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

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member is a well respected member in this House. I am sure he did not intentionally mislead Canadians by suggesting it was this government that in fact did that with the EI. The member knows full well it was not this government. He should stand and apologize.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is really not a point of order. It is a matter of debate. Perhaps there will be opportunities for--

Is the member for Acadie--Bathurst is rising on the same point of order?

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker. On that point, I want to correct the record.

Who passed a bill to have this new EI? Only $2 billion will go into that fund, and yet $55 billion was passed.

The Government of Canada passed--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I appreciate that there is interest in continuing the debate in this manner. However, we will try to restrict points of order to actual points of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give my 20 minutes to the member for Acadie—Bathurst, because I am sure he has a lot more to say and he is doing it in such an impassioned way, but I too am really proud to support the determined men and women who are locked out by Canada Post.

I have listened closely to the debate for the last few days, both on the two motions before us and now on the bill. I have to say the government is propagating the biggest misinformation campaign that I have ever witnessed in the House.

Let us look at the facts. Here is the actual timeline that led us to tonight's debate. On May 24, Canada Post issued a news release claiming that CUPW demands would cost $1.4 billion. That number was never explained and indeed has never been substantiated. On June 1, Canada Post continued its misinformation campaign by claiming that mail volumes have declined by 17% since 2006.

Then, on June 2 at 11:59 p.m., CUPW began rotating strikes. Almost immediately, on June 3, Canada Post cut off drug coverage and other benefits to all employees, including those on sick leave and disability insurance. On June 7, the Canada Post Corporation claimed that mail volumes have declined by 50%, just since June 3. The fact that this does not correspond with any information from postal facilities did not stop the government from propagating that myth.

On June 8, Canada Post announced that it would stop letter carrier delivery on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The following day, June 9, the labour minister requested that the union suspend its rotating strikes and that Canada Post resume postal service. Canada Post's chief operating officer responded by claiming that CUPW had more than 50 demands on the table, while at the same time reneging on several of its offers. The union, on the other hand, agreed on June 10 to suspend strike activity and continue to negotiate. Sadly, that did not last very long. At 6 p.m., Canada Post management rejected the union's offer.

The first inkling that the government had the employer's back appeared on June 13, when CUPW astutely accused Canada Post of aggressively trying to force postal workers out on a full-scale national strike in order to secure back to work legislation from the majority Conservative government.

The next day, the quick movement from the ridiculous to the sublime began. In the morning on June 14, Canada Post claimed to have lost $70 million in revenue since June 3, and in answering the question of a reporter at that time, the labour minister rightly said that there was no need for back to work legislation at Canada Post, since the labour stoppage was only a rotating strike and the mail was still being delivered.

By the evening of the very same day, Canada Post upped the ante on what was at stake and claimed that it had lost almost $100 million in revenue since June 3, $30 million more than it had claimed in the morning to have lost. Of course, it used that number as justification for an immediate national lockout.

It gets even better. Here is what happened next. Once again, pay attention to the shift between the morning and the afternoon position. In the morning of June 15, the labour minister said she had received very few complaints about the rotating postal strikes, but by afternoon, she announced that in response to Canada Post's national lockout, she would be introducing back to work legislation.

The manner by which Canada Post provoked the government to introduce back to work legislation explains its refusal to truly negotiate during the past eight months. It began negotiations determined to attack the rights and benefits of the workers who have made Canada Post a profitable company for 16 years, and it was rewarded for its intransigence by the Conservative government.

Clearly, it was Canada Post that caused the mail stoppage in the first place. To suggest otherwise is simply to spread a myth. Canada Post took that action because it was certain that the Conservatives would respond by bringing in the back to work legislation that the corporation had wanted all along.

That dispels only one myth in the government's tragic interference in free collective bargaining. Let me be clear about some other myths I have heard on the floor of the House. In fact, I think there are at least eight more myths.

Postal myth number one: it is suggested that no one writes or sends letters. Now, it is true that letter mail volumes are declining slowly, but the letter is by no means dead and buried. In fact, transaction or letter mail volumes are 10% higher than they were in 1997, the last time that CUPW went on strike, and that is according to Canada Post's own annual report.

Postal myth number two says that postage rates are too high. Our 59¢ stamp is one of the biggest bargains in the industrialized world. People in Japan pay the equivalent of 94¢ Canadian to send a standard domestic letter. In Austria they pay 88¢ and in Germany they pay 78¢.

The real price of a stamp has actually decreased since Canada Post was set up as a crown corporation in October of 1981. At the time, the government of the day established a 30¢ stamp because the post office was losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The price of a stamp has increased 96.7% since this time, from January 1982 to March 2011, while the consumer price index has increased by 128.8% over the same period.

Let us go to postal myth number three: Canada Post is a drain on the public purse. The truth is that the post office and postal workers do not cost the public money. Canada Post has made $1.7 billion in the last 15 years and paid $1.2 billion in dividends and income tax to the federal government. By keeping Canada Post profitable, postal workers actually save the public money. Again, the source is Canada Post's own annual reports.

Postal myth number four says that Canada Post has low productivity. In fact, Canada Post is very productive. Unlike many companies, Canada Post has significantly increased productivity in the last two years. For example, mail processing productivity levels for transaction mail have increased by 6.7%; that is, the number of pieces of mail processed per paid hour has actually gone up.

In addition, the number of workers has gone down. The corporation has cut staff to compensate for the decline in mail volumes. Proportionately, the cuts to staff have been greater than the decline in volumes. The corporation is also expecting large productivity gains from its $2 billion modernization program. Canada Post's high productivity has allowed it to keep postage rates low, make profits, and put substantial dividends and income taxes into public coffers.

That takes us to postal myth number five. The Conservatives are saying there is a crisis at Canada Post: letter volumes have declined by 17%. In fact, as I said earlier, Canada Post transaction or letter volumes declined by 7.2% between 2006 and 2009, some of it due to the economic recession. The 2010 figures have not yet been released, but with an economic recovery, total volumes are likely to recover somewhat with direct mail rebounding and parcel volumes increasing as Internet purchasing gains more acceptance. Letter mail volumes are declining, but not nearly as much as Canada Post would have people believe when it trots out the 17% figure. Our post office is not at death's door.

Postal myth number six says that postal workers have their heads buried in the sand about challenges such as declining mail volumes and revenues. That is not true. Postal workers understand that there are challenges. That is why CUPW is trying to negotiate new services such as banking. In 2008, 44 countries had post offices with banking services that produced 20% of total revenue. A postal bank existed in this country from 1867 to 1969. Perhaps it is time to bring it back. As we know, CUPW has already negotiated provisions that allow the corporation and union to experiment with expanding services, creating jobs and new approaches.

Postal myth number seven says that Canada Post needs to negotiate big changes so that it can deal with declining volumes. Again, that is not true. CUPW's collective agreement with Canada Post already allows it to adjust staffing levels, and the corporation has already cut staffing hours proportionately more than the declining volumes.

Article 47 outlines a process for restructuring letter carrier routes. Restructuring allows management to reduce the number of letter carrier routes and positions based on volume counts.

Article 14 of the contract allows the corporation to reduce part-time hours and inside positions, so that myth too has been dispelled.

Then there is postal myth number eight: people think it is time to privatize or deregulate Canada Post. That is patently not true. It is true that multinational courier companies regularly lobby the government to deregulate Canada Post. These companies want the letter market opened up to competition so that they can increase their profits and their share of this market.

Lately, some media outlets and right-wing economic institutes have called for both privatization and deregulation, but pretty much everyone else is opposed. In 2008, the federal government conducted a review of Canada Post, which reported in 2009. The report clearly stated that there appears to be little to no public support for the privatization or deregulation of Canada Post. I am proud to say that New Democrats fully opposed both postal privatization and deregulation when the issue came before the House in the last Parliament.

If we are going to continue with this debate, why do we not focus on the real issues at stake rather than spending time on the myths being spread, which is completely counterproductive to achieving a negotiated settlement between CUPW and Canada Post?

Let me begin that discussion by focusing on one issue in particular: pensions. The hard-working women and men who make up Canada's national postal system work for all Canadians, and they are locked out today because they are standing up not just for their own working conditions and benefits, but for fair conditions and benefits for all Canadian workers.

One of the central demands made by Canada Post management in this round of negotiations is that pension benefits for workers who have contributed for their entire working lives should be curtailed. Even more egregiously, management intends to all but gut pension benefits for new hires.

The attack on pensions that we are currently witnessing in both the private and the public sector is short-sighted, ill advised and fiscally reckless. As employers move to free up cash to finance lavish executive bonuses, they are increasingly looking at workers' pension plans as a ready source of cash. It is simply wrong. Pensions belong to the workers who earned them, workers who sacrificed pay and benefit improvements over many years to secure a reliable and fair pension plan.

Pensions are deferred wages, but Canada Post, it seems, is to be the government's flag-bearer in the effort to put severe downward pressure on employee pension plans, no doubt in the hope that the evisceration of pension benefits across the public and private sector will then follow.

As an opening salvo, Canada Post is attempting to divide and conquer members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Management's demands include that all newly hired postal workers be covered by a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit pension plan.

It is worth pausing to briefly outline the important differences between defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans. The first is a real pension plan. The second is a wing and a prayer.

The vast majority of public sector workers, about 70%, currently have in place a defined benefit pension plan. This means that employers and employees both contribute through workers' deferred wages, as I have already mentioned, to the pension plan. As the nomenclature indicates, the defined benefit plan means that workers are promised a certain monthly benefit upon retirement, generally based on a formula that includes years of service, age and wage level. That means workers have a very precise sense of how much they will receive in their retirement and they can plan accordingly.

“Defined benefit” means funds must be set aside to provide for future payments. A defined contribution plan, on the other hand, means workers and employers contribute a fixed amount to the plan, but what benefit a retiree might derive is subject entirely to the vagaries and indeed the follies of the market. There is a post making the rounds on social media right now. It goes something like this:

Remember when teachers, nurses, postal workers, librarians, social workers, airline employees and care assistants crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bailouts and bonuses and paid no taxes?

No? Me neither.

Working Canadians were surely not responsible for the economic meltdown of recent years, but they certainly bore the brunt of it. For far too many, this meant that their registered retirement pension plan savings were decimated. Canadians who had worked their entire lives to save for their retirement saw it disappear in a puff of smoke. Some retirees were all but wiped out.

This is what the future is with defined contribution pension plans: insecurity at best and financial disaster at worst. This is what the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, on behalf of all Canadian workers, is fighting against.

To say that there is today in Canada a crisis in retirement security is an understatement. Even before the demographic shock of baby boomer retirement fully hits, one-quarter of a million seniors in this country currently live in poverty. The vast majority are single women. It is a national embarrassment that in a nation as wealthy as our own, we seem content to let the women and men who built this country face appalling poverty in their retirement.

While the government supported both our pension motion in the last Parliament and our motion on supporting seniors' income security just this week, those were clearly empty promises by the Conservatives.

What Canadians need and want is a fair, decent pension they can rely on to ensure they can retire with the dignity and respect they deserve. Just 38% of Canada's labour force belongs to a pension plan. Close to 10 million workers do not have a private pension plan. These workers must rely on their own individual savings through RRSP contributions or other means for their retirement security.

In 2007, fully 30% of Canadian households had neither a pension plan nor any RRSP savings. As we all know, the commercial accounts through which RRSP investments are held are subject to some of the highest management fees in the world. In short, Canadians are being left to fend for themselves in retirement and particularly in the private sector where a full 75% of workers have no pension plan at all.

With the demographic realities associated with the current and imminent retirement of a generation of “boomers”, the untenable situation of retirees in Canada is set to become much worse. If we as legislators continue to ignore this crisis, we are going to preside over a situation in which the number of seniors who live in poverty increases dramatically. This will place more pressure on taxpayers as we see an increased demand on social services and, at the same time, tax revenues will decrease.

As one of the largest pension plans in the world, CPP has the capacity to provide a greater share of retirement income for Canadians. Because it is national in scope, it has the benefit of many highly skilled investment staff who can ensure a well diversified portfolio. It can offer tremendous economies of scale with lower administration costs and investment management fees.

For Canadian workers, it provides less risk, greater certainty, portability and increased benefits, like spousal benefits, death and disability benefits, and protection from inflation.

We need to expand our national, public, universal workplace pension plan. We can begin by laying out a responsible plan to double benefits over time. We should work with the provinces to build in the flexibility for workers and their employers to make voluntary contributions. We should immediately increase the GIS to a level sufficient to lift every Canadian senior out of poverty.

It is socially and financially irresponsible for the government to, in the first place, utterly fail to make the necessary improvements to CPP and GIS to lift those Canadians now living in poverty out of it. It is reprehensible to further compromise the retirement security of Canadians by aiding and abetting employers determined to weaken workplace pension plans as the Canada Post Corporation is now doing.

Canadians across the country understand that the struggle of postal workers for a fair and decent pension is the struggle of all workers and, indeed, all Canadians. Other public sector workers certainly fully comprehend the implications of Canada Post's unfair and unwise demands to weaken hard fought for pension provisions.

They know that if Canada Post is successful in its determination to strip pensions, it is only a matter of time before a government committed to giving billions in corporate tax breaks and building gazebos comes looking for their pension benefits.

All workers understand that undermining pension benefits would create a downward pressure that would leave workers and seniors more vulnerable to the indignity of poverty in their retirement.

It is just days since all parties in this House, including the Conservatives, voted in favour of the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe. That motion called on this House to end seniors' poverty, agreed that it is fiscally feasible, and called on the government to take immediate steps to increase the guaranteed income supplement sufficiently to accomplish that goal.

The government now has the opportunity to show Canadians it has more than hollow promises to offer workers and seniors. As I am closing, I just want to reiterate my solidarity with all the members of CUPW and in particular those in my home town of Hamilton, led by president Mark Platt.

And of course I want to give a special shout out to all the men and women who work at the depots, in both Upper Gage and Upper James on Hamilton Mountain, whose service and sacrifice have strengthened our community and built friendships. We stand in solidarity to protect not just their pensions but those of workers who cannot yet conceive of the day they will need them. That solidarity is remarkable and inspiring, and it deserves the support of every member in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments. Tonight we are talking about Bill C-6, a bill to bring the mail back to Canadians. This is an important piece of legislation. It needs to be passed in a timely manner.

I appreciate at least the sentiment expressed in the member's comments. One way to express that through action is for the opposition to allow the legislation to move forward. The parties will have an opportunity to bring forward their points of view before an arbitrator, and the arbitrator will choose which one is appropriate.

The process outlined in the legislation tonight is very transparent. It would allow for an opportunity to deal with the issues that are raised by the opposition, but more importantly, it would also allow Canadians to receive their mail, create the economic synergies that we need to have during this fragile economic recovery, and provide people with what they need in their day to day lives, which is the mail.

Will the member please accept the legislation so we can deal with the issues she has raised and get a sustainable framework so Canada Post can do what it has been asked to do by the stakeholders and the Canadian people?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. One way to resolve this dispute is indeed to go to arbitration and to have final offer selection. Another way to resolve this dispute is to allow free collective bargaining to happen.

When the Minister of Labour stood up in the House and said there was a strike that needed to be resolved, she was clearly and categorically wrong. There is no strike. We are talking about a lockout. The workers have been locked out by Canada Post. So how do we get the mail going again in Canada? We stop locking the doors. Doing that is entirely within the government's ability.

I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he get serious about that, and that he have those conversations with his colleagues, because like him, I agree that the mail service in Canada is indeed an important public service.

I would suggest to the member that every single member of CUPW agrees with that premise. It is an important national service. It is a service that ought to be supported. That is our responsibility as members of Parliament. I would encourage him to go back to his colleagues, stop the lockout, and return to free collective bargaining in accordance with not only the laws of this country, but in fact ILO conventions, UN resolutions and, as the member would know, a long, proud tradition of most jurisdictions in the western world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and agree with the vast majority of what my colleague from Hamilton Mountain has shared with the House, and certainly the fact that this legislation is not only heavy-handed, but wrong-minded.

I think the best resolve is to get people back to work and to get the mail flowing, and I think we agree on that. During the comments made by her leader earlier this evening, he mentioned that he would be putting forth amendments in the very near future. Could she share with the House, within the time allotted, maybe two specific amendments that she would be putting forward?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member did not hear the response from our leader on that issue. We will be bringing amendments forward. This is not the time to be debating amendments, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, as the person who governs this process. That will happen in committee of the whole. We will be introducing amendments at that time. We will be debating them fully, and I would encourage the member to stick around and participate in that debate, no matter what time of night it happens.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words and wisdom of the chief opposition whip. We are always in store for an excellent presentation when she gets on her feet in the House.

I was quite interested in her comments in regard to poverty among seniors. That is a profound concern of mine.

The GIS was introduced in the mid-1960s because of the horrendous poverty among seniors in this country, and now we are seeing a return to that poverty. The GIS did indeed help.

The reality is that a quarter of a million seniors live in poverty in this country. My fear is that the blatant attempts of the government to undermine pension plans and to roll back pension security are going to lead to even greater disparity in the future.

I wonder if my esteemed colleague could comment on that.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for London—Fanshawe.

As I said earlier in my original comments, it is highly ironic that not only did the Conservative Party endorse my seniors' charter when I introduced that on behalf of the NDP in 2006 but it later supported a pension motion and just this week supported the motion by the member for London—Fanshawe, all espousing to support additional financial assistance for the poorest and neediest seniors in our country. While the Conservatives talk the talk, we have not seen them walk the walk.

I am keenly aware that it is 11:50 in the evening and I just want to point out a supreme irony here. Members in the House might not be aware that today, June 21, has actually been declared Public Service Day by the United Nations. It is a day to celebrate the value and virtue of public service to the community, to highlight the contribution of public service in the development process, to recognize the work of public services and to encourage young people to pursue careers in the public service. What a slap in the face to all public service workers that this is the day the government decided to begin debate on Bill C-6 and to bring in this draconian back to work legislation for public sector workers.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the NDP is the official party of big public sector labour unions, and this week, particularly after the speeches we have heard tonight, it is fair to say that big labour unions are getting their money's worth.

As elected officials, we are elected to serve the interests of all Canadians. How can the NDP continue to ignore seniors, citizens, the small business community and a growing number of Canada Post workers who just want to get back to work, put food on their tables, and see this legislation get passed?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to see the member read that question from his iPad, because that means he has Internet capabilities. I hope that every single person who is watching this debate at this rather late hour will send him emails to explain to him exactly how this can be done. I ask them to send the member an email that simply says “end the lockout”, because that is precisely the Conservative government's responsibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member meant to say today is June 23, which is Public Service Day. Today is apparently Thursday. Tomorrow will also be Thursday, but we have kept the same days of the month.

I did hear the answer from the hon. leader of the official opposition and I have heard that member's answer as well. I understand that we are to wait for the amendments at committee of the whole. Is there any chance that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain could give us a hint of the parameters of the areas she believes could lead to a resolution of the impasse in this chamber?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to do that. It basically requires that we allow negotiations to happen in accordance with the principles of free collective bargaining.