may make a decision that reconciles the final offers if the arbitrator is of the view that proceeding in this manner would be more equitable.”

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Chair, my comments are in support of the amendments proposed by my NDP and Liberal Party colleagues. I hope that this will help the Conservative government understand that there is a serious problem with this bill.

The new clause that you just read, Clause (1.1), will ensure that the arbitrator has some leeway in his role. It is as if the Conservative government wanted to hire referees, like those from the National Hockey League, for example, who would always lean a particular way, depending on whether, for example, the hockey managers want to see more violence or not, based on what the spectators want.

The problem is that when the arbitrator is appointed, he will have to follow criteria that are so specific that the scales will inevitably always be tipped in the favour of Canada Post.

Under the bill—and this is the issue that needs to be addressed—the arbitrator will be forced to choose between the employer’s final offer and the offer made by the employees. It will not be possible for the arbitrator to engage in any mediation, or to single out specific terms, which would have obviously result in a superior agreement.

As I remarked in my speech, all of this will undoubtedly create a very toxic work environment when the employees return to work; that is, if the arbitrator is forced, based on the terms of the bill, to chose the employer’s offer.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the arbitrator is not obligated to choose one offer over the other, but rather to reconcile them. It is a question of compromise. I hope that the amendment is adopted.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, as I indicated earlier, this precedent was used in the 1997 legislation, which was the last time we endeavoured to order back to work legislation for postal service. In that case it was mediation arbitration and, indeed, it took two years for any kind of collective agreement to be reached. We have learned from that lesson. That is exactly why we have included this method of arbitration to be the final offer of selection.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like theMinister of Labour to clarify one point.

I was a member of the House of Commons in 1997 and I am now holding Bill C-24. According to clause 11 of this bill, contrary to what the minister has said, the arbitrator did not have his hands tied. I quote from this clause:

[It is necessary to establish an] agreement resolving the matters in dispute between the employer and the union arrived at before, or pursuant to, mediation;

They did not say it had to be the employer or the union. The arbitrator’s role was truly an arbitrator’s role. The arbitrator did his work and found grounds for agreement between the two; it was not one or the other.

I would like the Minister to explain to me how and where this was done, and so clear this up. For the Conservatives are working on just one side, instead of working to find an agreement between the two parties. I want this to be clear. Not only are we going to support the amendment, as we supported our amendment and the NDP's amendment, but at no time in 1997 were the arbitrator’s hands to be tied, except on the wage issue, of which we will be able to speak again later.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, as I indicated, we used a precedent, but we improved upon the precedent. The improvement was that we would have final offer binding selection.

The ironic thing is that it seems to be the same old same old when it comes to improving on the bad decisions and the bad law-making of the former Liberal government.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare this amendment defeated.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendment negatived)

There is one final amendment to this clause, moved by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 5 with the following:

“selected by the arbitrator or the decision made by the arbitrator under subsection (1.1).”

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have moved this amendment, which refers to amendment BQ-1 and gives the arbitrator full freedom to act, simply as a matter of consistency.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

As this amendment is consequential to the previous amendments, we will simply apply the results of the previous amendment vote.

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 11 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 11 agreed to)

[ See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 12)

I assume we can apply the results of the last clause to this one.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 12 agreed to)

[ See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 13)

There is an amendment to Clause 13. I will read it.

That Bill C-6, in Clause 13, be amended

(a) by replacing line 11 on page 5 with the following:

“13.(1) Subject to subsection (2),”

(b) by deleting lines 24 to 30 on page 5.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, we put forward this amendment because we think it precludes both the company and the union from bargaining. They will not be able to bargain for wages that are better than what is listed in clause 15. We think the amendment would speak to clause 15.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, as we have indicated many times in the past 47 hours, the purpose of this clause is to recognize that the government has negotiated a set of wage increases with PSAC that are very fair and that have been bargained at the table. We think it is appropriate to include them in this act so there is no uncertainty for the worker and there is no uncertainty for Canada Post as to what the wage increases are. As I said, we believe these are fair.

Quite frankly it is not unprecedented that this clause be included in back to work legislation, for the purposes I just gave.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment on clause 13 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results of the previous amendments to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare this amendment defeated.

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 13 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the result of the vote on clause 12 to clause 13?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare clause 13 carried.

(Clause 13 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 14)

I will read the amendment to clause 14:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing 31 on page 5 with the following:

14.(1) Despite

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, Liberals believe that the amendment is a housekeeping amendment, but it deals with the deletion of clause 15 in its entirety, which imposes wages.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment to clause 14 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results of the votes on the previous amendments to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the amendment to clause 14 defeated.

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 14 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results of clause 13 to clause 14?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare clause 14 carried.

(Clause 14 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 15)

I shall therefore read the amendment to Clause 15:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 15, be amended

(a) by replacing line 6 on page 6 with the following:

“1.9%;”

(b) by replacing line 9 on page 6 with the following:

“1.9%;”

(c) by replacing line 12 on page 6 with the following:

“1.9%; and”

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in this House to speak in favour of the proposed amendment. This amendment aims to correct one of the worst elements of this defective bill. If this bill is not corrected, it will impose an employment contract that includes a salary lower than the employer’s final offer. This section of the bill is an attack on the principles of collective bargaining, one of the most fundamental aspects of our rights as entrenched in the Charter. This is a clear signal to all employers in the country that they are no longer obliged to bargain in good faith. Thus, if it is not possible to arrive at a negotiated agreement, do not worry, because this government is going to use a bill to negotiate even lower salaries on behalf of the employer. What the employer is unable to negotiate, Ottawa will impose on you.

This is a dangerous precedent. At this moment, all over Canada, nurses, firefighters and police officers are asking themselves whether they will be next on the list. If they do this to the postal workers, after Canada Post has made millions of dollars in profits, and the managers accept those offers, who is going to be their next target?

Targeting workers is nothing short of contempt on the part of this government. It is not the proper thing to do, and we will oppose every such attempt by the Conservatives. This amendment would restore the salary increases that were proposed in the employer's last offer. It does not reflect what workers want, but what management proposed, nothing more and nothing less. This amendment would eliminate the most unfair and unacceptable provision in this bill, and I urge all hon. members to support it.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Chair, as I indicated, these wages are fair. They have been negotiated already between the federal government and its largest public sector union and, quite frankly, with respect to the constitutionality or fairness of the matter, it has already been well decided that the bill meets the requirements of the charter, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

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

Madam Chair, there is an awful lot wrong with the bill. In fact, everything from the title, which is An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, to the coming into force, the last clause, is wrong.

The title is wrong because this is not an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. That could be done with a phone call.

The worst clause in the bill, however, is clause 15, which imposes on the postal workers a wage rate less than the employer had put on the table in the course of collective bargaining.

I have not heard members opposite join the chorus for the remarks of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, and nobody cares. Nobody cares about workers. Nobody cares about workers' rights.

Let me say who does care. The principle of free collective bargaining is something that divides societies that are free from those societies that are authoritarian and controlled. If we consider authoritarian societies, dictators, societies that do not have free elections, they do not have free trade unions either. Workers do not have the right to bargain collectively.

In Canada the right to bargain collectively is a constitutionally protected right. It is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is part of the International Labour Organization, the treaty into which this country has entered. It is something that we take very seriously.

There is no greater principle within the right to bargain collectively than the duty to bargain in good faith. In good faith the employer of the postal workers, Canada Post Corporation, put on the table a wage offer that it was prepared to pay to workers from the $281 million worth of profit that Canada Post made last year. To bargain with its employees, it put forth what it thought was a reasonable proposal to increase the wages of the workers, but what have we here? We have a clause in which the government imposes itself inside this good faith bargaining, this foundation of a free society, and says, “No, the government is going to force the workers to take less. We are going to decide what we think you should be paid. Never mind what was put on the table by a process of free collective bargaining”.

The minister just repeated what the Prime Minister said, so I will not blame her as she is just doing what her boss has said. She said this is a wage that was bargained freely by the largest public sector unions. Let us go back to that discussion in 2008 when this wage we are talking about was on the table, as it was called. It was not on the table. What was on the table was legislation proposed by the government to take away the right to strike for all public sector workers. Remember that? It was in the fall of 2008.

Those wage rates were offered for one day and if workers did not accept the wages within one day they would be reduced. Yes, they were accepted. There were not bargained freely and fairly over the course of negotiations. They were accepted with a gun to the head of the public sector workers in this country.

The Minister of Finance knows that members of one group said no. What did they get? That group received less. That is the kind of bargaining that the government entered into with the public sector workers in 2008 that produced the rates that are in this particular clause.

I am not surprised that the previous speaker talked about who is next because that is what everyone is asking. If this is what is going to happen to free collective bargaining in Canada under this regime, who is next? The government has contempt for the process of collective bargaining. It has contempt for the process of this constitutionally protected right that the Canadians are supposed to enjoy.

If members opposite think that nobody cares, they are wrong, and the people of Canada will be telling them that they are wrong.

I ask all hon. members, even those over there who think no one cares, to recognize that people do care and they do want to have these rights and do believe in free collective bargaining. I see the doubtful faces over there and I hear a few remarks that something is wrong with the idea that one can sit down and negotiate a wage, that an employer and employees can actually sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate wages and put an offer on the table and have it respected. That is something Canadians have come to enjoy and expect.

The government has no respect for that and it wants to insert its own version of a wage rate into a collective agreement regardless of what the employer in this particular case offered through free and fair collective bargaining.

This is a fundamental right that is being taken away, a fundamental change in the relationship between employers and employees. The question remains of who is next if the government is not prepared to accept the notion of free collective bargaining and takes away from employees what the employer has in fact offered. It demonstrates how much contempt it has for the collective bargaining process and for the rights of workers.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Chair, the minister will have several opportunities to respond to this question. I will ask the question, though I know she will not answer me right away because it is not in the definition of the debate, but we will move our own amendment and she will have another opportunity to respond.

This debate has been very long and difficult, but I still do not think she gave a clear answer why she does not want the salaries freely negotiated. It is the main reason that some in this House, but certainly not me, question her good faith and commitment to workers. I will never go there because I do not like to impugn the motives of other colleagues, but if she were able to give a clear and convincing answer, it would help everyone to know where we are.

I heard the arguments that she put forward and I want to review each and every one of them.

First, she told us that we had to give postal employees the same treatment as other federal public servants. However, there is no reason to do this, since Canada Post has the right to negotiate. Therefore, if Canada Post has the right to negotiate, there is no guarantee that its employees will end up getting the same kind of salaries as other federal public servants. And no one said anything about depriving Canada Post of its right to negotiate. That is why it is a Crown corporation. So, this argument is a very weak one.

I do not know if the minister is still interested in listening to me, but I hope so. This debate has been a long one, but we still have not received any answer.

The second problem is what happened in 1997. The minister referred to the 1997 precedent but, at the same time, she was very critical of the government of the day. She has to make up her mind. She cannot have her cake and eat it too. She must choose. If she does not like what happened in 1997, she should not invoke that precedent. In any case, an argument based on a precedent is always a very weak argument.

She is saying that she wants to avoid uncertainty about wages, but such uncertainty is part of life when one negotiates wages. I do not think the Canadian society denies this kind of uncertainty. We have much worse uncertainties in life than the results of wage bargaining, where the gap between an employer and the employee may become narrower through negotiation.

Up to now, her reasoning is very weak, but before the end of this debate and the final vote, she has an opportunity to come forward with something that I hope will be much more convincing, because Canadians deserve an answer and workers deserve an answer and this House deserves an answer.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, I will just reiterate what I have been indicating with respect to the purpose of having the wages embedded in this act. Quite frankly, it is because it is a fair wage that has been negotiated. If members had been at the table and had understood the differences between these two parties in the past eight months, and had even understood the wide gap in differences in the number of disputes, and the quantum within the disputes, they would have understood why the government felt that it was very necessary to give certainty and include wage increases in the act.

The choice of those wage increases was based on what had been negotiated freely and fairly at the table with PSAC, the largest union we negotiate with. The increases are more than appropriate.

Finally, as well as being the caretakers of the Canadian interest with respect to crown corporations, the government has to make sure that the crown corporation itself, Canada Post, is held whole and has the ability to be economically viable in the future, in both the short and the long term. These are things that matter to Canadians, and that is why the government has acted in the best interests of all Canadians and the economy in general.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment on clause 15 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results of the previous vote to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 15 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the result of the previous vote to clause 15?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare clause 15 carried.

(Clause 15 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27 ]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On clause 16)

I will read the Liberal amendment:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 6 with the following:

“provided for in subsection 14(1), and to give”

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, certainly in light of the last amendment being defeated, it is appropriate that we proceed with this amendment to strike the clause in its entirety.

As the Liberal Party has put on the record from the outset, probably the two most concerning aspects of the legislation are the final offer selection, and, with respect to salaries, the identification of salaries at a lower rate than had been previously bargained for and agreed to by Canada Post.

This section underlines just how the government has missed the mark. Of all the clauses in the legislation, this certainly speaks volumes about how the government has missed the mark.

To quote Einstein: “A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it”. Certainly we have seen, through this legislation, that the government has not avoided the problem, and through the defeat of these amendments tonight, is doing nothing to solve it.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. minister for her answer, but I want to explain to her why I do not think it is satisfactory.

The main point proposed by the minister seems fair to her, but she did not explain in which way the last offer of the employer is unfair. The last offer of the employer was more satisfactory to the employees. Perhaps it is because the employer, in exchange, received from the employees some compromises that the employer wanted.

The employer is being put in a situation in which it will perhaps not be able to ask for these compromises, or it will ask for these compromises but with a lower wage. This is definitely interference in the negotiations, which is not in the interest of the employer, not in the interest of the employees, and not in the interest of Canadians.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the amendment to clause 16 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the results of the vote taken on the previous amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 16 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the results of the vote taken on the previous clause?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The amendment is defeated and clause 16 is carried.

(Clause 16 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27.

(Yeas: 158; nays: 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On Clause 17)

Shall clause 17 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Will we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 17?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 17 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays 112)

Shall clause 18 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 18?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 18 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

Shall clause 19 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Will we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 19?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 19 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27 ]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

Shall clause 20 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Will we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 20?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 20 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

Shall clause 21 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Will we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 21?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 21 agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112 )

(On Clause 22)

Shall clause 22 carry?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Chair, clause 22 deals with the coming into force of the bill and provides an opportunity to mention one last time what has taken place here, over the past few days. The public has learned a number of things, and that is good.

First, the public has been able to find out what the agenda of the government is as it looks at a statute that would impose lower wages than those that the employer was willing to give. This constitutes an attack on pensions and imposes two-tier wages. The public has been able to take advantage of this debate as we tried to create the time necessary to allow for a negotiated settlement.

That leads to the second revelation of this debate, and the two are connected. The second revelation is with regard to the notion of good faith. During the meeting that my colleagues and I had with the media just before we entered here this evening, we said that it was a question of good faith and that we were presuming good faith.

In French we say that good faith is presumed.

One of the things members on the government side have been telling us non-stop for the past three days is that they wanted to see the amendments. At the same time, we were meeting with the minister, with her representatives and with the parties trying to use the opportunity being afforded by the detailed analysis of the bill that we were carrying out to give them the time necessary to come to a negotiated settlement.

What did we get instead? We have just had the results tonight. They went very close to what was discussed Thursday night, and again last night, but not one of the amendments to improve the arbitration process, to be more fair and respectful of the Charter of Rights on wages and to be respectful of section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights with regard to freedom of association were accepted.

We have to come to the conclusion, as we study clause 22 on the coming into force of the bill, that there is one thing that links these two elements. The government, for example, tells us that it is at arm's-length from a société de la Couronne like Canada Post and that it is a crown agency and it will not get involved. People will now be able to read the exact words of the minister just a few minutes ago in the House. The minister said that all of this was about the government imposing on crown agency wage settlements. A total contradiction in terms.

The result of the two is that the government cannot be trusted.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Chair, the act will come into force 24 hours after it receives royal assent.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleague, the House leader for the official opposition. His summary was only partly accurate. Canadians who have been watching for the last 40 or 45-odd hours have a right to be a little bit in despair. They have been watching carefully to see how this transpires, how this process evolves.

Canadians now know that the government had an opportunity to bring time allocation to bear in the bill when it was drafted. They know that the government could have solved this problem as of last Thursday. Canadians know this. Canadians are telling us this. Canadians also know that the government had no intention whatsoever of accepting any amendments presented by any party, and presumably from their own members who quietly, in their own despair, were trying to improve the bill.

We have heard from the NDP labour critic that this was an opportunity for his caucus to have a learning experience. Some learning experience. How to filibuster a bill 101. How to posture for the media 101. How to rack up expenditures for the Canadian taxpayers 101. If NDP members want to team build, they can leave by the back door of this building and climb the Gatineau Hills.

Many times throughout this debate, Canadians could have been forgiven for thinking they were hearing speeches in a union hall and not in the House of Commons. The government's behaviour has been no better. The government made a deliberate attempt to reform labour law by bringing the hammer down, by using a statutory instrument in an unprecedented fashion to bring in through the back door what the Prime Minister knows he could never get through the front door of Canadian citizenry.

Both leaders have fed the conflict machine called the media. In this, Canadians believe the leaders have been successful. However, the biggest loser here is the Canadian citizenry and here is why. Unionized or not, unemployed or employed, healthy or sick, retired or working, the Canadian citizenry has been stuck with the bill. Small businesses, seniors, waiters, drivers, teachers, bricklayers, are all being asked to pick up the costs for an unfortunate, unnecessary and irresponsible process.

I ask the leaders of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to go out to the cameras and tell the Canadian people exactly how much this experiment has cost them.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, unfortunately, a new day is dawning today. We are sad to see how the government is going to be doing things for the next four years. Workers' rights will be thrown out. The message is clear: this government has no respect for the legitimate right of a legally certified association to bargain in good faith for a collective agreement. This interference sets the tone for the next four years and the message is clear: workers will have no right to be heard from now on.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your handling of the debate, but unfortunately this is a dark day for Quebec and for Canada.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, I am going to make a brief comment. Businesses and Canadians continue to be affected by this stoppage, this labour dispute. That is why our government has introduced a bill to restore the postal service.

As has been said before, the opposition has an opportunity to join with us and pass the bill today, as quickly as possible, in the interests of all Canadians, so we can do what is important for taxpayers.

I call on all of the opposition to support us and pass this bill immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall clause 22 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we proceed by applying the vote on the previous clause?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 22 agreed to.)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall clause 1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results of the previous division?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 1 agreed to.)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we apply the results of the previous vote to this one?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Title agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Can we proceed in the same way as with the previous vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Bill agreed to)

[See list under Division No. 27]

(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall I rise and report the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Bill reported)

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #28

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. After all it has been approximately 57 and a half hours since we commenced the introduction of this legislation.

The position of the government has always been very clear that the best agreement is the one that the parties reach by themselves. However, in the case of this union, CUPW, and this organization, Canada Post, that was not a possibility.

Over the past 57 hours, our government has explained the history of the dispute and the efforts we have taken to both conciliate and mediate it. We have also provided services continuously to the parties throughout this debate. As a final resort, we have had to introduce legislation that does two things.

First, it provides for a resumption of postal services so that those Canadians who have been affected, as well as small businesses and charities, can get on with their work, which will also protect the economy.

Second, we introduced this legislation to provide a fair and balanced process for the parties to reach the conclusion of this collective agreement.

The government was given a very strong mandate by Canadians to continue our efforts in this economic recovery. That is exactly why we have introduced this legislation at this time, to ensure the mail service continues now and into the future.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says the best possible collective agreement is one that results from negotiation and agreement between the two parties. Even if we do not agree with the government's bill, it proposes a final offer. On the question of wages, why has the government included a lower wage offer in the bill than the employer was prepared to pay?

I know what the minister's answer will be. She will say that this is consistent with the terms for the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Why did she say in her testimony that the best collective agreements are the result of agreement between the two parties? Does she realize that the message she is sending to the employer is that if it is unable to negotiate, it can come and ask for the government's support to get something better?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that taking eight months to reach an agreement is a long period of time, especially when a work stoppage is involved either through rolling strikes or indeed through a lockout.

It is unacceptable to the Canadian public and we will introduce legislation that returns workers to work and preserves the economy.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin, once again, by thanking the employees of the House of Commons. I thank them for the work that they do for Parliament, the seat of democracy, and the place in which democratic debates take place. I would also like to thank our security guards, who worked very hard. I thank our employees, from every political party, who have spent many hours and days here, in Parliament. I thank our pages, who have worked here day and night in the service of members of Parliament. Thank you all so much.

I just thanked our employees. The bill that was debated and adopted a moment ago has to do with the postal workers who deliver our mail day in and day out.

It is not pleasant for anyone when things grind to a halt at Canada Post. The Canada Post Corporation is a crown corporation that is required to provide services to all Canadians. It is unfortunate that a debate had to be held on the future of workers, their pension funds, their salaries, and their working conditions. The government tried to suggest that we were somehow against small and medium-sized businesses, but that is not true.

There are, of course, small and medium-sized businesses in my riding. If these small and medium-sized businesses were not there—I am referring to the shops, restaurants and small factories that provide a multitude of services—in what kind of world would we be living? It would be crazy to think that anyone could be against our small and medium-sized businesses. I can assure the hon. members that whatever the Conservatives would have Canadians believe is simply not true. Small and medium-sized businesses apparently account for 75% of jobs in Canada. This includes our own family members. Some of us have brothers and sisters who own small businesses. How could anyone object to that?

I myself worked for several years for a big company called Noranda Inc. The Conservatives would have hon. members believe that I had no respect for Noranda Inc. My only comment was that if the company made a profit, it should share it with the workers that made it possible. That is all we asked.

The mail carriers participated in the bargaining process, however the minister remarked in her speech that negotiations had dragged on for eight months without an agreement being reached. If negotiations went on for eight months with no agreement, then clearly the employer, Canada Post, was partly to blame. Under Canadian law, workers have the right to unionize.

I will mention the case of certain women in my riding, Red Cross auxiliaries who worked for that organization under a contract from the government of New Brunswick. The government’s money had been disbursed to the Red Cross to permit it to do what the government did not want to do. The employees, the Red Cross auxiliaries who went to people's homes every morning to help seniors, were paid $4.25 an hour. After 2,080 hours of work, they received an increase that brought their wage to $5.35 an hour.

You can check the records. If these women working for the Red Cross were sick for more than 10 days, the Red Cross lowered their wage to $4.85 an hour. It’s shameful.

These women who went to work were not even entitled to statutory holidays. Did they not have the right to form a union to bargain and increase their wage to $7 an hour in an initial collective agreement which would grant them their rightful statutory holidays?

This is what the Conservatives are saying. They are giving the unions a bad image. It’s unfair. As for the women working in the fish processing plants at minimum wage, they are now up to $12 an hour. That was not thanks to the employer.

No one can stop me from standing up for the workers, the men and women, our fathers and mothers who have worked. No one can stop me from speaking up in House of Commons on their behalf. No one.

What the government is doing is no mistake. It has done this because it wanted to, rather than having faith in bargaining and the collective agreement. Why table a bill that offers less than the employer was prepared to give the employees after they tried to exert pressure by organizing rotating strikes?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Keep talking.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

That is not very polite. I do not think it is very polite to tell me to keep talking. I think I was doing well until I was interrupted.

The employees have the right to go on rotating strikes: the Minister herself said that she received only a few calls and emails. That is what she said in the House of Commons and to the media. One might almost think she was not satisfied and that things were not sufficiently stirred up, as if they had to be stirred up in order to pass a bill. The public was not complaining. I received no calls from people unhappy about the rotating strikes. But as soon as the lockout was in place, down came the hammer and the bill was tabled. We have worked hard all weekend, and I raise my hat to the members who remained in the House of Commons and fought all weekend to give the union and the employer the chance for further meetings. That is democracy.

I hope all Canadians are proud of us. The day we cease to have a Parliament, our country will become like those to which we send our soldiers to bring democracy. The House of Commons belongs to Canadians, and this is where the debate must occur. It has occurred, and we are proud of that fact. We gave the union and the employer the opportunity to meet. However, it is impossible to reach an agreement when the government gives the employer a better offer in a bill, which is completely undemocratic, in my opinion.

Perhaps the Conservatives consider today a funny day in history. They can continue to attack the workers. This government has just sent employers the message to not bother negotiating, because the government will solve their problems. It is inviting employers to turn to the government for help; it will pass bills that will never be in the workers' favour.

That is why I am asking what the workers ever did to this government. Why does it not like them? Why does it not like the people who have provided services to us for the past three or four days, the security guards, and everyone? The next time, it will be CBC/Radio-Canada, and then it will be CN. All of them will be paying at the checkout in the next four years under this Conservative government. Is that the kind of society we want? Do we really want to attack workers?

Even if it bothers the Conservatives, I want to thank the unions who work day after day and who have the mandate, under Canadian legislation, to represent workers. Political parties need leaders, but so do the unions. So let us respect our laws and our leaders, the people with the mandate to do things for the society. If the government did not want this lockout, all it needed to do was call Canada Post to get the locks taken off the doors. It would have been easy.

The public will see that the Conservatives are wearing big smiles on their faces today. On the one hand, 33 million people were affected by the lockout, but so were the 45,000 postal workers because of this government. Who will it be next time? Perhaps it will be citizens, seniors, the disabled or the workers. And it will be because of the Conservative government.

We even asked the Prime Minister to suspend the House of Commons for one day, for the Quebec holiday, Saint-Jean-Baptiste day. Once again, he said no. Just for that, he should be ashamed. He has no respect for Quebeckers. Does he not like Quebeckers, as one of my colleagues just said? He does not like the workers, but he likes big business.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member still has six minutes left to conclude his remarks, so I would ask all members to come to order. The more disorder there is, the more time the member will have.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, they have no respect for Quebeckers, and from what I can see, they have no respect for you either.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, order. Let us let the hon. member finish his remarks.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, they were beginning to fail to show respect for you. It is time to make them stop.

Once again, we hope the hemorrhaging will stop and the government will think about what it is doing. Is this what the next four years are going to be like? Is the government planning to target working men and women? It is on the wrong track. Perhaps it is deliberately taking that direction, but it should think twice. People will not stand for it.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to comment on the bill at third reading. I am quite confident, as we enter hour 58 of the debate, that there is not a whole lot of juice left in this orange. At the risk of saying something that may have been said earlier in the House, a risk which did not concern a whole lot of people over the course of the last 58 hours, I, too, on behalf of the Liberal Party want to thank the officials, our professional table officers and all the Hill staff for being around.

I really want to single out the pages who do a great service in the House. That just was not a politician being shameless and playing to the hometown crowd, I do it for a reason. They were supposed to finish on Thursday. As we know, the pages are salaried employees, so they have been here as volunteers for the last 58 hours. Therefore, I really want to thank them for that.

My comments will be brief. Again, as we had said, we put our points on the record. Early on we were very concerned, as a party, with the way the legislation was put forward. We felt it tipped the scales far too much in Canada Post's favour. For all those paying attention to the debate, we tried to reinforce the fact that this was a lockout. Knowing that this legislation was coming, gave Canada Post the upper hand. That was why we ended up in the situation in which we were. We felt the final offer selection did nothing to help the union in this situation.

We felt that amendments could have been put forward far sooner. We thought it would have been a much more efficient process to table those amendments and bring them forward sooner. Maybe if we would have put that time on the amendments, then maybe we might have had some of the changes for which we tried to advocate.

Therefore, we have a great deal of concern with the legislation and we will vote against it in the final round.

Again, I thank my caucus for the effort put forward. Our whip's office and leadership—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am not cutting the hon. member off. I am trying to get a little order for him to conclude his remarks.

The hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we laid out and put forward our amendments in good faith and hoped that we could make an impact on this legislation. Obviously the government entertained none of them and so we are this situation. It is unfortunate, but at the end of the day I am happy not only to see that mail service will resume eventually, but that the workers are back on the job.

These workers have suffered over the last number of weeks and we have brought those stories to the House. I know a number of stories were shared about the inconvenience to Canadians, but think about the hardship the workers have gone through, those who have had medical benefits cancelled, have missed paycheques and have had to provide for their families and have been unable to work the last number of weeks. Therefore, understand that part of the lockout.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I can hear cries of joy and enthusiasm because the Bloc Québécois is rising. One of our first battles, when the session started, was to be recognized, not as a recognized party—we are fewer than 12 MPs—but at least enough to take our place. I find the reaction of disappointment from the other side of House at my rising to speak to be quite deplorable. We have been legitimately and democratically elected, like everyone else in this House, including you, Mr. Speaker. On May 2, 24% of Quebeckers voted for the Bloc Québécois. I find this reaction quite sad, all the more so because I was going to start my speech by saying that this is one time when people will listen more intently to what I have to say.

The end of the session is nigh, and I want to wish a wonderful summer to all my colleagues on all sides of the House, as well as to all those who have worked over the past few days and have put in a lot of overtime. I will not repeat everything my colleagues have said about all those who support us here and who work extremely hard to help us do our jobs.

That is basically what I wanted to say, but I might to add, as my Bloc Québécois colleague did in his speech, that we have been witness to a dark day. Unfortunately, it likely will not be the last, with this majority Conservative government. One might say that, with this special legislation, the government played into the hands of the Canada Post Corporation, but I think Canada Post played into the hands of the government. It is as if the government had planned the whole thing. We saw what happened with Air Canada and then, right afterwards, with Canada Post. There was some job action, and then the government immediately took out the sledgehammer, went on the attack, broke a butterfly upon the wheel to ensure that the employees would be put in their place and not be able to negotiate fairly and equitably.

The dice were loaded from the start of these phoney negotiations. That is what is so terrible. As soon as the government came out with its threat of special legislation, it was clear that the employer had it made. It declared a lockout, then government members told us, throughout the debate, that it was really unfortunate but there was a strike going on. That is what they said, even though it was actually a lockout. We know that the public is not stupid and clearly understands the difference—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

They want me to stop talking, but the more that side harasses me, the longer I will continue. I am not at school, here. I have been a member for seven years. I know that I have the right to speak, and I will continue to do so.

The Canada Post Corporation imposed a lockout, which allowed the government to target the employees, claiming that there was an economic disaster because of a work stoppage and the public was not getting its mail or cheques anymore. Yet, we know full well that the postal workers were prepared to deliver cheques to the most vulnerable members of our society for free, most of the time. They were entitled to collect $50 per day, but they had decided to give that money to charity.

The lockout triggered the introduction of special legislation. The bill essentially gagged the arbitrator and the employees. The arbitrator has to—and it will—give the big end of the stick to the employer, and that is how the conditions will be managed over the next few years, until 2015.

I do not want a difficult social climate to develop in our society, but it will not be easy for Canada Post employees or the employer. Eventually, it will not be easy for this government either. That is my warning. For the next four years, the people just need to hang on tight. The agenda is now controlled by the Prime Minister and his gang, and they will feel like masters of their domain. We will do everything in our power to continue to express our opposition. We will need the public's support.

In closing, I want to wish everyone a good summer, if we ever get out of here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Cape Breton—Canso. Everything has been said. I simply want to thank all the teams from the bottom of my heart: the translation team, the security team, the team of cooks, and everyone who works for us here, in the House of Commons.

I would also like to close with something, Mr. Speaker, to every member of this House of Commons.

This has been a physically gruelling number of days, and I would like to thank all members of Parliament for the many acts of personal kindness, small and large. I think we need to hang onto those after what has been a fractious couple of days. It was particularly difficult for my caucus because I could not find anyone to trade off.

I would like to say have a good summer, and I personally thank each and every member.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #29

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

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

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week, I paid tribute, on behalf of our government, to the pages who had served us so well. Earlier today I paid tribute to all the staff on Parliament Hill who serve us so well. That was in answer to the Thursday question earlier today. As the calendar shows it is still Thursday, I am about to change that. I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 19 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:10 p.m.)