Bill C-89 (Historical)

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation 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 mediation process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties. It also empowers the mediator-arbitrator to impose an arbitration process to resolve matters that cannot be resolved through mediation.

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

One of the real questions here is whether this situation could have been avoided. A strike could have been avoided if the government had taken its responsibilities seriously and if it had appointed managers to Canada Post who would have taken the rate of illness and injuries seriously.

Does my colleague think the government did everything in its power to avoid the situation we are discussing here tonight?

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government did not do everything in its power.

Instead of really working hard and settling the dispute, the Liberals imposed special legislation. They wanted to settle a dispute, but they did not have the guts to really get to work. They decided to pass special legislation instead. It is as simple as that. It was less complicated for them.

They are acting in bad faith.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Before we go to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I will let him know there are only 12 minutes remaining in the time provided for debate at second reading of the motion that is before the House. We will get him started, just the same, and I will interrupt him at that 12-minute mark.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity, like many members, to listen to the debate over the last 24 hours. At times it can be a very emotional debate and I recognize that. I come at it from a different perspective in that in 2011 when I was on the other side of the House, the Liberal Party had third party status.

What we saw under Stephen Harper was a different approach to Canada Post. It was an approach that my caucus colleagues and I believe did not recognize the true value and contributions made by Canada Post workers for generations in Canada. Whether it is door-to-door delivery or sorting the mail, Canada Post workers' sense of commitment to providing quality service has been there virtually from day one.

We were quite taken aback and disappointed with Stephen Harper when he initiated a number of changes. His back-to-work legislation was profoundly different and cannot be compared with what we are introducing today, or just his government's general lack of respect for the Crown corporation. Many individuals honestly believed that the Conservatives had a hidden agenda, one that wanted to see the demise or the privatization of Canada Post. There were many individuals who were of that opinion.

My colleagues and I were quite upset with the government of the day. We did make some commitments in the last election. I am happy to say that on virtually all fronts, we have acted on those commitments, even the ones related to Canada Post. When I look at what I have witnessed over the last 24 hours, I am somewhat discouraged by how some in the chamber have turned this into a political manipulation of our union movement.

I will compare my 30 years as a parliamentarian, having worked with New Democrat governments in the province of Manitoba, with that of any New Democrat. I do not need to be told about the importance of collective agreements, because I was there during minority governments. My colleague remembers quite well the issue of final offer selection and how the provincial Liberals tried to save that and the NDP in opposition sabotaged it. That is true. I was there when I witnessed other New Democrat regimes bring in back-to-work legislation.

However, if we listened to the debate over the last 24 hours, we would think that there is not a New Democrat member of the House who would ever support back-to-work legislation. That is just not true. That is the impression members are trying to those who provide our fantastic postal services. We need to reinforce how much we appreciate the day-in and day-out service that our letter carriers and mail sorters put in. On this side of the House we appreciate and value that work.¸

The amount of hypocrisy that I have witnessed from the New Democrat caucus is overwhelming. We have had many NDP premiers, and over a dozen times they have brought in back-to-work legislation. By the way, the New Democrats are the same party provincially and federally. It is only the NDP in opposition who try to give a false impression that they are the only party that cares about unions.

I can tell the House that this government understands and appreciates the importance of harmony within the workplace. That means we are behind our workers in Canada. If members look at the government initiatives we have implemented since virtually day one under this Prime Minister, they will see that these aimed at getting rid of the legislation the Conservatives brought in through the back door to harm our union movement. Some of the very first legislation that we saw introduced in the House was brought forward to deal with that.

When we talk about the working person here in Canada, it was this government that understood the importance of pensions. We negotiated agreements with all of the provinces and territories on the CPP, realizing how important retirement income is.

When we talk about this particular legislation, and I say this to all of our Canada Post workers, it is profoundly different from all of the Conservatives' legislation, and there is still the opportunity to see a sense of fairness at the table. I would tell the Canada Post workers whom I represent in Winnipeg North not to believe the New Democrats, who are trying to hoodwink members, because at the end of the day we believe in protecting our workers' rights. This legislation was designed to ensure a sense of equality and opportunity not only for Canada Post, but also for its workers in particular. We do not need to take a lesson from my New Democrat friend across the way.

I was here when the New Democrats played that little game of trickery during the vote. The member for Hamilton was in cabinet in an NDP government that not once, not twice, but three times voted to bring in legislation forcing teachers back to work. That was back-to-work legislation. He stood in his place and voted for it. He was not the only New Democrat currently on the benches here who did that. The member who sits right beside him also did so. However, in some sort of a principled stand, they then get up and say they are defending the unions. Excuse me for being somewhat skeptical of the actions I have witnessed over the last 24 hours by the party I had always thought was a bit more straightforward.

Maybe it is because I am from the province of Manitoba, but in Manitoba we recognize the important role that our unions have played in society. In 2019, we will mark the 100th anniversary of the 1919 union strike. The organizing committees and much of the organizing took place in my home constituency of Winnipeg North. I am very proud of that. For 30 years I have talked about the importance of the union movement. If we look at many of the positive social programs that we have today, they are in good part because of union activists. It was people within the union movement who said that it was not about political parties, but about the betterment of society.

I have had the opportunity to talk with letter carriers and mail sorters. I can say that no one wants to see a strike. We did not want to see this take place. The NDP are trying to give the false impression that we are biased toward Canada Post. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every member on this side of the House wanted to see a negotiated agreement between Canada Post and the union management representatives. It does not make me happy that we had to resort to bringing in this legislation.

I do not like the fact that my New Democrat friends tried to give the false impression that I am glad this legislation is being tabled. I am not glad, but I do recognize its importance.

The economy has changed, absolutely. Some people across the way might not recognize that. Thirty years ago e-commerce on the Internet was nowhere like it is today. Today, e-commerce generates hundreds if not thousands of jobs here in Canada, good, solid, middle-class jobs. Those are important jobs, as are the jobs in all the different industries in our country.

Think in terms of those seniors or individuals with disabilities who are very dependent on the mail. Imagine how important the Christmas season is for many companies to realize the profits that are so important to carry them over January and February.

To give the impression that our economy is not hurting at all, even from a rotating strike, is somewhat of an exaggeration. The government has to do its job and protect the economy and protect the interests of Canadians so they can receive valuable parcels, whether of contact lenses, Christmas presents, or cheques from insurance companies. All of these things are absolutely critical at this time of the year.

Sometimes governments have to make tough decisions, and that is really what this has been about. This was a tough, regrettable decision that had to be made to ensure that Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, as well as those in need, are served by what has been an incredible workforce in Canada, our letter carriers and postal workers.

I will conclude my remarks by paying tribute to what is a first-class Canada Post and those who work for it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 10:52 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 #948

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole. I do now leave the chair of the House to go into committee of the whole.

(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Mr. Bruce Stanton in the chair)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to open the session of the committee of the whole on Bill C-89 by making a short statement regarding the proceedings.

Pursuant to an order made earlier this evening, not more than one hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the committee of the whole stage. Any division requested in the committee shall be deferred until the end of the committee's consideration of the bill. At the expiry of this period, any proceedings before the committee of the whole shall be interrupted and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

During the consideration of the bill during committee of the whole the general rules of debate are as follows. Members shall speak for not more than 20 minutes at a time and are not permitted to split their time without unanimous consent. While there is no formal period for questions and comments, members may use their time to either speak or ask questions and the responses will be counted in the time allotted to that member.

Finally, members may speak more than once and need not be in their seats to be recognized.

The committee will now proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). The study of clause 1 is postponed. I therefore will proceed with debate on Clause 2.

(On Clause 2)