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.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, our government has gone to considerable lengths to bring about the renewal of Canada Post. We believe it is a uniquely important national institution that will continue to serve all Canadians from coast to coast to coast while also helping small, medium and large businesses thrive at home and abroad.

That mission to serve Canadians is at the heart of the new vision for renewal I had the honour to put forward earlier this year. This renewed direction took into consideration the evidence and perspectives gathered during the comprehensive review launched in May 2016, including the work of the independent task force, the report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and input from Canadians.

I know the employees of Canada Post remain deeply committed to serving Canadians. They work hard every day to do exactly that. Our new vision for renewal is forward-looking, not nostalgic. We believe Canada Post and its dedicated employees will be serving Canadians for decades to come. Therefore, they must continue to innovate and adapt to the rapidly changing expectations of their customers and a competitive, dynamic business environment.

To create the foundation needed for renewal, we put in place new leadership with a mandate to implement that vision in collaboration with employees and their union representatives. In addition, this leadership is part of our work to incorporate greater diversity and broader perspectives within the corporation, including those of labour.

The new leadership has made significant efforts over recent months to reorient the relationship between the corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in particular. On some fronts, progress has been made. Decisive actions have been taken to address some long-standing issues such as bullying and harassment.

The two parties worked hard to engage in a respectful dialogue on the need to work together to renew Canada Post. This dialogue is set to continue in the coming months and years, once a new collective agreement is signed.

Despite considerable efforts, this work has not yet translated into success at the bargaining table. My colleague, the labour minister, has exhausted every means to assist the parties to reach a fair resolution, and still no deal has occurred. We are at the point of placing in jeopardy Canada Post's ability to deliver for Canadians during the crucial holiday season. The scale of the backlog in the national network caused by rotating strikes over the past several weeks is significant. It will take some time to clear that backlog, especially as volumes are ramping up dramatically.

What we have seen to date is about to be amplified as we enter into the absolute apex of activity in e-commerce, starting today with Black Friday and continuing with Cyber Monday just a few short days away. Canada Post is responsible for 70% of those e-commerce deliveries. That is 70% of e-commerce deliveries in our country. The rotating strikes and the backlog are clearly taking their toll.

We know that two-thirds of small and medium-sized enterprises surveyed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business report being affected by the strikes. We know that costs are around $3,000 per business in terms of lost sales, cancelled orders, delays or costs due to the use of more expensive delivery alternatives.

We also know that, these days, more and more Canadians are shopping online, which has created a growing need for parcel delivery. During the 2017 holiday season, Canada Post delivered more parcels than in previous years. Clearly, the ability to send and receive mail is very important to Canadians.

In the event of a lengthy postal strike, we could start to see many companies, particularly smaller e-commerce companies, not survive the season.

The disruption is also becoming an international problem for Canada. Recently, Canada Post had no choice but to advise international partners to stop sending mail and parcels to Canada. Let me repeat: International partners have stopped sending mail and parcels to Canada. Our government is exerting enormous efforts to advance Canada's position in global trade, and action is required now to prevent postal disruption from undermining the successes that support so many middle-class jobs.

We have ample evidence of the harm to small and medium-sized enterprises that rely heavily on an efficient e-commerce delivery chain, and to charities counting on ramped-up fundraising through the mail during the holiday season.

Our government also recognizes the important services that Canada Post and its employees provide, especially for older Canadians, persons with disabilities, low-income earners and Canadians living in rural, remote and northern areas. These Canadians are hit the hardest during a postal strike.

This is precisely why we have been doing everything possible to help the parties reach agreements that work for everyone. It has been important to give the process every chance to succeed.

Our government has always recognized the right to collective bargaining. Federal conciliators and mediators have helped the parties through their negotiations for nearly one year. When the negotiations reached an impasse, we appointed a special mediator to take a fresh perspective of the situation.

To keep the momentum going, we once again appointed the special mediator in an effort to maintain that momentum, but no agreement could be reached. Voluntary arbitration was then offered and a special mediator was brought in for a third attempt to resolve the differences. When we say that all options have been exhausted, we mean it.

With negotiations completely stalled and weeks of rolling strikes going by, it has become clear that our government is left with only one remaining option.

This does not begin to describe the economic and reputational harm to Canada Post. Again, this is not a road we wanted to go down, but the stakes are too high. We must do what Canadians put us here to do, and that is to protect their interests. Now, with balanced legislation, we are acknowledging that non-intervention will cause harm to a broad swath of economic and social actors.

Canadians need an end to the impasse: individuals in communities of all sizes, small and micro-businesses, medium and larger enterprises and charities. We have an obligation, in the best interests of our constituents, in fact of all Canadians, to move forward with this legislation.

Canadians need Canada Post. They need the corporation's management, its dedicated employees and their representatives to deliver for them this holiday season. They need labour and management to get on with the longer-term job of renewal of Canada Post, so it continues serving the evolving needs of all Canadians for decades to come, providing safe and fairly compensated work for its dedicated people.

This is why we need to support this balanced legislation.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we heard time and again this morning that the government had only one option, and that was to violate the workers' constitutional right to strike. I would like to make a proposal and hear the minister's response.

There was one other option, and an equivalent option. That is to put the onus on the employer to accept what CUPW has asked at the bargaining table. Instead, it is pretty clear that the government is on one side, and that is on the side of the employer and not to protect the constitutional right of workers. I would like the minister to respond to that.

[Carla Qualtrough]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that our government is very committed to workers' rights and the labour movement itself. We have demonstrated through a number of initiatives that we are absolutely committed. I think of our groundbreaking pay equity legislation recently and what that would do for workers across the country.

With respect to Canada Post, the vision we put forward focuses on Canadians and service to Canadians. At the same time, we have asked the new leadership team to serve Canadians and renew and repair an incredibly fragmented relationship, which basically disintegrated during the Harper Conservatives. We have asked it to make this into an operational business model that will serve Canadians for decades to come, be competitive with respect to the business services it provides and be reliable so Canadians know they can get both their mail and their parcels.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about the government dilly-dallying and delaying so much in acting on Canada Post. Two and a half years ago, we went on the road for three weeks. We heard very clearly that Canada Post was in trouble. We are looking at three-quarters of a billion dollars in losses, which the taxpayers will have to absorb down the road, and there is no plan yet from the government to address it.

We have asked when Canada Post is going to have a permanent president. We were told in committee in April that it would be any month. It is seven months later and there still is no new president. The minister just stated that the government had tasked the new leadership team to address the issues, but there is no new leader for Canada Post.

Why is the government waiting so long to address these important issues: the pension liability, the new president and a long-term plan for Canada Post?

[Carla Qualtrough]

Mr. Speaker, we heard clearly two things from Canadians.

First, we heard that they really loved Canada Post. If we politicians had the same approval ratings that Canada Post has, we would be in very good stead.

The other thing we heard was that Canadians did not want to pay for Canada Post. Therefore, our new vision for Canada Post includes tasking the leadership with focusing on a sustainable business model that does not rely on the government to bail it out. As it approaches these negotiations, it has to understand that this is an operating business, a competitive business.

As mail volume has decreased and parcel volume has increased, there are a lot of other players in the parcel business. We want to ensure that Canada Post has a flexible, innovative, creative business model moving forward to keep it competitive and to keep it being Canadians' parcel deliverer of choice, because that is what we heard.

With respect to the appointment of a permanent president, I can assure the member that is coming in the weeks or months ahead. We need to get the right person. I am confident we currently have the right person in the interim president, but I can assure the member there will be new leadership in the new year.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask our minister what this bill will do for Canada's economy.

Also, what does she think will happen to Canadians if such legislation is not passed at this time of year?

[Carla Qualtrough]

Mr. Speaker, the impact of the rotating strikes on the Canadian economy is very real. We have heard concerns from many small business owners and from many Canadians. Some of these small businesses earn up to 25% of their annual revenue in the months preceding Christmas. Consequently, if they cannot get their fares out to their customers, they risk having to close their doors.

We have heard from business associations and from the Retail Council of Canada. We have heard from people who own small, single-person businesses that are run out of their houses to major corporations that will be taking their business elsewhere. We have no guarantee they will bring it back.

With respect to the future viability of Canada Post, we have to understand the impact, not only short term but long term as well. However, the short-term impact is real. Businesses are losing business. We are now at the point that although there is an agreement that government cheques will be delivered, those cheques are being delayed. People are not getting their cheques. Even though they will get them eventually, there is a delay. When people rely on a cheque to buy food, even a day or two delay can be quite consequential for them and their families.

I can assure the member that we have sufficient and significant evidence of impact on the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two things to which I want to respond.

First, the minister said that she was concerned about reputational harm to Canada Post because of the strike. This is an indication of just how backward the priorities of the Liberal government are. Last year the company had 25% of its workforce injured on the job. It has five times the injury rate of the average in the federally regulated sector, yet the government is not concerned about the reputational harm that does. This tells me that the government is concerned about what companies like eBay and Amazon think about Canada Post, not about what working people think when they look at an injury rate like that in the workplace. Therefore, let us get on to addressing the reputational harm being done to Canada Post because of its injury rate.

The second thing that needs to be addressed is this. The minister talked about government cheques. My office has been receiving emails from postal workers with evidence of the fact that management at Canada Post has ordered them to withhold those cheques and not deliver them. If we on this side of the House know that, then it is unbelievable that the minister does not know about it. Why did she not bother to do anything about it when Canada Post issued that missive? This is not the first time we have brought this up in the House.

The fact is that if she wants to raise that issue, she should be talking about why Canada Post told postal workers to withhold those cheques. They delivered those cheques on a volunteer basis in 2011, when they were locked out. Postal workers are committed to ensuring that people who need that money get paid. It is management that has been running interference. That is the minister's job. What is she doing about it?

[Carla Qualtrough]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I understand and respect the hard work of our postal workers. That is not at all what we are talking about today.

I can also assure you that we are concerned about the occupational health and safety of postal workers and that Canada Post is absolutely committed to addressing the reality of workplace injuries. That is one of my top priorities with respect to Canada Post.

With regard to my mention, with all due respect, of the reputational harm, I actually said that in passing. I know that is not the number one concern. However, if we want the good-paying jobs for postal workers three to five years from now, we need at Canada Post.

The number one priority for us is ensuring that individuals get their cheques and get their parcels so businesses can certainly do their business going into this season, when 25% to 30% of their annual revenue is being generated. I too have received so many emails and letters from individuals who are pleading with us to find a solution. We are absolutely committed to finding a way forward on this.

As I said, this is not the ideal situation, but it is a prudent course of action, given where we are now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, I want to remind hon. members that when they are asking or answering a question, to use the third person and not directly at the person across the floor. It makes for a better debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member fo Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to say with respect to this issue, so I am thankful for the opportunity to put some thoughts on the record about what is going on here.

There is an important thing to acknowledge at the outset. The substance of what we are talking about is a rotating strike at Canada Post that was designed to not completely interrupt the operation of Canada Post. By and large, people have actually been getting their mail. We have heard the numbers from people on the ground and in the plants who deliver the mail, and I think the government, along with management, is grossly exaggerating the extent of the backlog.

Nevertheless, we are talking about people's right to strike. We are talking about the right of Canadian workers to strike. I think it bears saying that nobody goes on strike lightly. Strikes are not pleasant or fun for the people who take part. They do it because they ultimately feel like they have no other recourse than to withhold their work to get their employer to pay attention to the demands they are making.

In this case, some of the central demands are about the injury rate and unplanned, mandatory overtime. Reasons vary from strike to strike, but the ultimate point is that it takes a lot to get workers to a place where they feel that the only thing left for them to do is not perform their work and put pressure on their employer to hear their demands so as to come to some kind of reasonable deal at the negotiating table.

Nobody should think that postal workers out there are happy to be on strike or that this is their first option. It comes at a financial price to the workers on strike, including in the case of this rotating strike. Nobody is getting paid for the days they are not working.

It is important to say that, and it is important to emphasize the right to collective bargaining. That is how workers have made gains over the past 100 or more years in order to get safe workplaces and better wages.

It is a right that is so important that it bears mentioning that the right itself is being contested today and has been contested in the past. In the general strike of 1919 in my home city of Winnipeg, the central demand was for the right to bargain collectively. At that time, it was typical that governments would step in and help companies bust up unions to make collective bargaining illegal in a workplace, which incidentally is what this Liberal law will do in the Canada Post workplace. That is why tens of thousands of people, both unionized and non-unionized workers, went out into the street. It was not because of a wage demand. It was because people saw the importance of collective bargaining in order to make a difference in their work life, their family life and in the life of their community.

Indeed, when workers have had that right to bargain collectively, we have seen healthier communities. On average, workers are paid in the order of about $5 more an hour when they have a union as opposed to when they do not. We know that some of the great gains in workplace safety and health that have happened over the last 100 or 150 years have been because organized workers in their workplaces have pushed the envelope. They pushed the envelope politically by electing people out of the labour movement to come into places like this to push those gains and have them applied to all workers, not just to workers in a unionized workplace. Collective bargaining has made that possible.

It is important to emphasize again, because the government seems to have forgotten, that the Supreme Court has recognized this form of bargaining. It is about getting together in the workplace when something is wrong that is affecting everybody in the workplace, and going to an employer with a united voice to say that something has to change. They like their work. They are proud of their work. They want to keep doing their work, but they want to be treated fairly. They want to be paid fairly and they want to come home at the end of the day. That is a right that Canadians enjoy.

RCMP members who were fighting for that right and who were barred by federal legislation for 100 years from bargaining collectively fought that battle in the Supreme Court and won in January 2015, winning a victory for themselves and for workers across the country to have that confirmed.

The Ontario Supreme Court confirmed that right in 2016 when it ruled on the back-to-work legislation of the Harper government, noting that it was unconstitutional.

I expect that that will be confirmed again by the court, because we have back-to-work legislation, again, that impinges on the right of Canadian workers to bargain collectively in their workplace to do better for themselves and their communities. We have heard from the union representing postal workers that, unfortunately, it is going to have to take the current government to court.

What it wants is a government willing to respect and defend the right to bargain collectively without a court order. I do not think that is a lot to ask.

As I said, we are coming up on the 100th anniversary of the 1919 general strike. That strike lasted six weeks, cut across all industries, cut across already unionized members and non-unionized members, and the point was to safeguard this right. We have made a lot of progress since then.

It is amazing to me that even now, in the 21st century, after the court has said it is a charter right of Canadians to bargain collectively, after we have seen all the evidence of the good that collective bargaining has done for Canadian workers over the last 100 years, we would be in this place, of all places, arguing against a government that is introducing legislation to deny that right to a category of Canadian workers. I think that is shameful. I wanted to just back up a little and talk about the importance of collective bargaining in general and what it has done.

Now I would like to talk a little about another aspect of what we are discussing today, which is a motion that pertains to the back-to-work legislation that will significantly curtail debate on the legislation itself. It bears noting that we are not yet even debating the legislation itself. We only saw that legislation yesterday, and by the end of the day today, or in the wee hours of Saturday morning, that will all be said and done. It will be over.

We saw the actual wording of the legislation yesterday, and sometime just after midnight tonight this whole thing is going to be said and done with. I do not think that is what people expect when it comes to serious scrutiny of legislation. I think people expect there to be a role for Parliament in making these kinds of decisions. The fact of the matter is, when that is all the time there is, there is not.

Who are the people most directly affected by this legislation? It is the postal workers. They were not here on the Hill yesterday when the government tabled the legislation. They are out, across the country, for the most part, still delivering the mail. It is only a rotating strike. Most of them are at work. Any Canadian who is receiving a letter in their mailbox today will know that those postal workers are out working, as they have been since October 22 when the rotating strikes began. There were only a few days in any one particular area that actually had a meaningful disruption of service, and otherwise the mail has been delivered on time.

The question becomes, why is it that the postal workers do not have a chance for what is in the legislation to filter down? The government is making some argument here about how it is going to have a mediator, and how it is going to do this and that. It is anything to distract from the fact that it is actually taking away those workers' constitutional right to bargain at the negotiating table, which is what they and their duly elected representatives at the Canadian Union of Post Workers have said that they want to do. It is anything to distract from that.

However, postal workers are not going to have a chance to debate or talk about that amongst themselves, because they are out doing their job. The legislation was only made public yesterday. By the time this all wraps up and the postal worker who has been out delivering the mail, Monday to Friday, has an opportunity on Saturday to try to catch up on what has been happening here, what they are going to read is that they have already been legislated to work on Monday.

It is not just that politicians in this place want more time to discuss the legislation. That is not the only thing that is wrong with this super-closure motion that does not even allow for as many MPs as would like to get up and speak to the legislation, it puts a limit on the debate of several hours. It is ignoring the usual rules of this place, which means that only 10 or 12 MPs, at half an hour each, would be able to rise in this place to give a speech.

It is not just that. It is also the time that it takes for information about what is happening here to filter down to the real people it affects, and then for them to be able to send feedback back here, in terms of what they think.

However, the Liberals are taking away that opportunity from members of this place and also members of civil society and the workers who are going to be directly affected by this back-to-work legislation. I say shame on the government for that.

I want to address some of the particular issues of this strike. We are now in a position where the government has decided to get involved. I would argue that the government should have been involved on the issues, not the bargaining process, a long time ago, because none of these issues are new. None of these issues are a surprise. The fact of the matter is that one of the principal reasons Canada Post workers are out on strike is because they have an obscenely high rate of injury in the workplace.

Canada Post has a long history. It is an institution that has been around for a long time, but that injury rate has not. In the last 10 years or so there have been major changes in the way that Canada Post does its delivery, the system it uses and the equipment that it has asked postal workers to use, which has correlated with a serious increase in the injury rate. The way they plan their routes has also correlated with an increase in the use of mandatory overtime and injury rate. That is what postal workers are out there for.

If we take those injury numbers and project forward between now and Christmas, if things go just as they have been going at Canada Post, we are talking about at least 315 disabling injuries happening to postal workers between when this legislation passes and Christmas Day. That is an obscene level of injury.

I worked in the construction industry as an electrician before getting elected to this place. If I had showed up on a job site and been told that in the last year 25% of the construction workers who walked onto the site were injured, members better believe they would have a hard time finding people willing to do that. Therefore, it is a testament to the dedication of postal workers. It is exactly because they take pride in their job, and exactly because they believe in the work they are doing and understand the importance of people getting their mail, particularly vulnerable people and seniors who depend on getting that door-to-door delivery. Postal workers understand that better than anyone. It is a testament to them and their dedication that they have been out doing that work.

However, it is tough to hear the minister impugning their motives and talking about needing to do this on behalf of the vulnerable, on behalf of people who need their cheque, when we know, because we have been seen the evidence of it to our offices in pictures and emails and everything else, that there was a missive sent out by Canada Post management ordering the withholding of those OAS, GIS or social assistance cheques. If I were a postal worker, frankly, I cannot use the word to describe how I would feel because it is not parliamentary, but I would be angry if I heard, after receiving an order like that from management, that the minister was getting up in the House and blaming a rotating strike for the fact that those people were not getting paid. We know full well that it is because management chose to withhold those cheques that people are not getting paid.

I would point to an example from 2011 when postal workers were not on strike but locked out. It was the company that said it wanted to put a kibosh on delivering the mail, because it would put pressure on the government, or give an excuse. I do not think Canada Post needed to put pressure on the Harper government to intervene, but it provided a fig leaf for the Harper government to come in and legislate them back to work. The company locked them out, but postal workers showed up voluntarily to deliver people's cheques, because they knew the effect that would have. They should have expected some reciprocity from the government.

However, the minister has the audacity to get up in this place and talk about how concerned she is about people not getting their cheques. What about the Canada Post workers that the company cut off on October 22 when the rotating strike began, who were on short-term disability and have not been paid since, or the mothers who were on maternity leave and budgeted based on a top-up in their collective agreement that the company summarily took away from them? What about those people? Where is the concern for them?

What about the people on long-term disability who were denied their payments because of the company? Where is the sympathy for them? Where is the action for them? There are crocodile tears, indeed, from this minister, who wants to get up and sing some big swan song about people not being paid, when we know that postal workers would be happy to make sure that those cheques were delivered.

This is a government that did not even have the decency to make sure that people who are on short-term disability, because they work in a workplace with one of the highest injury rates in the country, were getting their cheques from the government. It is too much, frankly. It really is. One can get pretty worked up about it, and I have, on occasion.

It is all pretty rich coming from a government that says that it wants to stand up for women in the workplace and that it believes in pay equity. One of the major issues of this strike, along with the injury rate, is the fact that rural and suburban mail carriers, who are predominantly women, are not paid the same for doing the exact same work as their counterparts in urban centres, where there is a higher percentage of men delivering that mail. That is one of the union's key demands.

We have the minister of labour, on the one hand, getting up and bragging about pay equity legislation, which, if and when passed, will come into effect some 10 years from now. We are supposed to give her a pat on the back and be really proud of her for the great work she is doing, when the government is screwing Canada Post workers with this back-to-work legislation and not letting them get meaningful action on pay equity. This is something it could do now, just by getting out of the way, at least.

It would be better if the government gave a meaningful mandate to the Canada Post managers it hired and told them to get to the bargaining table and get serious about pay equity, get serious about reducing the injury rate, and actually listen to what the union is proposing, because the government wants a deal that brings that injury rate down and brings meaningful pay equity to postal workers. That is what the government should be doing.

Instead, from the beginning, there has been inaction. The Liberals talk about how negotiations have been going on for a year but have not gotten anywhere. That is because Canada Post management clearly does not have a mandate to make progress. Canada Post does not have a mandate to take the demands of the union seriously, when it comes to the workplace injury rate or pay equity, or we would have seen some movement, and we have not. There is a reason for that.

The Liberal government is now saying that now there is a crisis, and it has no choice but to do this. It has had a choice. The Liberals have had a choice since they formed the government to put a management team in Canada Post that was going to tackle these issues and make meaningful progress so that by the time they got to the bargaining table, there was a better relationship because there was evidence of it actually reducing the injury rate and making progress on pay equity. They decided not to do that. That is how we got here.

When the rotating strike began, and Canada Post made the callous decision to punish its most sick and vulnerable workers, the government could have sent a signal that this was not okay, that it was not going to be that kind of bargaining. If management at Canada Post thought it was to go on the attack to try to break this strike instead of taking meaningful action on those demands, it was going to have to answer to the government. Instead, the government stood silent.

We stood up day after day asking the government to do something about it, and it took a pass. If my colleagues think that did not send a clear message to Canada Post that it was going to get off the hook acting like a bunch of Pinkertons and strike breakers, they have another think coming.

Two weeks into the rotating strike, when the government signalled a readiness to bring in back-to-work legislation, it poisoned the well. From that point on, at least when it was public, there was no chance that Canada Post was going to provide a negotiated deal at the table, because it knew that the government was going to come in and save its skin. For the Liberal members to get up and tell us that they had no choice or that they have not been partisan in these negotiations is just a total load of crap. Wake up.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult conversation. I agree with the minister when she says that a negotiated outcome and decision would be better.

The parties do not seem to be close. There are obviously consequences for the Canadian economy more broadly. I do not say that as a member of the government formally, but I can imagine sitting in the minister's shoes and looking more broadly at my responsibility to the Canadian economy and Canadian society. I have heard about the impact on small business and international commerce. How do we balance all these considerations?

The member was very insistent that this legislation would be unconstitutional. However, we know that in 2011, when the court made a decision that the 2011 legislation was unconstitutional, it was because it was not minimally impairing and did not allow the union to have an equal footing in the mediation and arbitration process, which this legislation, in my view, would do in a proper way.

I wonder if the member can speak to minimal impairment and why he thinks this legislation is unconstitutional.

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

Mr. Speaker, I said that the union is going to be taking this legislation to court, and I suspect that it may well find that the government does not respect people's right to bargain collectively, because it should be at the table.

If we heard it from the Conservatives it would be one thing. We are hearing it from a government that swears up and down that it believes in the collective bargaining process.

I talked about all the things the government has done in terms of failing to act on the injury rate and other things. This crisis did not just come because the workers, as a last resort, decided to go out on rotating strikes. These are not new issues. They did not come out of nowhere. Instead of trying to put this on Canada Post workers, who are using their tool of last resort to get action, the government needs to own up and say that it should have been doing something about this a long time ago. It needs to recognize the fact that a number of actions the government took in this process over the last four weeks or five weeks poisoned the well. That is not what good-faith collective bargaining looks like, and it is certainly not what a government that supports collective bargaining looks like.

As long as governments that profess to be supportive of collective bargaining are the ones to undercut it and effectively take it away, then, legal point notwithstanding, we are not going to find ourselves in a position in Canada where workers are able to exercise their rights meaningfully. Companies are going to know that when they come asking, as long as they are big enough, as long as they are an eBay, a Netflix, a Facebook or an Air Canada, and I am thinking about what the Liberals did to aircraft maintenance workers with Bill C-10, which allowed Air Canada to offshore a bunch of maintenance work, contrary to what the government was saying before the election, the government is going to see to it that they get their way. Workers are not going to have meaningful rights in Canada, whatever their legal status is.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague's track record in raising concerns by union members and constituents in his riding. I would like him to address two things. I have been hearing from a lot of small and medium-sized businesses in my riding, recently from a Bobcat business and The Bowmanville Foundry, about problems with payments because of the mail situation. I would like the member to comment on whether he is hearing those same concerns. I think what Parliament needs to balance are these concerns.

I would also like his comments on the parliamentary secretary and how that member, when he was in opposition, certainly took a different approach to back-to-work legislation and how it must frustrate the NDP to see the Liberals on their side in opposition and not on their side in government. I would like his thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to comment on a couple of things. I will start with the last one. It has been a real disappointment. I think we can see in the ashen look of the parliamentary secretary when he gets up to speak that he does not even believe what he is saying. However, he is part of a government, whatever the principles of the people who may happen to belong to it are, that is first and foremost committed to Bay Street.

In this case, the oddity is that it is Canada Post. It is a publicly run corporation, so the question is why the government would not do something about it. The answer is the letter from eBay. A big multinational is upset about what is going on, so the government has to jump to it. I do not think the parliamentary secretary believes what he is saying, and all the more the shame. On something this important, we should be getting a sincere answer. If the government cannot provide a sincere answer, that is how we know it is doing the wrong thing.

On the question of businesses being impacted by the rotating strikes, first of all, I express some sympathy. There is some disruption. There is no strike without disruption. Part of the point is to show the value of the work postal workers do every day, and when they are not there to do it, it is a problem. However, when 25% of them are being injured in a year, there is going to be a crisis eventually. It is not going to be because of a strike; it is going to be because they cannot maintain the workforce that is out pounding the pavement and getting those letters and parcels delivered. There is a crisis at Canada Post in terms of the injury rate, and something needs to be done about it.

I have sympathy for business. I have sympathy for Canadians. I am among them. Christmas is coming, and we do online shopping too. It is inconvenient. It is a pain. I understand that. However, I do not think it is appropriate to put this all back on workers who have been working under terrible conditions for years.

We need to be asking why Canada Post does not take responsibility for the fact that there has been a work stoppage because there is a seriously high injury rate and other issues of fairness in its workplace. It should be it sorted out for the sake of business.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we just had a government member stand up and ask the opposition to explain why this proposed back-to-work legislation might be unconstitutional. All we know for sure is that the last time the Government of Canada ordered postal workers back to work, it was ruled unconstitutional.

A way we might be able to figure out whether this proposed legislation is also unconstitutional is by having a full debate on it in the House and a rigorous study of it at committee. If even Liberal MPs are asking whether this legislation is unconstitutional, it really seems to make the case against the motion to accelerate the back-to-work legislation and in favour of doing our due diligence as parliamentarians.

Something else the government has said is a bit rich. We heard the Minister of Public Services and Procurement say that other countries have stopped delivering mail to Canada, as though this is some sort of international crisis. It is pretty important to put on the record that the reason other countries are not delivering mail to Canada is that Canada Post itself has asked them not to. There is a problem with the government taking an action from Canada Post management and using it as a justification for applying back-to-work legislation against its employees.

I wonder if the member for Elmwood—Transcona can think of any other instances of the government using that tactic in this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the great frustrations of this whole situation. We have had Canada Post management claim that there is a huge backlog. We have reports from the people who actually work in the facilities where the trucks are saying that those numbers are hugely inflated.

As the member rightly pointed out, we have Canada Post telling mail services outside of Canada not to send mail into Canada and then saying, “Oh my God, nobody's sending mail to Canada. This is terrible. We need to have back-to-work legislation”. We have a minister who herself got up earlier and talked about people's assistance cheques not being delivered. She failed to mention the fact that, actually, Canada Post management told its employees that they were not allowed to deliver that mail.

This has been part of the problem all along. It is consistent with the pattern of signalling we have seen from the government when it decided to ignore the attack on sick and vulnerable workers and when it signalled, only a couple of weeks into the strike, that it was contemplating back-to-work legislation. It has been complicit in, and in fact, is now starting to repeat, these trumped-up claims by management about a crisis.

These are textbook strike-breaking techniques. It is not a mystery what they are doing or where the ideas come from. This is the way these things are done. To see a government that says that it is pro-labour and wants to defend the middle class and have a good relationship with Canada's unions using the textbook techniques of strike-breaking, right here in this place with its legislation, is just too much to take, frankly. It makes me really angry. I hope Canadians out there who are working people who want fairness in their workplaces and fair wages are paying attention and can see through this sham.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of my favourite expressions is that everybody is a democrat when they win. However, the true test to determine people's commitment to a principle of democracy is how they act when they lose, because the whole system is predicated upon people ascribing to a principle that in exchange for a peaceful exchange of ideas in a competition for votes, everybody agrees to live by the end result. That is how we know if someone really believes in democracy.

It is the same thing when it comes to labour rights. A lot of people profess to believe in free collective bargaining as a fundamental right. However, the true test of whether or not they really do is how they act when presented with a situation where they have to actually implement a decision.

In this case here, we are watching a government that has clearly showed its true nature, that when push comes to shove, it absolutely rejects the notion of and will trample over the rights of Canadians to exercise their right to free collective bargaining. I will develop that idea in a moment, but I want to pause for a moment to talk about process.

With respect to democracy, the Liberal government has tabled legislation that purports to limit debate of members of Parliament in this House on something as important as back-to-work legislation that will be implemented on a national scale, country-wide, on a major Canadian Crown corporation. It wants to limit debate to a few hours. That is unbelievable.

It does not matter where we sit on the merits of the question before the House. I think all Canadians who are fair-minded, all Canadians who value democracy, all Canadians who understand the need for a free and fair exchange of ideas in debate in this chamber will condemn a government that does not have the courage to allow the people in this House to fully express not only their thoughts on this legislation but also the interests and opinions of the constituents who we come to this House to represent. That is shameful and it is cowardly.

I want to talk about free collective bargaining. People either believe in it or they do not. The way we determine whether or not politicians or policy-makers really believe in it is how they act when the chips are on the table.

Here we have a rotating strike by Canada Post workers. We have job action that is being taken. What is happening? We are being inconvenienced. The country is being inconvenienced. Customers are being inconvenienced. Businesses are being inconvenienced. We all are being inconvenienced. That is what the purpose of job action is. It is the withdrawal of services or a lockout by management which is intended to put economic pressure on the other side and the members of the public as a means for resolving the issues between the parties when they are unable to do so by agreement. That is what job action is. That is what a strike does. That is what a lockout does.

Therefore, for the Liberals to say that they believe in free collective bargaining but they will interfere to make sure that nobody will ever actually be able to take that final job action, which is the final expression of the right to free collective bargaining, makes a mockery of their so-called avowed commitment to the principle of free collective bargaining. Saying that one believes in the right of free collective bargaining but not in the right to exercise the right to strike or a lockout is absurd. That is what the Liberal government is saying right now.

What I have noticed about the Conservatives and Liberals is that they tend to believe in the right to strike when workers are on strike and it does not have any real impact. However, the minute that workers withdraw their services and it actually has an impact on the economy, that is when they scramble for return-to-work legislation and strip those workers of their right to exercise their economic impact. Basically, people have a right to strike in this country so long as the strike has no impact. That is the net result of the approach by the Liberals and Conservatives to free collective bargaining and labour in this country, and it is wrong. It is unconstitutional and it violates Canada's signature on any number of international treaties where we say to the world that we believe in the right of free collective bargaining. We say that when we are out of Canada, yet in Canada we strip our workers of that right any time those workers take a move to act on that right and it actually has an impact.

The longshore union in this country does not even have a strike fund anymore. Why? Longshore workers always get ordered back to work. The longshore workers belong to a federally regulated union. They have taken the decision that under Liberal and Conservative federal governments that regulate them, they should not even bother having a strike fund because if they ever move to strike, within days they get ordered back to work. Why? When longshore workers go on strike, the government indicates to the Canadian public how important the value of their labour is to the Canadian economy. Again, workers can strike if they have no impact on the Canadian economy, but if they have a pivotal impact on the Canadian economy, then they do not have the right to strike. That lays bear the contradiction that exists in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party in this House. There is only one party in this House that stands completely for the principle of free collective bargaining, and that is the New Democratic Party of Canada, and we are going to continue to do that.

I want to talk about the impact. In this case, the government is acting as if Canada Post is an essential service. I just pointed out that I have great respect for the value and importance of the work of Canada Post, but according to the legal definition under labour law, it is not an essential service. If the government wants to treat it as an essential service, then it can make an application to the Canada Industrial Relations Board and make the case that Canada Post should be declared an essential service. If that is the case, the government is then entitled to perhaps place some restrictions on the right to strike. The government has not done that, is not doing it and will not do it. Why? It is because Canada Post is not an essential service.

The very argument the Liberals want Canadians to believe, that they have to legislate Canada Post workers back to work because they are essential to the Canadian economy, the Liberals actually do not have the intellectual integrity to demonstrate that before an independent arbitrator to determine if that is the case because they know they cannot. Why? It is because there are alternatives.

Yes, of course, if Canada Post workers are on a rotating strike, or even if there is a full strike and they withdraw services, that will have an impact on Canada, but there are alternatives. There is UPS. There is FedEx. There is DHL. There is Purolator, although it is owned by Canada Post. I am not sure if it is affected by this job action, but assuming it is not, there is Purolator. There is any number of courier services across this country that can make sure things still move.

That is the difference between that and true essential services like health care workers, police, firefighters or air traffic controllers, where Canadians accept that there could be meaningful limitations on the right to strike because the withdrawal of those services may put public health and safety at risk. That is not the case with Canada Post and the government is trying to slide this regressive act underneath that sort of fabric of essential service when it knows that is not the case.

I want to talk about the middle class. The government constantly repeats “middle class” ad nauseam in the House, as if the Liberal Party is the only party that cares about the middle class. My Conservative colleagues care about the middle class and the NDP cares about the middle class. We all do. However, for the Liberals, middle class is almost like their trademark. They have made it a talking point. The true test of whether the Liberals really believe in the middle class is not what they say, because I have heard more rhetoric in the last three years from the Liberals than I have heard in my lifetime, it is how they act.

What is the best way to enter the middle class? It is to carry a union card, to sign a union card. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, and any number of economists across the political spectrum will tell us that countries that have high rates of unionization have higher rates of people in the middle class. That is only common sense. Obviously, unions work to raise wages and improve working conditions. That is how people enter the middle class.

What do the Liberals do when what is happening in the private and public sectors and a union fights for improvements to its workers' wages and working conditions? They move to scuttle it. They move to restrict the ability of CUPW to improve the working conditions of its workers to enter the middle class. It is pure rhetoric on the Liberal side. The emperor has no clothes on this. If they really cared about the middle class, they would be letting CUPW and Canada Post bargain and allow CUPW come to a resolution, fight for its workers and gain improvements in the workplace that would assist them in moving to the middle class, but no, the Liberals are rushing to order them back to work.

I want to talk about workplace safety. About two and a half years ago, not one kilometre from here, I was present at a ceremony attended by the Prime Minister and all sorts of cabinet ministers and members of the Liberal Party. It was a function organized by Canada Building Trades Unions, where it unveiled its monument to the construction worker. It also served to remind us of those construction workers who have paid with their lives and injuries to build this country. It is a monument to injured construction workers. All the Liberals showed up and beamed with pride and it looked like they were completely happy about this and showed their support for the building trades and union leaders across this country as they stuck up for health and safety. Now how do they act? The single most important issue going on right now in the bargaining between CUPW and Canada Post is their rates of injury, and health and safety in the workplace.

We have already heard the shocking numbers that 25% of the workers at Canada Post have a workplace health or safety incident every year. These are the issues that the unions bring to the bargaining table. They are not asking, but are seeking and demanding a response from the employer. At the end of the day, unions only have one power. Management has all the power to determine the jobs, the terms and conditions in the workplace and unions can ask, can grieve, can seek to persuade someone else, can seek to persuade the employer who has the ultimate decision. The only power unions have at the end of the day is the power to withdraw their services. When that is taken away from a union, it has no power whatsoever. That is not collective bargaining any more. It is collective begging.

That is what the Liberal government is forcing CUPW to do. Instead of letting CUPW do its job, exercise its constitutional right and reflect the constitutional rights of its members and bring those issues to the table and refuse to go back to work and to continue to put economic pressure on Canada Post until they get improvements in health and safety in the workplace, the government seeks to interfere with that process.

Do the Liberals really care about health and safety like they professed on that day when that monument was unveiled and they clapped politely? No. Now they will throw that in front of an arbitrator and that, like a lot of other issues, will be swept under the rug.

The government claims to care about pay equity. Liberals have entered their fourth year of government. With a majority government they could have done anything they want in the last three years. They have entered their fourth year and now they pat themselves on the back for introducing pay equity legislation some time in the future with no money attached to it. Other than that, it is a great pay equity scheme.

What does CUPW do at the bargaining table? It is seeking to get redress for the inequities between the wages of men and women and between urban and rural carriers and workers. Again, what is the government doing with that? When the Liberals have a chance to really see actors in the Canadian economy get real improvements now to pay equity and to health and safety in the workplace, they seek to interfere in that process and derail it. That is some commitment to pay equity.

The rights of labour in this country have been hard fought for. They were not given to them. The rights of labour in this country were paid for by the sacrifice, by the sweat, and frankly, by the blood of workers from coast to coast who stood up and sacrificed for the rights of their sisters and brothers, sons and daughters and grandchildren to be able to live in a free, democratic country where workers have rights. The government shows again by this behaviour, this anti-democratic, anti-union behaviour that it is spitting in the face of that sacrifice.

I want to talk about what happens when we end job action by referring a matter to binding arbitration. I was a labour lawyer for 16 years before I was elected and I have lots of experience with this kind of situation. Something that everybody knows and the government members may or may not have the courage to admit, is that when they refer matters in the collective bargaining environment to an arbitrator in any kind of forum, whether final offer selection or any of the myriad of processes used to come to a binding dispute, they give the power to resolve the issues in dispute to one person. In that kind of environment, they always get a mediated, moderated compromise. They rarely get principled, real solutions to the crux of the issues in dispute. The only way labour really wins the day and has an opportunity to win its case is on the street when it is flexing its economic power and when it is taking the risk of having management exercise its economic power back.

Job action, as I have heard my colleagues say, is not taken lightly. It is not a picnic; it is a sacrifice. We have CUPW workers out there in the freezing cold who are receiving a fraction of their real wages. In fact, sick and injured workers have had their benefits cut off by Canada Post, as the most shameful, disgusting form of pressure to be put in a labour dispute, putting pressure on the most vulnerable workers who are sick and injured, and the Liberal MPs said nothing about it. They let Canada Post use injured workers as a pawn in a labour dispute, and they did not say a word about it.

These workers are out sacrificing, and when Canada Post loses business to companies like UPS and DHL and the other courier companies that are no doubt taking its work right now, they run the risk, when they go back to work, of not having that business there. There is risk, but that is the nature of a strike. It is economic conflict at its base. We do not like to say it, but that is what it is.

Again, I come back to my first point. People either believe in free collective bargaining in this chamber and in this country or they do not. If someone says, “I don't like the economic impact of a strike,” then they do not believe in free collective bargaining. He or she should have the courage to say that then. I challenge my Liberal colleagues, in 2019, to go to the union leaders, go to all of the union halls across this country, walk in there and tell them that they believe in the right to strike as long as there is no economic impact; and tell them that if there is any economic impact, then no, unions get ordered back to work and they will let some appointed person with no interest or accountability in the process make the decision for them.

I have been in this chamber 10 years, and the worst times I am in this chamber are when I see a government violate the constitutional rights of Canadians, and I am going to end with this. The right to strike is a constitutional right. The right to join a union and exercise all of the associated benefits of that is a constitutional right. A government that will interfere with that in this case will interfere with it in any situation. Therefore, we are not just standing up for CUPW workers today or for all workers across this country, we in the New Democratic Party are standing up for all Canadians who believe that this is a country ruled by a Constitution and rights. That means sticking up for them in all situations, not only when it is convenient to do so.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with a great deal of interest. I imagine he is aware that today is November 23, one month before Christmas. This is a very busy time for e-commerce. Today is actually Black Friday, as it is called.

Seventy per cent of all e-commerce is in fact delivered by Canada Post. Right now, small and medium-sized businesses are suffering because of the situation.

Earlier, my colleague suggested using UPS or FedEx, but SMEs have very tight profit margins. It is therefore uncertain whether they can turn to another service to deliver their parcels.

I would like to hear from my colleague who does not support imposing legislation to ensure the service. Yes, the workers have rights, but so does the public; they have the right to receive their mail, here in Canada.

The NDP in Ontario has previously passed back-to-work legislation. I would like to hear from my hon. colleague on the fact that, in Ontario, the government has previously implemented back-to-work legislation, a practice which the opposition in this House opposes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway. We are running into Private Members' Business, so I will let him give a brief answer and then he will be able to continue after with more questions coming to him when we return. The hon. member.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be forced to be brief.

First, there is a difference when governments bring in back-to-work legislation when dealing with essential services. Provincial governments of all stripes have done that.

Second, the Government of Ontario, under Bob Rae, never ordered teachers back to work. That is completely false. It never happened.

Third, the Liberal MPs all seem to think that the right to strike in this country depends on the month of the year. It does not. That is not the way the Constitution works.

Finally, small business does have options. Small businesses will get packages and parcels delivered. They will simply use other service modalities to do so.

I do not trade off constitutional rights of workers in this country for the convenience of the business sector, like the Liberals do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We will break now for Private Members' Business. The hon. member will have seven minutes, 45 seconds coming to him in questions when we return to the debate.

It being 1:34 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved that Bill C-89, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, a charter statement for an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this labour dispute has come to this point. I spoke at length yesterday about everything we did to try to help the parties arrive at a deal, and I want to reiterate that our government is committed to free and collective bargaining and the collective bargaining process. We know that a negotiated agreement—

[Some hon. members]

Shame, shame!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order.

Resuming debate, the hon. minister of employment.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is emotional, and I appreciate the emotion. I appreciate the discomfort many workers feel, but we do believe that negotiated agreements are always the best solution. In fact, why we believe that is because we believe that when two parties can negotiate together, it results in a strong collective agreement that actually builds and fosters positive labour relations in a corporation.

We ran on a commitment to restore fair and balanced labour laws and union management relations, and I remain committed to upholding—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I am trying to hear what the minister has to say, but I am hearing chatter and shouting across. I want to remind hon. members—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I did not point out any one person. It is the chatter going back and forth that is causing the disturbance. I would like to hear what the hon. minister has to say.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we were also elected to make life better for middle-class Canadians, including owners of small and medium-sized businesses and workers all across Canada. With this time of year being the busiest retail season, Canadians need to be able to count on Canada Post to deliver the goods Canadians and businesses need.

Let me tell the House about Maureen Lyons, the owner of Mo McQueen and Sons, in Winnipeg. She is a stay-at-home mom with four children and a health disability. Here is what she had to say about the labour disruption:

If by the end of the week, by some miracle, things could resume or at least the shopping public’s faith in the system of delivery could be restored, I think it would help a great deal.

We are as grassroots as it gets. I don't make a ton of money as it is. It is so frustrating. We're the little guys. And I'm not just a seller.... I'm also trying to find things for my own children for Christmas that I can't get.

The Minister of Public Services and Procurement and I have been in touch with the parties directly on numerous occasions to urge them to continue to work towards reaching agreements. Despite all the efforts I listed yesterday, the two parties remain unable to find common ground on a number of outstanding issues related to wages, job security and workload.

With more than 200 communities across the country directly impacted by the strikes, we cannot afford to wait any longer. I will repeat: Our government does not take back-to-work legislation lightly. This is the first time our government is using this tool, and we believe it should only be used as a last resort. That belief has not changed for me personally or for our government. However, having exhausted all other possibilities, we believe it is the only remaining option.

This is about protecting the public interest and avoiding further harm to Canadian businesses and communities, and indeed Canadians who rely on Canada Post. Older Canadians, persons with disabilities, low-income earners and Canadians living in rural, remote and northern areas who rely on physical mail delivery, including indigenous peoples in some of the most remote communities in our country, are disproportionately affected when their access to physical mail delivery is disrupted.

The cost of postal alternatives, such as courier companies, can be prohibitively high, especially in rural and remote communities. In some remote northern areas, there are no alternatives. Canadians in the north are twice as reliant on parcel delivery services as the rest of Canadians.

Stephanie Destree of The Silk Road Spice Merchant, in Calgary, says, “Sometimes we ship to more rural places, so we go with Canada Post. We are finding delays when we use Canada Post, and sometimes up to three weeks of delays.”

A Toronto Star reader sent the following letter to the editor:

While mail disruption is an inconvenience to many of us living in Canada, it is an impossible situation for those in remote fly-in communities in Northern Canada.

Unlike other Canadians who have options of private courier services, those living in these regions must rely on Canada Post for all of their deliveries.

Through a newly formed non-profit organization...I am personally involved in sending much-needed food to shelters and soup kitchens; warm clothing to the homeless, poor and elderly; school supplies and food to daycares and schools in both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories....

For many of these children, these will be the only gifts they receive this year.

The postal strike has played havoc with our efforts to get these gifts to the children in time for Christmas. Besides the time delays and uncertainty of delivery, there is an added expense of about $1,000 to upgrade our service level to Express Post in the hopes these parcels will receive faster service when the strike action rotates.

Weather is always a concern in the winter in getting parcels to the North in a timely manner but the strikes have made it an incredibly difficult and expensive challenge.

That was from Beverley Mitchell in Toronto.

Nearly nine million Canadians, about 30% of our population, live in rural and remote areas, where access to the Internet can be extremely limited. Today is Black Friday, and so many businesses depend on their sales today and through to the end of the holiday season to survive. This has real human impacts. Small business owners are our neighbours, and they are also significant employers in our country. We are looking at job losses and lower hours at a time of year when so many families are already over-extended.

Jim Danahy, CEO of Customer Lab, says:

We have Indigenous population in very small and sometimes isolated communities that you can only reach by water or by air. So, in those cases, the local economies can be hit quite significantly.

At the same time, our reputation as a reliable market for commerce and trade is at risk, because international partners are not able to ship mail and parcel shipments on to Canada Post. I spoke yesterday about small e-sellers whose razor-thin margins leave many of them unable to afford the higher cost of shipping through courier companies. In the event of a lengthy postal strike, many companies, particularly smaller e-commerce companies, may not make it through the season. Forty percent of online sales take place in the fourth quarter, which the strike is currently impacting.

Canadians expect us to act. We have done everything we could, and this is a last resort. That is why we are introducing this legislation, which I will take a few minutes to explain.

The legislation we are introducing today would order an immediate end to the worker stoppages and the resumption and continuation of postal services at noon EST on the day after the day on which it receives royal assent. The most recent collective agreements will be extended until new collective agreements are established.

To help the parties find common ground on outstanding issues, an impartial mediator-arbitrator will be appointed. The parties will have an opportunity to choose the mediator-arbitrator, and within 48 hours of coming into force of the bill, the parties will need to provide me with names of three persons to serve as the mediator-arbitrator. If the parties fail to propose the same person, one will be appointed from this list, taking into consideration advice from the chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This is to ensure the impartiality of the individual who will be chosen.

The legislation would provide for the mediator-arbitrator to resolve all outstanding issues through mediation, or if mediation fails on particular issues, arbitrate them through an arbitration model of his or her choice based on guiding principles. The mediator-arbitrator will have seven days to mediate all outstanding issues between the parties, which can be extended to a maximum of 14 days if the parties consent. If the parties fail to reach agreements within the mediation period, the mediator-arbitrator must arbitrate all outstanding issues within 90 days of his or her appointment.

I will now talk about the principles that will guide the mediator-arbitrator's decisions. These have been crafted carefully to provide a balance to the mediator-arbitrator and take into consideration the concerns that we have heard throughout the negotiating process. They are: to ensure the health and safety of all employees; to ensure the fair treatment of temporary, part-time and other employees in non-standard employment as compared to full-time, permanent employees; to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of Canada Post; to create a culture of collaborative labour-management relations; and for high-quality service to be provided by Canada Post at a reasonable price to Canadians. The union and Canada Post can reach a voluntary agreement at any time before the mediator-arbitrator submits his or her final report to me, which would end the mediation-arbitration process.

I believe that we have taken the steps to ensure that everything possible has been done and is done through this proposed legislation to encourage the parties to reach agreement fairly and swiftly while in the meantime ensure services at Canada Post resume, preventing further harm. That is why I urge all of my hon. colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.

I reiterate that our government does not take this legislation lightly. We have worked hard to restore fairness and balance to the labour landscape in Canada since coming into office. Through Bill C-4, our government's first piece of legislation and our first official act in Parliament, we repealed two private members' bills that undermined unions; one that imposed excessive reporting requirements on unions, and a second that made it harder for workers to unionize. Since then, we have introduced legislation and programs that improve the lives of Canadian workers and strengthen the labour movement.

As I mentioned before, we did not intervene early, because we believe in the collective bargaining process. We believe that the collective bargaining process results in the best outcomes: strong agreements and a positive workplace culture. However, we also have a responsibility to Canadians and to the businesses that drive our economy, and when the consequences of a work stoppage become so great that they begin to result in serious and, if left unchecked, lasting harm, we have to act.

We will continue to support the parties through every means possible, as we have done from the very beginning. We strongly encourage them to reach agreements as soon as possible, and we will continue to provide the parties with the tools they need to do so.

As I said earlier, the best agreements are always the ones that parties arrive at themselves. This proposed legislation allows the parties to reach a voluntary agreement at any time before the mediator-arbitrator submits his or her final report to the minister, which would end the mediator-arbitrator process.

We are in no way legislating an agreement. This legislation is about ensuring the process exists to find one. The well-being of Canadians and the viability of many Canadian businesses depend on a speedy resolution. I urge everyone in this House to support this legislation so we can make that happen as quickly as possible. Canadians are counting on us.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. This is a rotating strike, not the end of the world. At this point, workers have grievances they have brought forth and the current government undermined every step of that by announcing ahead of time that it would intervene.

The minister is a woman who claims to be progressive. I would like to remind her that back in 1981 there was a full postal strike that lasted for 41 days without intervention from the government. After those 41 days, an agreement was reached that granted maternity leave for the first time in the federal public service union. I would ask the minister this. Does she truly believe that, if the government at the time had intervened and asked a mediator or an arbitrator to come in, that maternity leave that was non-existent in the whole public service would have been granted to the union?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern about using back-to-work legislation. However, I will remind him that seven different NDP premiers, on 15 different occasions, have used back-to-work legislation when they have not been able to resolve disputes between parties. In fact, some members of his own caucus have voted in favour of that back-to-work legislation, so I know that he understands that this is a very difficult decision for governments to take.

Having said that, as I said in my speech, there are many Canadians who are relying on us to restore Canada Post service in a prompt way. That does not just include small and medium-sized businesses and e-commerce businesses, that also includes Canadians in very vulnerable positions in rural and remote communities who have no other way to get the goods they rely on into their communities.

We will always support the collective bargaining process. We have done so throughout these negotiations. We are confident this legislation will allow the parties to continue to work toward a deal they arrive at together.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the International Labour Organization and the Supreme Court of Canada recognize the right to strike, which is inextricably tied to the right to negotiate working conditions. In fact, these organizations recognize that strikes cause economic hardship and that strikers are the first to suffer.

However, that is the price to pay to achieve a strong bargaining position in a negotiated collective agreement. That is the price to pay to maintain a minimum of economic and social cohesion. When the government passes back-to-work legislation under a gag order, such as this one, it puts at risk social peace for the economic benefit of the Amazons of this world.

I do not understand how a government that claims to be progressive can introduce such an anti-progressive law as this. How can it endorse this penny-wise, pound-foolish approach that will sacrifice social peace in the longer term? Shame on you.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Personally, I have nothing to be ashamed of. Before giving the floor to the minister, I would remind the hon. member to address his questions to the chair.

The Minister of Employment.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite points out that the right to strike is protected by the charter. This union has been striking for five weeks. Prior to that, the parties were negotiating for over a year. We provided them with every tool possible. We started with a federal mediation service. A variety of different mediators of all different seniority levels helped them through the early conversations. There was still an impasse. I appointed a special mediator. I appointed a special mediator again. I have met with the parties. We have had conversations with the parties. We have worked very closely with the parties. I have been at their disposal to have conversations whenever they wanted to. We know that these parties are very far apart at this point. They have worked at the table, but have not reached a deal.

Canadians rely on a Canada Post service that is delivering for them. Whether it is Canadians in rural and remote communities who are relying on essential goods and services delivered by Canada Post or small businesses that may not see another year if they cannot make the money that they typically make in a Christmas season, these are people in our communities, people who are employers, people who rely on Canada Post.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on a point of order.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that when a question is asked the answer should actually be of a similar length, and I do believe the minister is actually repeating her speech, and at much longer pace than the member's question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is normally the case in committee, but when it is open like this, it is as long as the question takes, and within reason. However, I would ask hon. members to keep it brief, because I notice there are quite a few people who want to ask questions.

Also, while I am giving directions, I would ask members to remember to place their questions through the Chair. I know it is an emotional topic, and people's emotions get out of hand sometimes and they start talking directly at each other, and that will cause nothing but problems.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her leadership, for her speech in which she outlined a balanced approach to the mediation arbitration framework, for her recognition of the importance of collective bargaining and for the strong conclusion that this legislation is a measure of last resort.

Just before coming to the House tonight I had a chance to speak to one of my constituents who is a postal worker and member of CUPW. She and I spoke about the importance of health and safety for the women and men who work for Canada Post, particularly in the winter months. I wonder if the minister could share with the House her views of the importance of safety standards within the framework that is being proposed.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the fact that members from all parties are talking to the union members. There are a variety of different concerns and perspectives out there, and those are very useful conversations, so I want to thank the member for taking the time to do that.

He is absolutely right. We have concern for the health and safety of all Canadian workers. That is why one of the principles that will be provided to the mediator-arbitrator is to consider the health and safety concerns of workers and to make sure that whatever agreement is negotiated, those concerns are considered quite seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the minister is aware that the injury rate of postal workers is more than five times that of other workers in the public sector. Many of these injuries are debilitating, very serious injuries. They are the key reason for the rotating strikes we have been seeing. Does the minister believe that given this injury rate, Canada Post is meeting its obligation to provide a safe work environment, and does she condone the perpetuation of such unsafe working conditions?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is essentially the same as to the member who spoke before her. In fact, yes, we are concerned for the health and safety of all Canadian workers. We have heard concerns from the union about the health and safety of their members, and we know that has been one of the issues that has been negotiated around and about. That is why we have included the health and safety of workers in the principles the mediator must consider.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here the majority of the day listening to the debate that has been going back and forth, and one of the questions I continually ask the NDP is: where is that threshold of knowing that we have done enough work and that it is time to bring in a piece of legislation to move the process along? I cannot get an answer from New Democrats. They refuse to give me a straight answer on that. Therefore, I would like to ask the minister a question along the same lines. Is she confident that everything has been done to the point that we now are required to bring in this legislation? Is she confident that this is the right time to do that?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there still is time for the parties to reach the deal themselves. However, having said that, I know that my department and the team that works so diligently at my department have given every effort to help these parties reach a negotiated agreement together.

As I pointed out, the mediation services started well over a year ago with the two parties. When it became apparent that the two parties were not going to reach an agreement with federal mediation services, I appointed a special mediator. That special mediator was reappointed. He was reappointed again. We have communicated on an ongoing basis with both the union and the employer, and we know that the time has come. Canadians rely on the service, so we must take the next step.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about some of the consequences of the rotating strikes over the last several weeks. Those on the NDP, the Conservative and Liberal sides may disagree on a few issues when it comes to labour, but what it comes down to, in many cases, is how we approach these situations.

During the 2015 election, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party made a lot of promises. They promised never to take veterans back to court. They promised to have modest deficits. They promised to do things differently. They promised to have a new relationship with labour. All of those promises have since been broken, including the promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery. Therefore, I can certainly understand the frustration with members of CUPW and employees of Canada Post as they see this as a betrayal of those promises that were made in the 2015 election.

Small businesses across Canada will feel the same way. They are frustrated that it has come to this point. The Liberals have said many times today that they were in negotiations with the employees of Canada Post for more than a year. They could have addressed these situations much earlier, with more definitive action. Here we are at a crisis point during the busiest season for Canada Post employees, but also the most important season for small businesses and SMEs across Canada.

Our small businesses rely on the revenue they make during the holiday season. Today is Black Friday. Cyber Monday is coming up. We just had American Thanksgiving and the Christmas season is around the corner. Businesses rely on the sales they will make over the next couple months to get them through the rest of the year. We have heard that small businesses across the country are losing upward of $3,000 a month in lost sales because of the work disruptions at Canada Post.

I completely understand the situation and the concerns of Canada Post employees and CUPW members. However, this is a significant and profound impact on Canada's economy. Thousands of small businesses across the country have told us that many of them will not be able to sustain their businesses not necessarily through the Christmas season, but in the months afterwards if they do not have the revenue they would normally make now.

We also have to take a look at the ripple effect of that lost revenue. I know there are stay-at-home moms or dads, or single moms or dads or college and university students, who look for those jobs over the Christmas season to augment their salaries, or help pay their tuition, or put money away for their first car or a down payment on a home. Many of our small businesses across the country are not going to be hiring that additional staff because they simply do not have the reliable revenue stream because of the disruption in Canada Post.

I cannot stress enough that it is not just people coming in the door or ordering merchandise online. It is also their accounts receivable are not being delivered or being delivered at a much slower pace because of the rotating strikes.

Again, I do not think any of us in the House question the commitment and determination of our Canada Post employees. Looking at the weather over the last few days, we can understand some of the hardships they face doing their jobs. However, it is also important that they do their job. The Canadian economy relies on that.

Our small businesses rely on a reliable postal service to reach their customers, to pay their bills and just to do their day to day business. Nowhere is that more important than in rural communities across the country.

I have a rural riding in southwest Alberta. I do not have any major centres, but I do have very small communities that rely on Canada Post. Businesses rely on Canada Post because many of them have embraced new technology and have been selling their wares online.

I have several businesses in my riding that have had great success or found new opportunities by marketing not only across Alberta and the country, but around the world. One company that comes to mind is Chinook Honey Company just outside of Okotoks, which was a small beef farm only a few years ago. Now it markets its honey and honey products around the world, including its award-winning honey mead.

These companies were successful with their local marketing, but the opportunity to mail their products and market online around the world has opened up new opportunities for them. Once again, they rely on the Christmas season to survive through the winter. We cannot underestimate the impact a potential job action has on them.

One of the other things we should talk about is something I have heard a lot from people on both sides of the floor. They are saying that by having back-to-work legislation, we are somehow catering to the big corporations. In some ways, that is certainly the case. Big corporations rely on Canada Post as well. However, big corporations can also negotiate much better contracts with private sector delivery models, whether that is UPS or other couriers. Small companies do not have that same kind of leverage. They rely on Canada Post.

Many of our small and remote communities do not have any other option. They are held captive by Canada Post, and Canada Post usually provides a very reliable service. However, when we have a job disruption at the worst possible time, we can see how that will impact small businesses. It is not just corporations that are being impacted. These are owners of mom and pop shops who have found great opportunities by marketing their products online.

The other issue I want to raise when it comes to job action is the fact that many of our constituents also depend on reliable mail service. I know the Liberal government has made agreements to ensure government cheques, including child benefits and student loans, will be delivered to residents. However, that does not include cheques going to small and large SMEs that are doing business with the government. Those, at times, can be very significant revenue streams on which businesses rely and to which they will not have access because similar agreements with government departments were not reached with them. In many remote communities, the Canada Post postal service is their only option. They do not have any alternative, which makes this quite critical.

I also want to talk briefly about the international consequences. Canada Post has requested that no international post, including the United States postal service and the United Kingdom, send any mail until the backlog is clear. I know there has been some discussion tonight and throughout the day on the veracity of the backlog. Regardless of what that backlog is, when Canada Post tells other countries not to send their mail to Canada, that is a concern. It is a concern in several ways and I will address them.

It is naive to think that we do not have Canadian businesses, small and large, that do business in other countries. If they are not able to stay in touch with clients in other countries or jurisdictions, that will impact their ability to operate. It is also going to impact their ability if they are ordering parts or machinery or goods and services from other countries they can no longer access. That will also have a significant impact on their ability to do business.

It also impedes our trading relationship with other countries. Being unable to do business over the busiest time of the year further erodes the trust we have with our trading partners and our allies around the world. That comes at a small business level and at a corporate level both ways. We cannot forget the impact this has on our international reputation. Over 190 countries are part of the Universal Postal Union. The reaching of this is quite profound. We cannot ignore that.

Just today a small business owner, from Nova Scotia of all places, which is nowhere near my riding, told me he had heard the discussions today and really appreciated the fact that the Conservatives, in their presentations and interventions, were standing up for small business owners.

Small business owners feel like they have been attacked under the Liberal government. It started with the proposed small business tax changes that were tabled a year ago. If it was not for mom and pop business owners and farmers and ranchers standing up, saying “We're not going to stand for this” and had their small business tax revolt, the Liberal government would have gone ahead with those tax changes. In many cases, some of those tax changes still exist, especially when it comes to passive income.

Small business owners have been hit with tax increases on payroll, CPP and EI. Now the Liberal government and the Prime Minister are going to impose a federal carbon tax and putting a tax on a tax by charging it on GST and HST. All of these things add additional regulation, red tape and obstacles to small business owners.

Over the past year, when small business owners across the country saw this impending crisis coming well on the horizon, they fully expected the Liberal government to take action. However, again, the Liberal government waited until the very last minute. At the eleventh hour, the government decided to step up and do something about it.

This started even further back when the Liberals took power in government. The Liberals knew when they took over as government, they had Canada Post as a Crown corporation. They knew there were seven or eight vacancies, and my numbers could be a bit off, on the Canada Post board. Despite a committee going across the country and talking about Canada Post and ways to improve its services and labour relations, those seven or eight vacancies remained. Canada Post still has an interim president. The government has not named a full-time president yet.

How is a Crown corporation supposed to negotiate in good faith with its largest union without having an actual board of directors and a president in place? The government should have filled these roles and these vacancies as quickly as possible. It has had more than three years to do so. That is plenty enough time to fill vacancies on the Canada Post board and certainly the position of president, knowing the issues it would be facing.

Now we find ourselves having a late night, addressing a situation that should have never reached this crisis point.

There is another thing I want to mention that is disappointing, and I echo the concerns raised by my NDP colleagues throughout the day. We have talked about this a bit. The NDP and I certainly will not agree on a lot of issues, but one thing we do agree on is the importance of democracy and the importance of members of this place having the opportunity to speak for their constituents. Several our constituents are in the gallery tonight and have expressed their concerns. I appreciate that. They should be passionate. We are all passionate about this issue. That is one of the reasons we are here.

An issue of this magnitude is going to impact people's lives, certainly the lives of members of CUPW, but also business owners across Canada. We have been hearing from them all week. The Liberal government has given us less than a couple of hours at each stage to debate this back-to-work legislation.

I and my NDP colleagues will absolutely disagree on the steps we took in 2011, but the one thing we did do, and the one thing I am proud of, is that we did not push legislation through. We ensured that every member who wanted the opportunity to speak for his or her constituents had the opportunity at each stage to get up and do so. Members had the opportunity to speak for their constituents. They had the opportunity to speak their minds. They had the opportunity to debate the veracity of the back-to-work legislation.

That has not been the case tonight and it seems to be a growing trend, including with things like the 850-page omnibus budget bill. They let us down. Again, during the election campaign in 2015, the Liberals said there would be no more omnibus budget bills or omnibus bills of any kind, that they would never do that, that they were going to build a new relationship with labour, that they were going to restore door-to-door mail delivery, that they would never take veterans to court, that there would be electoral reform and that they would have modest deficits. None of those things have happened. It has been broken promise after broken promise. It is death by 1,000 cuts.

We have heard the frustration from Canadians tonight. It erodes their confidence in the government. We may agree, we may agree to disagree, we may understand one person's viewpoint from another's, but at least we understand that we are coming from the same position. However, when Canadians were told one thing, hand over heart by the Liberals, during the 2015 campaign, they could believe they were voting for something. Throughout their mandate, the Liberals have broken those promises again and again and we have seen the consequences of that here today.

One of the frustrations the Liberals have to take responsibility for is their broken promises from the 2015 campaign and not giving members of the House the opportunity to practise their democratic right, including a frank discussion on the legitimacy of the legislation before us tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been here throughout the day and was here a good portion of yesterday listening to the debate and what people are saying about the current process. I want to emphasize that this is not an easy decision for the government. At times, governments need to make some very difficult decisions. We have seen these sorts of decisions being made at the national and provincial levels. All political parties, even New Democrats and the premiers, have had to bring in legislation of this nature because it was deemed in the best interest of the community as a whole.

If we look at what this government has done since day one, we see that it has gone out of its way to promote and encourage labour harmony by repealing some of the legislation that Stephen Harper brought in, and many different initiatives.

Would the member, at the very least, recognize the difference between the legislation we are proposing that would continue to allow negotiations in good faith versus the legislation Stephen Harper introduced?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about all of the things the Liberals allegedly did differently. They are in the same position. They do not have an agreement, they have brought forward back-to-work legislation and they have left everything until the 11th hour. I go back to the Trans Mountain pipeline as an example. They knew what the situation was when they became government in 2015, and yet they did nothing.

The member talks about governments taking action and having to make tough decisions. Absolutely, I could not agree more, but they never make the tough decisions. They wait. I heard all day yesterday that they were hoping an agreement would be reached, that they were hoping this and hoping that. Hope does not do it and the Trans Mountain pipeline is a perfect example. They waited until there was a crisis and ended up buying a 60-year-old pipeline and have not gotten the real pipeline built.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member said that he and I would likely disagree on how the Harper government handled the postal negotiations in 2011, and he is absolutely right about that. He said in his speech that the government has an obligation to Canadians and to small business owners to make sure that the mail is delivered, and he is absolutely right about that.

What is wrong is to suggest that that is somehow in opposition to our very real obligation to postal workers, and that somehow it is acceptable to undermine their right to bargain collectively in order to meet those obligations.

The government ought to have been acting on the egregious injury rate at Canada Post. It should be instructing management to do something about it. It should be giving management a mandate to go to the table and get something done, and take the demands of the union seriously. Then we could get a negotiated settlement.

The reason we do not have one is that management has not had a mandate from the government. That is the elephant in the room. We are being led to believe that there is this great opposition between the interests of small businesses and Canadians on the one hand, and postal workers on the other, but the big red elephant in the room is the government, which has sat idly by, watching Canada Post workers get injured time and time again and not done anything about it.

Could we please stop suggesting that somehow there is an opposition between the interests of Canadians and small businesses that rightly want their mail, the postal workers who want to deliver it but just want to come home healthy at the end of the day to their families with the mail delivered. It is not true that their interests are in opposition.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a red letter day, because we agree yet again.

I could not agree more, and I did mention in my speech that I do not think there is opposition between small business and Canada Post workers. I think I made that quite clear. They both understand they cannot operate without each another.

The problem here is that the responsibility lays solely at the feet of the Liberal government. It has been in power for more than three and a half years. It does not have a president for Canada Post. It does not have a full board of directors for Canada Post. How is any direction supposed to be given to a company of that size if there is no leadership?

We should not really be surprised, because that has been the the way the Liberal government has exercised its mandate all the way through, with its lack of leadership and inability to make tough decisions and to take definitive action well before we hit a crisis point. That is where we find ourselves once again.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the member for his intervention tonight. I learned a lot in the debate. Many of the comments are fair.

One of the comments that stuck with me was the discussion about the erosion of trust in the government, whether we are talking about this as a result of omnibus bills or other broken promises the government has failed to deliver on. That quite rightly puts in people's mind the question of erosion of trust in the government.

The big picture here is that Canada Post obviously supplies a lot of people with important things. There are the seniors who get medications and certain products through the mail, and the businesses, small, medium and large businesses, that use Canada Post.

One of the results of the 2011 lockout and the subsequent back-to-work legislation was that a lot of people just stopped using Canada Post as their go-to source. That certainly diminishes the corporation's ability to function, as well as to serve more people, which makes it harder for it and the union to come to good terms.

As this erosion that he talked about wears away at Canada Post, because people do not depend on it like they usually would, is that not the real loss here?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit a lot of key points in his question.

One of the unfortunate things that we are seeing is certainly that erosion in the trust of Canadians, whether CUPW workers or small business owners, in Canada Post. We have to ensure that we have a reliable service, and we talked about how important it is for our rural and remote communities, and certainly businesses of all size across Canada. However, as result of this, and as my colleague just mentioned, there is this erosion of trust on all sides, whether one is a small business owner, a member of CUPW, or an average Canadian who is unable to get out Christmas cards, not to mention the kids across Canada who may not get their letters delivered to Santa.

The fact is that the Liberal government made a lot of promises in that 2015 election. One that we have not really talked about today is the promise to restore door-to-door delivery. I say this recognizing that we have CUPW members here tonight. However, that was a significant pillar in the Liberals' election promises that never came to fruition.

Whenever one makes big promises and does not follow through or even try to follow through on them, including on a great promise made during an election, then the trust of everyday Canadians is eroded every single time. We are seeing that come to a head today. We have small business owners, Canada Post employees, as well as average Canadians and none of them can trust anything the Liberal government is telling them tonight. Why should they trust the Liberal government tonight when it says it has the back of Canada Post employees and certainly has the backs of small business owners? They are saying: “Yeah right, I have heard all of this before. Let me know when you come through and then we'll start talking.”

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my friend is fair-minded, and I would hope that he would see the difference.

When the Conservatives brought forward their back-to-work legislation, they had rigged the game for Canada Post from the outset. They brought in a final-presentation arbitrator who was appointed without any consultation. The arbitrator did not understand French and did not have any labour background. The judge booted that person out. The second arbitrator who came in was a failed Conservative candidate. When the arbitration was complete, they had even arbitrated the pay level to a lower rate than what Canada Post had already agreed to pay CUPW. That game was rigged.

This is a completely different approach with mediation-arbitration.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is kind of the crux of this problem. I appreciate my colleague's question, but again, he is going back to something that happened seven years ago. It is time for the Liberals to take responsibility for the situation they have placed themselves in now. This is their failed negotiation. This is their failed promise. They need to take responsibility for it once and for all.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there are very few of our NDP colleagues here. The reason, as you saw, is that we decided to protest the Liberal government's disrespectful approach to this situation by walking out during the vote on the super-closure motion to prevent a real debate on the bill.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member in his statement referenced the fact that some members might not be in the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate to do that. Perhaps you could remind the member of that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is a point of order, but I thought I would let it slide.

Would the hon. member like to retract his statement?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not name any MP.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Okay. I will allow the hon. member to continue.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Kingston colleague's speech is indicative of the problem. To them, this is a big joke. Our members were respectfully speaking out against this approach, but people across the way, especially cabinet members, were laughing out loud at what was going on.

When we are debating a bill that will take away 50,000 Canadians' right to strike, a modicum of decorum and respectful parliamentary debate is called for. We did not see that from the government—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

We did not see that from the member for Gatineau either, Mr. Speaker.

The reason we walked out is that this kind of bill, which takes away people's right to strike, is very serious. The government and the Minister of Labour said that the situation had gone far enough and they had no choice but to take action. First of all, it is not a general strike; it is a rotating strike. Service is still being provided, unlike what happened during the 1981 strike I mentioned in my question. That was a general strike and service was disrupted.

That is why it is so surprising that the minister, who has the nerve to call herself progressive, would say that, after a month of rotating strikes with no service disruption, the government has no choice but to take away the union's right to strike.

That is part of the problem. We have a Prime Minister who says he is a progressive. We have a labour minister who claims to be a progressive. Now they have introduced back-to-work legislation which is the last thing progressive governments should be doing. Why did they do it? They did it because they had gone to the full extent of how long they could wait. The reason the minister is actually doing this is that the Prime Minister's Office told her, Gerald Butt told her, it was time to put an end to the strike. The government kneeled down to the ebays and the Amazons who heavily lobbied the government to put an end to this strike.

What exactly are the union's demands? The deadlock is primarily around improved working conditions pertaining to health, safety and fairness. Someone in the gallery told us that she works 14 hours a day but is paid for only six hours. She works in the rural sector. The union wants to fix that and make sure that all hours worked are paid hours. In the urban sector, workers are being forced to work overtime, so they are missing out on time with their families, because the employer refuses to hire more employees. It is unacceptable.

We have also heard a lot about the injury rate, which has increased by 43% in the last two years. The reason is simple: Canada Post delivers far fewer letters and far more parcels, and although the government if perfectly aware of that, the regulations have not changed. Procedures have not been adapted to the new reality.

We would like Canada Post to actually negotiate in good faith, but it will not negotiate in good faith when the government immediately said that it might possibly intervene. It is really funny because when Canada Post is depriving the workers at Canada Post of sick leave provisions, especially short-term disability payments as a measure to put pressure on the most vulnerable of the workers, the Liberals said they could not intervene. However, once the rotating strike reached a certain point, they needed to intervene. The impact regardless of what the minister is saying, regardless of what the Liberal benches are saying, is giving power to Canada Post.

Worse than the government making people believe that Canada Post is an outside entity that it cannot do anything about, it is interesting that in January, John Ibbitson from The Globe and Mail wrote this about Canada Post:

In a move bound to frustrate reform advocates of both the left and the right, the Liberal government announced on Wednesday that it has decided not to proceed with major changes to Canada Post.

Analysts predict that such an arrangement will lead to a funding shortfall and escalating losses for the postal service. To prevent that, the government will install a new management team at the Crown corporation, charged with finding new methods to cut costs and increase revenues.

He concluded his article by saying:

“Chief executive Deepak Chopra”, who was actually at his post when bargaining started, “has already announced he will step down at the end of March. The new board and CEO will have full authorization”, from the government, “to explore potential revenue sources and cost savings.”

Canada Post is working under the government's orders. Where can we get obvious cost savings during bargaining? We can get them from the workers by refusing to give them what should actually be something very simple to give them, which is health and safety.

The government says there is nothing it can do, but Canada Post is a Crown corporation. The government gave Canada Post the authorization, the permission and the mandate to bring in cost-saving measures. My colleagues mentioned that no board chair has been appointed. Indeed, no board chair has been permanently appointed, but whether my colleagues like it or not, in 2018, the Liberal government appointed several board members. The Liberal government is responsible for stacking Canada Post's board of directors with people who have absolutely no interest and no desire to come to a fair and equitable agreement.

Several people have commented on contradictions expressed by certain Liberal members who were here in 2011. They were in this place in 2011, and they opposed the Conservatives' response to Canada Post locking its workers out. I remember that very well. We were here debating it for three days. I have a quote that is a bit long, but I think it is important for people to hear it. It is by a former member of Parliament, Bob Rae. In 2011, he was a Liberal MP.

On June 21, 2011, he said:

The right to bargain collectively, to create a union and to be able to legally strike is a constitutional right that must be recognized. Yet, because of a public interest greater than this right, or because of a public emergency, the government may decide that it has the right to do what it is doing now [that is, back-to-work legislation]. However, if the government exercises this right, it has a responsibility to protect the public interest. ...But this right must be exercised intelligently and in a way that respects the rights of individuals and communities.

If the government takes away the right to collective bargaining, it has to be careful how it does it. It has to recognize that it is interfering in an important constitutional right and it cannot be done just any old way....

However, when a government exercises its duty to protect the public interest, it has to do it in a way that is careful and thoughtful because it is taking away an existing right, even it if is popular.

The laughter I heard from the Liberal side was caused by the suppression of this right and by our reaction, on the NDP side, to the suppression of a fundamental right, which is the right to strike. The Liberals can laugh all they want. They are currently in power. They could say whatever they wanted to say in 2015. They could vote however they wanted to in 2011. However, they cannot expect us to stop pointing out their contradictions to them.

At the time, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood said:

“We have the hard right ideologues in the government jamming the union with legislation that it cannot possibly accept”. The member for Cape Breton—Canso said, “Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and agree with the vast majority of what my colleague from Hamilton Mountain”, who at the time was Chris Charlton, “has shared with the House, and certainly the fact that this legislation is not only heavy-handed, but wrong-minded.”

I am not short on arguments and I could continue all night, but I am trying to understand why a Liberal government that calls itself progressive and a friend of unions could act this way. Let us remember that if Canada Post were to negotiate in good faith, an agreement could be reached. We can identify the problem by looking at Canada Post's history.

Going back to the 1970s and 1980s, Canada Post has demonstrated time and time again that it is probably one of the worst employers when it comes to dealing with employees. The biggest win, which I raised with the member, was obtained by the union back in 1981. That was after 41 days of a full strike, which was done to get 17 weeks of maternity leave.

If at that point the then government, which was a Trudeau government, decided to bring in back-to-work legislation after however long it took for a full strike to be too long, two or three weeks of no service across the country, do members think that a mediator or arbitrator would have given maternity leave when it did not exist before? Up to that point, no sector in the public service had maternity leave.

There are serious issues with respect to this conflict regarding health and safety. It is estimated that the Liberal government will force the union to go back to the previous collective agreement, which the workers are trying to get out of by negotiating an improved one, contrary to the situation in 2011, when the union actually asked to have the same agreement reinstated. This is not what we are seeing now. The union wants the agreement to be updated to reflect the changing mandate of Canada Post. Canada Post does not agree with this. It does not agree with the members who were put in place by the government. These workers have a right to health, a right to safety, a right to be with their families instead of being forced by their employer to abide by the decisions of their bosses.

If the government were serious, if it were truly progressive, it would have ensured that Canada Post would have borne the responsibility of this strike. It is easy to say the economy will suffer, but why should it be the fault of the workers? Why is it not the fault of the Canada Post executives? Why is it not the fault of the Canada Post negotiators?

The Canada Post negotiators negotiated in bad faith. Everyone knows that. They did the same thing in 2011. They have no incentive to negotiate in good faith, especially since the government will invariably come to their rescue. Whether it be Liberal or Conservative, the government always comes to Canada Post's rescue. That needs to stop.

Instead of forcing workers back to work in unsafe conditions, why did the government not begin a review of the work that is being done by Canada Post's board of directors? Is it like hockey, where it is easier to trade a player than to fire a coach? It is ridiculous.

The government has a responsibility to workers. A progressive government has a responsibility to ensure that workers are treated properly, particularly in the public service and Crown corporations. Unfortunately, the current government has failed in that regard.

We, on this side of the House, stand with workers because they deserve our support. However, apparently, they deserve the support of only a few members of the House since the Liberals and Conservatives seem to be working hand-in-hand to expedite the passage of this bill and to ensure that everyone goes back to once again working in unsafe conditions as of Monday.

If the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour were truly progressive, if the minister responsible for Canada Post were truly progressive and if the Prime Minister were truly progressive, they would revise Canada Post's mandate and would start reviewing the roles each member of the Crown corporation's board of directors played in the 2015 negotiation fiasco.

I am not holding out hope that they will do so, because if there is one thing I have learned from the Liberals in my time here, and even before my time here, it is that there are, largely, two groups of Liberals. There are the ones who are progressive on the inside. We know who they are. Then there are the others who, fundamentally, are beholden to Bay Street. When there is a conflict between the two of them, Bay Street always wins. The economic Liberals always win out over the progressive Liberals. This needs to stop, but it will not, because this is how it has always been.

If the Liberals wanted to do something about this they could. However, they refuse to do so.

The Liberals laugh when we highlight their contradictions. They laugh when we protest the insane measures being proposed tonight. We have basically had a full day of debate on procedures to have two hours of debate on the bill at second reading and then 30 minutes of debate at third reading. It is all we will have to debate this bill that would force 50,000 workers back to work. It is a shame.

I would like every progressive, or those who call themselves progressives on the Liberal benches, to think hard about what they are doing right now. They have a choice. We have seen and heard Liberal MPs say that they would be opposing this bill. I am thinking, for example, of the member for Saint John—Rothesay, who has been in debate on social media with postal workers and has said that he will do what he can but that he is just a local MP. He is an MP. He can stand and express his vote. Does he have to vote the way the Prime Minister's Office is asking him to vote? He does not have to. He chooses to do so, if that is the case.

There are a few MPs who I know are opposed to this, because they have been telling the postal workers in their ridings that they are opposed. Some of them even went as far as saying that they would be opposing it. I cannot wait to see that tonight. I will not be holding my breath, because the way I see it, the Prime Minister's Office has a strong grip on the backbench of the Liberals. The backbench has not really shown much of a spine so far in opposing decisions it did not agree with. Unfortunately, I do not expect things to be changing for the workers, some of whom have been voting for Liberals. They are sorely disappointed by what they are seeing and the spectacle they are facing tonight.

I will conclude simply by saying that the NDP has spent all day talking about the unfairness of this gag order being imposed on the House and this back-to-work legislation being introduced not after a 41-day general strike, like in 1981, but after a rotating strike during which service continued.

SMEs were still able to count on their service. There might have been the occasional inconvenience, but service continued nevertheless. The government is telling us that the sky is falling and that we absolutely must do something about it. It has chosen the most draconian solution possible, by forcing the employees to go back to work and taking away their right to strike.

Coming from a progressive government that was elected on a progressive platform, there is nothing more disappointing.

On this side of the House, we will go to the wall to defend workers and their right to safety, health and fair treatment. Both tonight and after the vote, we will make sure the Liberals pay, now and in the future, for what they did to workers this evening.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has spent the better part of the day trying to demonstrate how it would never get into a situation where it would force unions back to work. The reality of the situation is that there have been seven provincial NDP governments that have done that, and they have done it 15 times.

As a matter of fact, the member talked about the rich display of solidarity they showed through their theatrical voting procedure during the last vote. Is he aware that three of the NDP members who did that were part of those provincial governments? One of them was a cabinet minister and would have had a direct role in doing that back in the Ontario legislature in the early nineties.

I have taken the liberty of having the Library of Parliament compile a list of all those times. I think we would all agree that there is no better source. Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I am sure you will find unanimous consent to table the following list, compiled by the Library of Parliament, of back-to-work legislation passed by NDP provincial governments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Motions cannot be proposed in the course of questions and comments.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before introducing that, I took the opportunity to bring it up with the Speaker, who was in the chair before you. He consulted with the Clerk, and we were told that it was completely in order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the member for Kingston and the Islands have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has the floor.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the shenanigans we have seen from the Liberals, I am not surprised that he went this way. We could talk about Tommy Douglas opposing the War Measures Act. We could go back to Mackenzie King or Laurier. The point is what they are doing right now, after rotating strikes, without doing anything about Canada Post.

I would like to see if my friend would actually be in favour of reviewing their mandate and what the government-appointed board members of Canada Post have done in this strike. This is the government that is responsible for putting those executives on the board. This is the government that is responsible for removing the workers' right to strike, and it has to be accountable for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I watched the voting process, the member for Hamilton, for example, was one of the individuals who participated in what I would suggest was that token effort. He was, in fact, part of a government that not once, not twice, but three times brought in back-to-work legislation. If we were to listen to the debate over the last couple of days, we would hear a lot of hypocrisy on the other side.

I am wondering if my colleague, in trying to point out our reactions, reflects on some of the comments from the New Democrats. Perhaps they should be just a little embarrassed about how they are trying to manipulate something the government has regretted having to do but feels obligated to do, much like many other governments have in the past.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, someone else did something before.

They would actually be implementing measures that would remove the right to strike from workers. They would be doing so with a Crown corporation to which they have appointed the members. They should be accountable right now, not passing the buck everywhere else. They are responsible for this, and they will be held accountable.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister described back-to-work legislation as a last resort. It is important to note that these negotiations have not even reached a full-scale strike, and it is a huge stretch to describe rotating strikes as reaching a last resort.

The minister also indicated that one of the criterion the arbitrator would consider is financial sustainability. One of the ways to improve Canada Post's financial situation would be to move it into new lines of business, such as postal banking, which the government has ruled out.

I would also note that one of the reasons there are questions about Canada Post's financial sustainability is that the government forces it to value its pension plan on a solvency basis, which is unrealistic. Would the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques agree that it would make far more sense to assess Canada Post's pension on a going-concern basis, like the rest of the federal public service?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. When we talk about postal banking, we know that five or six years ago, Canada Post actually asked for a report on the viability of such an option. It never made it public. A journalist got the document through an access to information request, and actually that document revealed that postal banking would be a win-win situation for Canadians and for Canada Post. Still, it refused to implement it. The government is doing nothing to implement it. In fact, the government is just letting the board do whatever it wants. There is no accountability from the board of directors of Canada Post. The anti-union practices we have seen in the past are still being reflected today, with the complicity of the Liberal government.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

I was not at Canada Post in 1981, but I worked there for 15 years. I remember some of the workers telling me about why they took to the streets. As a mother, I was able to take maternity leave. Now, there are rural mail carriers who have to use their own personal vehicles and their own gas to deliver the mail in rural areas further away from urban centres. There is an inequity when it comes to salaries, working conditions and, most importantly, safety.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the back-to-work legislation violates their rights.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Our respective ridings are located in rural areas. There are many postal workers with rural routes in my riding.

Earlier, someone talked about a Canada Post employee in the gallery who said that she worked 14 hours but was only paid for six. That is the type of inequity that postal workers are currently facing. That is what the union is trying to remedy through the bargaining process.

Why is Canada Post refusing to recognize that making its workers work eight extra hours without any pay is a problem?

The government wants to force unionized employees to go back to their old collective agreement, which would mean an estimated 250,000 hours of work between now and Christmas, not between now and next year. Those hours will be worked by employees in rural areas, and they will not be paid for them. That is the reality that the Liberals are imposing on us, in collusion with Canada Post. All of this is being done against the wishes of workers.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that Canada Post Corporation had no interest in negotiating in good faith, and I have no idea whether it has negotiated in good faith. However, if we look at subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii), it seems to me that it is now in the best interest of Canada Post management to make a reasonable offer. Otherwise, the arbitrator will choose the best offer, which could be the union's offer.

Does he not think the bill is a good incentive for Canada Post to negotiate as it should?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, his question is a little ridiculous.

Canada Post managers knew that the government was going to intervene. If they thought they stood a better chance with a mediator, they would have already negotiated, but they refused to do so.

This bill does mention that the mediator could give more to the unions. If Canada Post managers were really worried about that happening, they would have negotiated in good faith before, but they did not.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mirabel.

Obviously strikes and lockouts are always a last resort for both workers and the company. When they happen, they will always affect not only the workers and the company, but customers, suppliers, communities and the economy.

Our government believes in a free and fair collective bargaining process, one that allows the right of employees to strike and employers to lock out. Obviously, strikes and lockouts are not ideal. They are almost always more messy than clean. Sometimes government does have to step in but only as a last resort, not as common practice.

Back-to-work legislation does not represent success, it represents failure. When a federal government uses back-to-work legislation, it must ensure that it is not only fair to the workers and the company, but that it is fair to the citizens of this country.

I want to talk about how this is not only legislation of last resort but that it seeks to legislate a fair process, not an agreement in favour of one party over the other. Throughout these negotiations, the Government of Canada has been proactive and tireless in our good-faith attempts to help the parties reach agreements. As the minister has discussed at length, federal conciliation officers and mediators have been assisting the parties throughout these negotiations.

When bargaining reached an impasse, we appointed a special mediator to bring a fresh set of eyes to the table. Negotiations stalled again, so we offered voluntary arbitration. It was declined by the parties. We also reappointed the special mediator this week in hopes of getting a deal.

We have strongly encouraged the parties to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion. We believe that a negotiated agreement is always the best solution. As the Minister of Labour has said, we have done everything possible to assist the parties to end this dispute, and despite our efforts, CUPW and Canada Post management have been unable to reach an agreement.

It is with great reluctance that we have been left with no other option but to introduce back-to-work legislation to get our postal service back to functioning at full capacity. We have heard plenty of times today that our government is no better than the previous Conservatives when it comes to respecting labour and enacting back-to-work legislation. There is nothing further from the truth. I have no problem comparing our record on ensuring fair and balanced labour laws to theirs.

I would like to remind people that in the previous government, the Conservatives introduced back-to-work legislation a record four times in the first year in office, and threatened to use it on two other occasions in the middle of a collective bargaining process. Instead of being fair and balanced, the Conservative government was just the opposite, whether it was the threat of back-to-work legislation even before there was a disruption, appointing inappropriate arbitrators or enacting back-to-work legislation that imposed worse conditions than what the parties themselves had agreed upon. I spoke earlier about the fact that the arbitrator gave a smaller increase in pay to the CUPW than Canada Post had agreed to during negotiations. The Conservative government also used the Canada Industrial Relations Board as a pawn to delay the employees' right to strike and the employer's right to lock out.

In three years, our government has done nothing of the like. Liberals have tried to be fair and balanced in our actions towards labour relations, and specifically with how we are dealing with this labour dispute at Canada Post. I would like to remind people of how the previous Conservative government handled the Canada Post dispute. It introduced back-to-work legislation after only two weeks of rotating strikes, legislated a wage rate that was lower than the rate that the union and management had already agreed upon, and forced the arbitrator to only look at the financial considerations of the company, with nothing about the workers. The Conservative government's first arbitrator had no labour experience and was not bilingual.

After being forced by the courts to appoint another arbitrator, the Conservatives picked a three-time failed Conservative candidate who had to be removed after another court challenge. We are doing nothing like this in our legislation. To the contrary, this legislation is about creating a fair process to ensure we get an agreement on key issues not only for the company but the workers as well, by an independent and fair mediator-arbitrator. This legislation does not tilt the scale in favour of one party over another.

The principles that will guide the mediator-arbitrator process include the need to ensure the health and safety of employees, which has been mentioned numerous times today; to ensure that employees receive equal pay for work of equal value, which has been referenced today; to ensure the fair and equal treatment of temporary, part-time and other employees as non-standard employees as compared to full-time permanent employees; to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of Canada Post; to create a culture of collaborative labour-management relations; and for high-quality service to be provided by Canada Post at a reasonable price to Canadians. These guiding principles, I believe, are fair and balanced and should be reached in an agreement.

No government wants to legislate workers back to work. However, parties of all stripes have legislated workers back to work. The NDP today has tried to mislead Canadians and unionists in this country about the use of back-to-work legislation by NDP provincial governments. Seven NDP premiers have used back-to-work legislation on at least 15 occasions. There are three members of the NDP in the House today who were members of NDP provincial governments that enacted back-to-work legislation. The members for London—Fanshawe and Hamilton Centre were both members of an NDP Ontario government that legislated teachers back to work three times in three months in the fall of 1993. The member for Vancouver East was also a member of a B.C. NDP government that voted to legislate public education support workers and cleaning staff back to work in the year 2000. That bill was passed in one day.

I know those governments, like ours, did not take these decisions lightly. I know that there comes a point in all labour strife that responsible governments must take action. Canadians need to know that our government does everything within its power to help parties in industrial disputes resolve their differences without a work stoppage. This is no Harper-era legislation. We are legislating a process, not an agreement. It is completely different. We are not forcing specific conditions on the union. We just need to get to an agreement and Canadians expect us to get to an agreement.

If we had any hope at this point that the differences between CUPW and Canada Post were close to resolution, we would not be tabling this legislation. After five weeks of rotating strikes, we are forced to say that enough is enough.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I attended a press conference at noon today with most of my colleagues and about 30 mail carriers. I heard one mail carrier say that Canada Post had received welfare and child benefit cheques on Monday but they sat there, and Canada Post did not ask mail carriers to deliver them until Thursday.

Does the member think that Canada Post is acting in good faith by doing that?

If that is not acting in good faith, why did the government decide to support the employer, Canada Post, which uses tactics like that to influence public opinion, instead of the workers who are being wronged?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when parliamentarians get involved in these types of debates. Those types of stories become reality, and that is not a fact. I know the CUPW members have made it a priority to make sure that people who depend on their cheques get them. That is noble and fair and very much appreciated by those who live from cheque to cheque. I commend CUPW, as do my colleagues, for taking that action.

We are not trying to impart a resolution as far as an agreement goes. We are looking at a fair, honest and open process so that the two groups can come to some kind of agreement that can work for both of them. It is about the process and that is why we brought this legislation forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I had a dime for every time I heard someone from the government benches today say that they really do not want to do this, it is a last resort, our hands are tied, if only there was some way that we could have dealt with this, I would have a heck of a lot more money than the people on short-term disability at Canada Post who have not received a dime for the last five weeks because the minister did not have the courage to intervene.

The fact of the matter is that had the minister responsible for Canada Post been doing her job all along, then we would not be in this position. If she had appointed management with a mandate to get to the table and to make real changes in the workplace, either through collective bargaining or not, they could have accepted those ideas as good ideas and implement them in the workplace. There are a lot of ways that this could have been headed off and we would not have gotten here.

I cannot accept that from the member when he says that there was nothing else that could have been done. The only person , as far as I am concerned, who needs to be legislated back to work is the minister responsible for Canada Post, who has not been doing her job. I would like to know when she is going to start.

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

Mr. Speaker, this may not come as a surprise that I agree with very little of what the member across has said. I believe that both ministers have been on this file and have been focused on this file. For a year, these negotiations have gone on. Our federally appointed mediators were engaged right from the start. When we saw that the strike had been called and things had been stalled, we went again and appointed another mediator to put a clean set of eyes on this and an impartial set of eyes, and then later appointed a special mediator.

This has been a focus, something that has been top of the heap as far as the focus for both ministers. It just goes to show how entrenched both parties are and how difficult. We could do nothing other than this because both parties have just dug in on those particular issues.

We are doing what is responsible. We are doing what Canadians expect us to do as a responsible government.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to speak to a bill that takes away one of the most basic rights of honest workers. I would like to begin by stating that I stand with the workers who are facing strong-arm tactics and who are being denied freedom of expression and the power to negotiate. The government is treating them like cattle, but Quebeckers see them as people. We recognize their work, we appreciate the service they provide and we are with them.

Taking away workers' right to strike makes government less democratic and more authoritarian every time it happens. In 2015, the Supreme Court was clear about that in its decision.

The ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services in the process of the negotiation of a collective agreement is, and has historically been, the irreducible minimum of the freedom to associate in Canadian labour relations....the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process...

I am not the only one to have said it today. It is a quote from the Supreme Court.

This is a ruling from 2015, not 1822. Many things have happened since 2015, starting with a federal election that put the Liberals in power. Unfortunately, there is the same corporate culture as there was under Paul Martin. When a party moves to the other side of the House of Commons, it leaves a lot behind on the opposition benches, starting with its honour.

Let us begin by making one thing clear. “A rotating strike is not a strike, it is a pressure tactic used to force a negotiated settlement.” It was a fine, loyal Liberal who said that. The former mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, who lost the election, said that on June 23, 2011, when the Conservatives wanted to ram special legislation down postal workers' throats.

I want to clarify something else. Special legislation is the kind of last-resort measure a government uses to end a strike that has been dragging on and on and is affecting essential public services. It is not a measure to be taken lightly before strike action even begins in earnest. The government is not taking a last-resort measure today; it is literally depriving postal workers of their right to strike. Special legislation makes no sense when there is not even a strike on. Others have said so before me. The current Minister of Transport, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, said exactly that on June 16, 2011, when the Conservatives were trampling on postal workers' rights with their own special legislation.

Does it come as any surprise to anyone that the Liberals would say one thing while in opposition and do exactly the opposite when in power? No.

Here in the House and elsewhere, people are used to Liberal ways. The Liberals are always like that. It is really something to see the government spend its time boasting about what a tough negotiator it is with respect to protecting the right to strike around the world in talks with its trading partners, when it is now suspending that right here at home. That comes as no surprise to anyone. Everyone knows that when it comes to workers' rights, the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. The two parties are one and the same.

By imposing special legislation, they both infringe on workers' rights. It is shameful. By imposing special legislation, they both fail to show a modicum of respect for workers. That too is shameful. By imposing special legislation, they both conduct negotiations in bad faith, and that too is shameful.

Liberal or Conservative, the federal government is and has always been the government that treats its employees the worst. No one in the two major government parties cares about job security. That is what the little people care about. They are elitists. Workplace health is important to people who do physical labour, who work outside. Very little thought is given to that in ministers' wood-panelled offices. The only workplace injury they might get is a paper cut.

It is no coincidence that postal workers have been treated to special legislation in 1987, 1991, 1997, 2011 and today. That is how it works in Ottawa. It is 30 years behind Quebec when it comes to labour law. It is no coincidence that it is only at the federal level that employers still have the right to hire scabs when workers are on strike. It is no coincidence that it is only at the federal level that the right of Quebeckers to work in French is violated.

It is no coincidence that the federal government is the only one that could not care less about the safety of pregnant women and their unborn babies, since it will not let them apply for preventive withdrawal without penalty when the job becomes dangerous.

This is what happens when a government is so high and mighty and so far removed from the real world that it knows nothing about how things work in real life for ordinary people.

I introduced a bill to fix all of this, but even before it was debated, I could already tell what the two federal champions of management were thinking. They always side with the employer, never with honest citizens who simply want to earn a living with dignity.

In the face of so much bad faith in a case like this one, we have every right to wonder why the government will not back down. There are a number of possibilities. The first is that the Liberals are once again beholden to the web giants, and their campaign coffers are filled to the brim with donations from these giants, much like the Prime Minister's bank account was filled with money from Chinese bankers in July 2017.

The second possibility is that the government does not understand the issue, which is improbable, but would not be surprising.

The third possibility is that the Liberal members are, as usual, weak, spineless and gutless in the face of cabinet, which is helping itself to billions of dollars in public money to enrich its buddies, as we saw with the cannabis industry. What a bunch of cowards.

If I were a Liberal member of Parliament, I would be embarrassed to walk down the street and meet my constituents. If this were the wild west, the Liberals would be tarred and feathered. They would be paraded around town so they could feel the weight of the shame and contempt they inspire. A good Liberal MP is an obedient sheep who licks the master's boots. They should be ashamed of what they are doing.

It should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois sides with the workers and strikers and will vote against this bill.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague on the other side of the House. I do not really agree with him, but I do have a question for him.

He and I come from the same area, the Lower Laurentians, where there are many small and medium-sized businesses. With e-commerce, more and more parcels are being sent by mail. With the holiday season approaching, how will we make sure that middle-class Canadians get their parcels? Small and medium-sized businesses cannot use courier services like FedEx and UPS because they are too expensive.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but find it surprising that my colleague wants small and medium-sized companies to have their parcels delivered by Canada Post. I can understand why, but I am somewhat surprised because buying local is also important. It is important to shop at local stores.

I am also surprised that my colleague is giving us lessons in economics, given that her government posted another $16-billion deficit in the last budget.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The government keeps repeating that it is imposing special back-to-work legislation because postal workers are holding a rotating strike.

In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, there has been just one day of strikes since the start of the job action. That is like one statutory holiday. The same goes for Sherbrooke and Abitibi-Témiscamingue, where postal workers were only on strike for one day.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the government is exaggerating the crisis fabricated by Canada Post. It has blown the situation out of proportion. What workers really want is to deliver the mail and, of course, to negotiate a collective agreement and settle the safety issue once and for all.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually quite simple. The government decided to use a bazooka to kill a fly. As usual, it is trampling on workers' rights using special legislation when they are not even really on strike.

The real problem is that it is using economic principles as an excuse, while its $16-billion deficit proves that it is definitely not the best money manager. We will take no lessons from the Liberals on the economy. They think they know how it works, but I seriously doubt that special legislation will work to solve such an issue.

[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)

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Chair, it is a secret to no one that Canada's postal service is a key element of our business and charitable sectors and indeed of our economy. When we have a major disruption in service, the impact on businesses and charities is direct and it is immediate.

I am going to go through the stories of some of the groups that have been affected.

As some members may know, charities count on the last months of the year for crucial fundraising drives, and December is the most important. As the former executive director of a homeless shelter, December was when we reached peak donation season. We counted on those donations to help us get through the end of that year.

Canada Post is essential to many other not-for-profit organizations that are doing essential fundraising work to provide the critical services to members in our communities all across the country.

As Scott Decksheimer, Canada Board chair of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, says:

Direct mail continues to be the leading way that most donors give to charity. We are concerned that donors who typically give in the fall might receive their donation requests too late – or their donations will be received too late by the charity to help people this year.

Organizations like the Salvation Army are feeling the hit as well. It has said that its direct mail donations are down by 40%. The Salvation Army's national director of marketing, John McAlister, outlined exactly what that meant. He said:

Many of our supporters choose to give each year between November and December and even those who give throughout the year boost their support during this time. We rely heavily on our mail program.

For an organization like the Salvation Army, the strain is especially difficult at this time of year. He said:

As we move into extreme cold weather across the country, we start to boost the number of services. We offer more out-of-the-cold beds, warm meals and supports for vulnerable people, including giving out free clothing.

Similarly, the Mustard Seed in Victoria has said that it normally receives 70% of its annual fundraising at this time of year. Its donations are down by 23% this month over this time last year. Janiene Boice, its director of development, says, “Our biggest concern is not getting the donations in time. It is nerve-wracking.”

Similar charitable initiatives, like citizen groups or not-for-profits, are feeling it.

Beverley Mitchell from Toronto wrote in to the Toronto Star, saying that her organization was having a hard time getting supplies to remote fly-in communities in northern Canada. She said:

I am personally involved in sending much-needed food to shelters and soup kitchens; warm clothing to the homeless, poor and elderly; school supplies and food to daycares and schools in both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Besides the time delays and uncertainty of delivery, there is an added expense of about $1,000 to upgrade our service level to Express Post in the hopes these parcels will receive faster service when the strike action rotates.

Weather is always a concern in the winter in getting parcels to the North in a timely manner but the strikes have made it an incredibly difficult and expensive challenge.

We need to comprehend the full extent of the disruption that the postal strike is causing to charities, not only in the short term but over the months and years to come.

As the former executive director for Shelter House in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Christmas was our busiest time. In fact, we saw donations skyrocket at Christmas. We relied on direct mail to communicate with donors to ask them to boost their donations. Many donations arrived every day that allowed us to continue to stock the shelves, feed the people who were relying on our services and ensure that we had the dollars necessary to operate in a safe and efficient way.

Let me also tell the House about a business that I feel illustrates the dire situation faced by thousands of enterprises in all sectors of our economy.

In Hamilton, Jaime Drayer handcrafts mugs, cards, prints and apparel. She says that the holidays are typically her busiest time, but her sales are down 43% this year. She is having to warn customers that she can no longer guarantee delivery by her holiday cutoff dates.

Ms. Drayer left her job in January because she was looking forward to this being her first holiday season in which she could dedicate herself to her craft and to her business full time. “It's extra-disappointing on a personal level,” she said. This is a typical family business that is struggling to make ends meet. This is a matter that is pressing and we need to solve it urgently.

In 2016, Canada Post and CUPW negotiated a two-year agreement without a labour disruption, and this agreement expired on January 31, 2018. Starting October 22, 2018, Canada Post workers had organized rotating strikes nationwide.

I cannot overemphasize that the Government of Canada is committed to and believes in free and collective bargaining, which is why, since the start of collective bargaining negotiations between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, we have been doing everything possible to help the parties come to an agreement.

Federal mediators have been assisting the parties throughout their negotiations, which began almost a year ago. When bargaining reached an impasse, we appointed a special mediator to help the process along and to iron out new differences with a new perspective. We also offered voluntary arbitration. Additionally, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement have reached out to the parties directly on numerous occasions. In fact, the parties have spoken to me frequently throughout the weeks passing, and a special mediator was brought in two more times to attempt to help the parties resolve their differences and reach an agreement that works for everyone.

These efforts demonstrate our firm belief that a negotiated agreement is always preferable. It is always the best solution. It is not to mention the number of other disputes that have been resolved in the last three years since we formed government without resorting to back-to-work legislation. However, despite these efforts, rotating strikes by CUPW have been disrupting Canada Post operations in more than 200 communities across the country for over a month now.

This legislation has a number of functions. First, it would restore postal services to Canadians and Canadian businesses. It would do so by ordering an immediate end to the work stoppages on the day following royal assent. Second, it would provide for the extension of collective agreements of CUPW urban post operations and CUPW rural and suburban mail carriers until new collective agreements are established. The period of the work stoppages are excluded from an extension of the collective agreement. Third, it would provide that I appoint a mediator-arbitrator proposed by the parties, or if the parties fail to propose the same person, I will seek the advice of the chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board before appointing a mediator-arbitrator. Fourth, it would provide for the mediator-arbitrator to resolve all outstanding issues through mediation, or if mediation fails on particular issues, arbitrate them through an arbitration model of his or her choice based on guiding principles that have been set out fairly.

I still encourage the parties to get a deal. At any point before the arbitration period concludes and the recommendations are made, the parties can enter into a voluntary agreement. Time is an important factor here. The longer this strike goes on, the more significant the damage it causes. The negative impacts of the strike continue to escalate and compound, particularly with the holiday season which increases volume significantly. We cannot afford to let this continue unaddressed.

Given the serious negative effects this strike is having on Canadians and Canadian businesses across the country, we need to resolve this situation now. That is why the government is taking this action.

I deeply regret that the parties in this strike have not been able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion through the normal negotiation process. This is not a measure that we introduce light-heartedly. Let us keep in mind in this House that back-to-work legislation is introduced as a last resort, after we have exhausted all possibilities respecting collective bargaining. I should add that the government will continue to support the parties and strongly encourage them to resume discussions in order to reach agreements as soon as possible.¸

Our preference clearly would have been a negotiated settlement. As a principle, once a strike or a lockout has begun, the Government of Canada usually stands aside. However, there are some exceptional situations where standing aside would be highly irresponsible. Work stoppages like this one are very costly to both sides, and the real losses incurred by the parties cannot offset any eventual gains.

As long as the two parties are the only ones to suffer, the Government of Canada has no justification for intervening, but when a strike is affecting hundreds of thousands or even millions of people, the government must intervene. When a strike is substantially damaging our economy, putting communities at risk, we have the duty to step in.

The Canada Labour Code gives the parties in a dispute the right to a strike or a lockout. This disruption is bringing unnecessary hardship to Canadians, so we cannot remain on the sidelines and let the situation deteriorate even more. We are taking the action that is required.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, now that I find myself seated on this side of the House, I feel a sudden compulsion to speak about the middle class and those working hard to join it. I would like to make the point that one of the building blocks for our middle class has been free collective bargaining. Things such as better wages, safer working conditions and paid time off have all come through free collective bargaining. Sometimes arbitration is used as a substitute, but when we talk about the new pioneering gains for middle-class people, they really can only come from free collective bargaining.

This is a goal that we should share on all sides of this House, and we should be very concerned when the government steps in to take away the ability for free collective bargaining, for a few reasons. One is that it sets a very negative precedent for other areas of the economy. Another is that it sets a negative precedent for Canada Post itself because if the employees and the management know that they should expect that the federal government is going to step in with back-to-work legislation, it really takes away any incentive or any impetus they have to try to negotiate an actual settlement. It actually gives them a bit of an incentive to wait around for the government to bring in this legislation.

The Minister of Labour actually recognizes that it is not desirable to have back-to-work legislation. She has described it as a last resort and has suggested that all available options were exhausted before bringing in back-to-work legislation. This seems a bit doubtful to me, given the fact that we do not even have a full-scale strike at Canada Post; we just have rotating strikes.

I would actually like to use some of my time to ask the Minister of Labour whether she attempted to negotiate an essential service protocol with the employees of Canada Post to ensure that they would continue to deliver the cheques to low-income people and to charities that she has spoken about and deems to be such an important service. Perhaps I could turn it over to the Minister of Labour to answer that question.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the member opposite realizes that we have a high degree of respect for organized labour and, in fact, such a degree of respect that the first piece of legislation we introduced and passed was Bill C-4, which restored the rights of organized labour to collectively bargain and organize. It repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, two very harmful pieces of legislation that the Conservatives had rammed through the House in an effort to diminish the ability of organized labour to grow its movement, to work, as the member pointed out, on ensuring that there is decent work for people all across the country.

We also ratified ILO Convention 98, which guarantees the right to organize and collectively bargain. We have introduced legislation that we worked on with unions which unions have been calling for, for decades. These are things like pay equity, federally regulated proactive pay equity, something that unions have been calling for, including the union involved in this dispute, flexible work arrangements, and protection of federally regulated workers from violence or harassment in the workplace. In this respect, I would refer to Bill C-65, which recently passed. We have introduced updates to the Canada Labour Code to modernize it and protect the most vulnerable in the workplace, again in partnership with organized labour. The list goes on in terms of the work we have done in partnership with unions, because we recognize the important role they play in establishing a standard that often protects the most vulnerable and people who are not unionized in this country.

I will also speak to the second part of the member's question. The member asked what we have done to ensure we could work with the parties to help them arrive at a collective agreement. From my perspective, we have done everything we can to support the parties to get there themselves. For example, over a year ago, both parties agreed to work with a mediator, so we appointed the federal mediation service early on in their talks to help them have productive talks and work through some of the substantial issues that both the union and the corporation were facing. The mediators worked with the parties for well over a year. When those talks broke down, they asked—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, the minister indicated to the House earlier today the criteria that would be presented to the arbitrator. One of the criteria the arbitrator is supposed to consider is the financial sustainability of Canada Post. The financial sustainability of Canada Post has often been questioned because the government has insisted that as a Crown corporation, it account for its pension plan on a solvency basis. This is a very unrealistic assumption that posits that Canada Post be wound up and have to pay out all of its pension benefits at once. Of course, this formula necessarily shows an unfunded liability and a problem with financial sustainability.

Some have proposed that it would make much more sense to treat Canada Post like the rest of the federal public service and account for its pension plan on a going concern basis. I would ask the labour minister whether she will be instructing the arbitrator to evaluate Canada Post's financial sustainability with a solvency valuation approach or with a going concern approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the minister, I will reiterate the format that we are following. We are in committee of the whole, where members have up to 20 minutes tp speak. In the course of that 20 minutes, they are able to pose questions to a minister, but the time is their own. It is not like a question and comment period. The minister gave her opening remarks, after which we went to the next speaker, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. It is his time now for up to 20 minutes. He can use his time as he wishes to pose questions to the minister. The same format will follow with the next speaker.

The hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member has asked me to talk about the guiding principles we are asking the arbitrator-mediator to consider as he or she works to help the parties, should we reach the point where the parties need that assistance.

The guiding principles the mediator-arbitrator needs to consider are, first, to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected. That is something I am sure the member opposite would agree is a critical consideration. Second is to ensure that employees receive equal pay for work of equal value. I do not want to assume this, but I think the member opposite would not have a challenge with that guiding principle. Third is to ensure the fair treatment of temporary or part-time employees and other employees in non-standard employment as compared to full-time and permanent employees. Fourth is to ensure the financial sustainability of the employer, and fifth is to create a culture of collaborative labour-management relations. Sixth is to have the employer provide high-quality service at a reasonable price to Canadians.

The member is asking about the financial sustainability of the employer. I do not think this is an unreasonable principle to consider, because in fact, the employment of the worker depends on the financial sustainability of the employer. The employer has constraints, just like any other employer. It has an operation to deliver, with a specific budget. It has limited resources to raise additional revenue, and it has to be prudent with its resources. The financial sustainability of the corporation, of course, has to be a consideration, because ultimately, this is about protecting those good-quality jobs.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, in this debate, the minister has spoken a great deal about the needs of lower-income people and smaller businesses that might depend on service from Canada Post. Something that would help those lower-income individuals and smaller businesses, but would also contribute to Canada Post's financial sustainability, would be for it to move into the area of postal banking. This would provide much-needed financial services to communities and smaller enterprises, which are often underserved by the big banks, while at the same time providing a new source of revenue for Canada Post and a new way of using its offices all across the country in so many communities.

I would like to give the minister a chance to explain whether in this search for financial sustainability, she or the arbitrator will give serious consideration to implementing postal banking.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is not the arbitrator's place to design the corporate model or the services the corporation will deliver. It is the arbitrator's place, though, to consider the financial sustainability of the employer. The corporation really is the appropriate place to have those conversations. From my perspective, the corporation has to be financially prudent. It has a large operation, and it has financial constraints.

Having said that, we also know that they have to take very seriously the other principles we have laid out for the arbitrator, including things like the health and safety of workers and the fair treatment of temporary and part-time employees. It is really the corporation's responsibility to chart its path in terms of the suite of services it offers and how it offers those services to Canadians.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, something the government promised during the past election campaign was to restore door-to-door mail delivery. Of course, keeping that promise would make a huge, positive difference for Canada Post and its employees. I would like to give the minister a chance to inform the House when the government is going to restore door-to-door mail delivery.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, our government committed to placing a moratorium on ending door-to-door delivery, and that is, in fact, what we did. Having said that, we are here to discuss the back-to-work legislation, the action we are taking to restore postal service to Canadians during this very difficult time.

From my perspective, it was referenced in my previous answer. It is at the discretion of the corporation at this point how it delivers its services and what its particular model of service is. Of course, we have given guidelines. The member knows that we have done a lot to actually transform Canada Post. We have given it quite a bit of latitude. Having said that, we believe that these principles are very balanced. We know that the arbitrator will use these principles and consider them carefully to make sure that we get to an agreement, should that be necessary should the parties not be able to come to that agreement on their own, in a balanced, fair way that considers the concerns of the union but also the constraints of the corporation.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, so far in this portion of the committee of the whole, I have asked the minister whether, in viewing back-to-work legislation as a last resort, she made an effort to negotiate an essential service protocol with the employees of Canada Post to ensure the delivery of cheques and other services that she does not want to see disrupted. We really have not heard a clear answer to that question, and I think we need one to be able to evaluate whether this actually is the last resort.

I also asked the minister, in terms of financial sustainability, how the Canada Post pension plan is going to be evaluated. That is a critically important question in terms of whether we believe management's storyline that there is a crisis and a need for concessions or whether we recognize that if Canada Post employees were treated the same as other federal public servants, there really would not be such a problem, and we could negotiate with them on a much more positive basis.

I asked the minister whether there would be consideration of postal banking as a way of improving the financial sustainability of Canada Post and of providing a needed service to Canadian communities, some of the same communities the government has tried to invoke in justifying this legislation. All we have really heard is that the arbitrator cannot determine Canada Post's corporate model. Fair enough, but surely the government can, and it would be nice to have an answer to that question as well.

Finally, the last thing I asked was when the government would keep its promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery. The minister mentioned the fact that the government has put a moratorium on the further removal of door-to-door mail delivery, which is a welcome development. However, it is not enough, and it is certainly not what was talked about during the election campaign.

It seems to me that a number of questions have come before the House this evening, and we have not really received complete answers to them. I think that really underscores why we should be having a great deal more time to debate and have deliberations on this type of legislation. The government has certainly made the case that its back-to-work legislation will not violate constitutional rights to free association and collective bargaining. However, one of the best ways to make sure that the legislation complies with the Constitution and other requirements is to actually have a full, proper amount of debate in this House.

I really appreciate the opportunity to participate in such a significant way in the committee of the whole, and I am glad we are having this deliberation. However, I feel that the deliberation we have had so far has really only underscored and exposed the need for a much more fulsome debate on this proposed legislation before we have to have a vote at third reading.

I appeal to other members of this House to reconsider the rushed timeline that has been adopted and to consider the possibility of having a few days, at least, of debate on something that might impinge on the fundamental workplace rights of tens of thousands of Canadians and that might do serious damage to a movement that is so important to the development of the middle class and those working hard to join it.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a few remarks, and then I have some questions for the minister.

There have been many references to 2011, when the Conservatives ended rotating CUPW strikes. However, this Liberal motion and the legislation that follows it, believe it or not, is even more restrictive than Stephen Harper's was, because the motion that preceded this bill limits debate to the shortest possible timeframe. We are expected to wrap up this farce before the end of this sitting day tonight. It is an outright affront to democracy, and the Prime Minister and his caucus do not even have the decency to be ashamed.

It is just another broken promise thrown on a heap of abandoned election promises from 2015. We heard about electoral reform, treating veterans and their families with dignity and fairness, promises to never take veterans back to court, balanced budgets and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and effectively addressing climate change—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I realize that committee of the whole is a less formal proceeding. However, there is a little too much chaos in the chamber, with people standing and having side conversations. I would ask hon. members to keep conversations at a low level. We know it works not too badly to a point. If you really want to engage in that kind of conversation, perhaps do it in your respective lobbies.

We will go back to the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there have been all kinds of promises to effectively address climate change, but sadly, the fact is that our greenhouse gas emissions increased significantly in 2015. Let us not forget the promise to restore home mail delivery. All this brings us back to Canada Post and its refusal to bargain a fair and equitable collective agreement with its CUPW members.

Let us examine the facts. There are many facts to look at in this conflict. Workplace injuries at Canada Post have increased by 43% over the last two years, largely as a result of Canada Post's transformation, which requires workers to walk longer routes carrying heavier loads. It is not just letters. It is letters and parcels. Some parcels can be quite large and quite heavy.

Today the disabling injury rate for a letter carrier is five times the rate of the rest of the federal public sector. Just imagine if our workplace were such that it jeopardized our physical and emotional well-being. When CUPW president Mike Palecek asked his members about injuries, in a couple of hours he received more than 450 responses. The stories are quite heartbreaking. I would like to give members a sense of the kinds of things CUPW members are facing.

One young woman writes that she tripped and fell on an icy sidewalk. She was seriously injured, and it took several months for her to get back to work after having received physiotherapy. When she went back, she was supposed to be on light duty. Despite that, she was harassed by her manager to do more and more heavier work. As a result, she was re-injured, and she has not been able to get back to work. She has small children who are depending on her ability to earn a living.

Another individual reported that he fell and landed on his right knee. He twisted his left knee in the process, and now he has severe arthritis in both. He was accommodated at the plant, but that accommodation has not worked out, and as a result, he cannot work. He cannot work the way he had intended, and he has many years ahead of him in terms of his working life.

This means that not only are these people injured but they cannot provide for their families in the way they had expected, and quite simply, families are suffering. I cannot begin to explain how important it is for the government to understand that this strike is about not just money but about the well-being of families and CUPW members. It is about their health and safety, and that should matter.

We hear other stories about workers being sent out on nights, not unlike tonight, to wear headlamps to find their way over dark, slippery snowbanks and snow covered sidewalks. If a worker cannot finish a route in eight hours, that worker is sent back out to finish delivering the mail. The fact is that people cannot work 10, 12 or 14 hours a day, as we heard from people in the gallery.

The government has chosen to come to the aid of Canada Post instead of the aid of CUPW workers. Before I ask my questions, I would like to quote once against from Dru Oja Jay and his observations about this strike. He said, “Every successful strike has to pass through a storm of negative media coverage and worse. It's no different for Canada Post employees. They're striking for their own health and safety. They're endlessly overworked, and they're frequently injured. They have a plan for transforming Canada Post into an engine for economic and environmental transition. They're also bargaining for equal pay for rural mail carriers, who are not paid the same rate as their urban counterparts.”

In some cases, they receive no money at all for work done, simply because it does not fit into the four or six hours that Canada Post has determined for a mail route.

I do indeed have some questions for the minister. I would like to know if the minister is aware that the injury rate for postal workers is more than five times that of other federal workers. Does the minister condone the perpetuation of this unsafe reality in the workplace at Canada Post?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her obvious compassion for the workers of Canada Post. We share that compassion.

I share a profound conviction that people should be safe at work. As Minister of Labour, one of the most devastating parts of my job is that I receive notices, from across the country in federally regulated workplaces, of significant injury and death that occur in workplaces. It is a profoundly sobering part of my job to see how many injuries and deaths arise in federally regulated workplaces to this day, most of which, if not all, are preventable.

I stand with the member opposite to say that we all deserve to come home safe and sound at the end of a day. It is my commitment as the Minister of Labour to continue to work on making sure that workplaces are safe and healthy.

That is why the first guiding principle in the legislation is to ensure that the health and safety of employees are protected. We have heard from union members about their concerns regarding their health and safety in the workplace, and that is why that principle is incorporated into the principles that the arbitrator must consider when making decisions, if the parties cannot make those decisions on their own.

I will also say—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We will go back to the hon. member for London—Fanshawe. Normally, in this format the length of the response is as close as possible to the time that was taken to pose the question.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate your clarifying that for the minister.

The minister has talked a great deal about the cost of the rotating strikes to the economy. Is she aware that one of the key issues of this strike is indeed the injuries suffered by CUPW workers? Given that injuries cost the economy in Canada about $26 billion a year, is the minister at all concerned about the cost to the economy of this reality of injury at Canada Post?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will complete my response to the member about the very compelling story she told about a particular worker who had been injured, had returned to work and who felt harassed to do more than her return-to-work plan indicated she was capable of doing.

I will point out that Bill C-65 was passed thanks to all, very supportive, members of the House, who agreed that workplaces should be free of harassment and violence. All workers will now be protected by the new legislation this government has introduced. In fact, now when people are harassed, regardless of the workplace in which they find themselves, if they are in a federally regulated workplace, they will have measures to protect them and support them as they move through processes for which they may not have had support previously.

In terms of the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

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

Mr. Chair, Canada Post was, in fact, a federally regulated workplace before this legislation, and those issues were never addressed and the harassment continues.

I would like to now ask the minister if she supports management's directive, which we have heard something about, that Canada Post CUPW workers withheld government cheques that included child tax benefits and social assistance cheques. Was she aware of it and does she condone it?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, in fact Canada Post and the union agreed prior to the strike that they would continue to deliver government cheques to Canadians. What we know is that some of those cheques may have arrived slightly late as a result of the rotating strikes, and that has created hardship.

What is even more difficult for Canadians who rely on government cheques, and in fact all kinds of cheques, is the uncertainty. I repeat that I have heard from members of my own community that even the uncertainty of not knowing if a cheque will arrive in time to pay rent can be extremely difficulty for people who are often in the most vulnerable situations.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for that answer, but unfortunately it does not bear out in terms of the truth of the matter. Cheques were delivered to Canada Post outlets and there was a message that they were not to be delivered until after November 22. That came from management. That seems to me to be at the crux of it, the manipulation by Canada Post, and the minister does not seem to be able to understand it or control it.

I wonder if the minister believes that it is okay that for the past 10 years the CUPW workers' pay has remained below inflation.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, these are exactly the reasons why collective agreements exist and why bargaining is so important. Bargaining determines wages, increases, in some cases practices and principles, working hours, leave and a number of issues. That is why we have worked so closely with the parties through this process to get them to a place where they could agree on the terms of the next collective agreement. It is not for me to say what the increase should be of any corporation. However, collective bargaining is an opportunity to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. That is what we have been working on so hard with both parties through all of the tools available to us.

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

Mr. Chair, I am afraid that the minister does not seem to understand that back-to-work legislation short-circuits this collective bargaining that the minister said is going to produce fair wages and make sure workers are protected.

I wonder if the minister also believes it is acceptable for Canada Post to be allowed to deny rural and suburban workers' pay for all hours worked.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, again I will draw the member's attention to the guiding principles in the legislation for the arbitrator, which clearly indicate that, along with the health and safety of the employees to be protected, the arbitrator consider that employees are ensured to receive equal pay for work of equal value and ensure the fair treatment for the more temporary or part-time employees and other employees in non-standard employment as compared to full-time or permanent employees. These principles are exactly there to help guide the arbitrator to address long-standing issues that the union has experienced.

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

Mr. Chair, I would also like to ask the minister this. Is she aware that the employees who work for Purolator, which is a part of Canada Post, make $5 more per hour than CUPW members for doing essentially the same work? Two months ago they were granted a 3% wage increase, yet Canada Post is waffling and refusing to bargain with respect to the 2.9% requested by CUPW. Does the minister feel that is acceptable?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was just checking with my officials because I recalled that the Purolator contract was one of the first contracts that, in my term as Minister of Labour, was successfully concluded through a collective bargaining process. That was an agreement that was negotiated by the members of that union with their employer. This is exactly how the collective bargaining process should work.

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

Mr. Chair, I wonder if the minister is aware that under USMCA, Canadians ordering packages shipped from the U.S. and Mexico by private couriers could receive a $40 discount with respect to duty on the goods. However, that is only if they use private couriers. The same exemption is not available to Canada Post. Does the minister condone this imbalance regarding private couriers and Canada Post? Is she prepared to ask her government to hold up signing the USMCA until this unfair practice is rectified?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am really pleased to get this question from the member opposite, because one of the things that makes the USMCA so progressive is the fully enforceable chapter on labour. It has been endorsed by Canadian and international labour organizations that say that this is in fact the most progressive labour chapter in the history of trade agreements. I would say that we care so much about the rights of labour that we insisted on a fully enforceable labour chapter as part of the USMCA. That is something that organized labour had been calling for, worked with us so carefully to craft, and stood with us, side by side, as we negotiated that agreement.

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

Mr. Chair, unfortunately this agreement that the minister thinks is so wonderful simply sets up committees. It does not mean that labour relations and labour practices are going to be safe and secure and that Canadian workers are going to be protected.

Finally, section 9 of the back-to-work legislation that we have before us reads that, “the Minister must refer to the mediator-arbitrator all matters relating to the amendment or revision of each collective agreement that are, at the time of the appointment, in dispute between the parties.”

The problem is that section 9 provides the minister with unilateral power to determine the matters in dispute and the scope of the mediator-arbitrator's mandate.

Is this not of concern? Is the minister prepared to amend this section to provide for fair and transparent processes to determine the matters in dispute?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I assure the member opposite that I will refer all outstanding issues.

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

Mr. Chair, my last question to the minister is in light of the response of the workers of Canada Post, the human beings who are on the street and deliver the mail and the packages. Is the minister prepared to meet with them and hear out their concerns? It seems to me that Canada Post is not listening very well at all.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, as a matter of fact my constituency office right now is occupied by Canada Post workers. There are about 10 people sitting and working with my staff. My staff has been communicating with me about their concerns. I certainly have met many times with union officials, with the president of the union and with many of the members of the negotiating team.

I will continue to make myself available as a member of Parliament to any constituency member or any individual in this country who wants to speak with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Whitby. I will let the hon. member know there are about eight minutes remaining in the time provided.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for her interventions thus far.

Over the past few weeks, many people from Whitby have reached out to me with their concerns about the strike. The Government of Canada is committed to free collective bargaining. Introducing back-to-work legislation is sometimes necessary in order to meet the needs of Canadians. I would like to start off by reiterating that, as the minister has said many times, we are committed to a free collective bargaining process as the basis for a sound industrial relationship.

A lot of work has been done over the last year to ensure that we as a government have been committed and fair in providing resources to both parties. Could the minister clarify to people in Whitby, and other Canadians, the work that has been done so far to ensure that this has come to an agreement that would be amenable to Canadians?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member is right to point out that we have worked extremely hard to help this collective bargaining process move forward to reach a collective agreement.

First of all, about a year ago we appointed federal mediators through a federal mediation service to work with the two parties to begin early negotiations at my urging. Early and often is what I often tell parties who are entering into that process.

They continued to work with federal mediation services but when it was clear that they had reached an impasse, I appointed a special mediator to work with the parties to see if a new set of eyes, a fresh perspective, could help them reach a collective agreement. Those talks broke down. I reappointed the special mediator not once, but twice.

We have talked to the negotiating teams. I have met with both the union and the employer. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility has also met with the employer and the union.

We are confident that we have done everything in our power to help these parties negotiate. I would still urge the parties to get a deal. It is not too late.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Chair, with regard to the proposed legislation, we have seen demonstrations here in this House. We know the legislation is providing an extension to the collective agreements and the minister is to appoint a mediator. There are postal workers at the 265 Harwood facility in Whitby, and I am wondering if she could talk to them specifically about what the proposed legislation would offer in order for them to continue what they are rightfully able to do in the collective bargaining agreement.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to tell the members in Whitby and in fact across the country that we have their interests at heart, as well as the needs of the corporation. That is why we are working in a balanced way. First of all, with the selection of the mediator-arbitrator, the person will have to be agreed upon by both parties. If there is no agreement, then I will seek the guidance of the Canada Industrial Relations Board to appoint a neutral party. That is to intentionally ensure we do not recreate the mistakes of the Harper government, where political appointments were made, where people were found to have conflicts of interest, where it was clearly biased to the government's perspective. We want both parties to feel certain the person is truly unbiased in any way.

Second, I refer to the guiding principles. I am running out of time, but the health and safety of workers, equal pay for work of equal value and the fair treatment of temporary and part-time employees are all principles which should give the member some comfort that we are acting with their interests at heart, as well as the sustainability of the corporation, which of course also has their interests at heart.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister talked about the guiding principles, because we did hear in this House about the injuries suffered by workers. I know the guiding principles within this piece of legislation would guide what the mediator does moving forward in order to ensure employees receive equal pay for work of equal value, and that the health and safety of employees are taken into consideration.

I want to mention the NDP's record on this particular issue. The member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Hamilton Centre have, on three occasions, either voted for or were part of a government which voted for back-to-work legislation. We know it is often uncomfortable but it is a necessary step in order to do the work we are asked to do in this place by Canadians. Back-to-work legislation is necessary in order to ensure we are working for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

The member for London—Fanshawe, the member for Hamilton Centre, as well as the member for Vancouver East were part of governments which voted for back-to-work legislation. I am wondering if the minister could speak to the importance of having a responsible government and ensuring we are doing the very important work Canadians have brought us here to do.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member is right to point out that even NDP governments, under seven premiers, 15 times used back-to-work legislation to end disputes that could not be agreed upon through a collective bargaining process. It is uncomfortable. I will give the NDP members the benefit of the doubt that it was just as uncomfortable for them as it is for me standing here in this House.

Perhaps the Conservatives do not share this belief, but let us say we all profoundly believe that an agreement arrived upon through a collective bargaining process is the strongest agreement, is the best way to maintain positive labour relations in a corporation. That is why I share the member's perspective that it is parties of all stripes that have had to do this. It is something we do not take lightly. That is why we have crafted the legislation with guiding principles that are fair, balanced, and with an arbitrator selection process that is fair and balanced and will support the parties to reach an agreement that will create positive relationships and help the corporation and the union move forward together in a profitable way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 12:14 a.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 committee stage of the bill.

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Shall clause 3 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 3 agreed to)

Shall clause 4 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 4 agreed to)

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 5 agreed to)

Shall clause 6 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 6 agreed to)

Shall clause 7 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 7 agreed to)

Shall clause 8 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 8 agreed to)

Shall clause 9 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 9 agreed to)

Shall clause 10 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 10 agreed to)

Shall clause 11 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 11 agreed to)

Shall clause 12 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 12 agreed to)

Shall clause 13 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 13 agreed to)

Shall clause 14 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 14 agreed to)

Shall clause 15 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 15 agreed to)

Shall clause 16 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Clause 16 agreed to)

Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Short title agreed to)

Shall the preamble carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Preamble agreed to)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Title agreed to)

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Bill agreed to)

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, deemed considered in committee of the whole and reported)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole has considered Bill C-89 and has directed me to report the same without amendment.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to)

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved that Bill C-89, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Our government is using back-to-work legislation as a last resort. I have said many times that the best deals are reached at the table and that I will always have faith in the collective bargaining process. Having said that, it is clear that in this situation the government had to act, which is a decision I do not take lightly.

For a year, the government has been doing everything possible to support and encourage both sides to reach a deal at the table. We provided conciliation officers, appointed mediators and offered voluntary arbitration. We re-appointed the special mediator in a last-ditch effort to reach a deal, and now we have exhausted all of our options.

Over the last five weeks, Canadians in over 200 communities have seen delays. Small businesses are paying more for shipping, consumers are less and less confident that their packages will arrive, and vulnerable Canadians are worried they will not get their cheques on time. This is a very busy time of year. Businesses are relying on Canada Post in order to have a profitable holiday season, and Canadians need to see as quickly as possible that mail and packages are moving and that they can depend on a reliable and predictable service.

These work stoppages are having a serious impact on Canadians businesses as well, especially during the busiest time of year for e-commerce. For many Canadian businesses, their busiest time of year is from now until the end of the holiday season. With a parcel backlog that may well go into 2019, Canadians are losing confidence. They are cancelling orders, or they are not ordering at all. It will not be long before we start hearing of small businesses that cannot survive. We can do something to help and we must.

I will tell members about Maureen Lyons, owner of Mo McQueen and Sons. She said:

If by the end of the week, by some miracle, things could resume or at least the shopping public's faith in the system of delivery could be restored, I think it would help a great deal. We are as grassroots as it gets. I don't make a ton of money as it is. It is so frustrating. We 're the little guys. And I'm not just a seller ... I'm also trying to find things for my own children for Christmas that I can't get.

How can we expect Canadians to place orders when they cannot be assured they will receive their packages on time? At the same time, Canada Post has asked its international partners to stop shipments to Canada. What kind of message does it send to Canadian businesses? The holiday season starts this week, and package loads are about to double. We are at a critical moment when inaction on our part would be irresponsible.

The Retail Council of Canada, believes this situation can be fixed if the strikes are brought to an end without delay. Karl Littler, spokesman for the Retail Council of Canada, says that “It's a matter of averting the crisis before it becomes full-blown”. We need to avert this crisis.

Most of us in the House know someone in our communities who has opened a business selling locally sourced or even handmade products. We do what we can to support these businesses. We want to see them thrive. In fact, I have many such businesses in my riding. Often they are young entrepreneurs with investments from family, and sometimes the only money they have, invested in these businesses and are trying to grow them to support themselves and the local economy while also hiring people in their new businesses.

Many of these businesses rely on online sales to survive, especially at this time. In fact, the fourth quarter is when many local and family-owned businesses make the majority of their sales. If the strikes are left to continue through the holiday season and sales continue to decline, some of these smaller businesses could close.

Entrepreneurs who sell through the eBay, Etsy and Amazon platforms already have razor-thin margins. With the higher cost of shipping through courier companies, how can they turn a profit? For rural businesses where Canada Post is typically the only parcel delivery service available, there is no alternative. They are in a very tough spot, one that I would say is precarious.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, two-thirds of the small and medium-sized enterprises surveyed have said they are being affected by the rotating strikes at Canada Post. This is costing them on average almost $3,000 in additional costs. Is it any wonder that the negative effects of these ongoing strikes are also jeopardizing Canada's reputation as a reliable market for commerce and trade?

E-commerce is a significant source of economic growth in Canada. In 2018, Canadians are doing much more of their shopping online compared with the 2011 strike.

According to Statistics Canada, Internet-based sales from all retailers rose 31% to $15.7 billion in 2017, and up to 40% of these sales took place in the fourth quarter, which the strike is currently impacting. These negative impacts on this business to date will only continue to worsen. We did not want it to come to this, but in light of these consequences, we see no alternative.

While our government is aware of the serious negative impacts these strikes are having across the country for businesses and everyday Canadians, we must take into account as well Canada's vulnerable and remote populations. Older Canadians, persons with disabilities, low-income earners, as well as Canadians living in rural, remote and northern areas, all of these groups rely on physical mail delivery and are disproportionately negatively impacted by extended work stoppages.

Thirty per cent of our population, almost nine million Canadians, live in rural and remote areas, often with unreliable Internet. What does a disruption mean to them? Not only does it mean no parcels, it means no access to bills, statements, government services, personal communications and any other mail they require and depend on. For them, the costs of alternatives to Canada Post are very high and for many, out of reach.

In some remote northern areas, where residents rely on mail and parcel delivery more than anywhere else in Canada, there are simply no alternatives to Canada Post.

Jim Danahy, CEO of CustomerLAB, said:

Canada is the second biggest land mass in the world and while most of our population is in the southern portions of the country, we have people in every corner, in very remote locations.

We have Indigenous population is very small and sometimes isolated communities that you can only reach by water or by air. So, in those cases, the local economies can be hit quite significantly

Beverley Mitchell wrote to the Toronto Star. She said:

While mail disruption is an inconvenience to many of us living in Canada, it is an impossible situation for those in remote fly-in communities in Northern Canada.

Unlike other Canadians who have options of private courier services, those living in these regions must rely on Canada Post for all of their deliveries.

Through a newly formed non-profit organization...I am personally involved in sending much-needed food to shelters and soup kitchens; warm clothing to the homeless, poor and elderly; school supplies and food to daycares...

We need to take action now. It is not just our small businesses that are suffering. Our e-commerce business and in fact many community members who rely on Canada Post are suffering as well.

These vulnerable Canadians are not worrying about their online shopping; they are worrying about covering their basics, like food and clothing. We must act on their behalf.

This is absolutely a last resort, but we know we must act in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian businesses. Having exhausted all other possibilities, we believe this is the best and the only course of action.

I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-89.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with indignation that I rise to speak to Bill C-89 for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour claims that the government exhausted all options, but let us not forget that the government did this knowing full well that special legislation would be ready if postal workers did not bend to their employer's demands. The Minister of Labour presents this dispute as a long list of proposals by Canada Post and its employees. That is inaccurate. The one thing Canada Post did was to allow the negotiations to go on for a long time without proposing any real solutions for its employees. Thanks to the Liberals, Canada Post got what it wanted, namely back-to-work legislation under the same conditions. Incentive for negotiation and the balance of power have evaporated since employees know that they will be forced to go back to work sooner or later.

In 2011, the Harper Conservatives imposed this same measure, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. At the time, the Liberals condemned the very same back-to-work legislation they are now about to use. Ultimately, there is very little difference between a Liberal government and a Conservative one. Workers know that the NDP will fight for their rights every time, not just when it suits us.

There is one important point I want to raise: postal workers are not happy about going on strike. For thousands of middle-class families, striking is they only way they can maintain a position of strength vis-à-vis Canada Post. The Liberals and the Conservatives are spreading a false message when they say the strike is completely blocking mail delivery. The union chose to do rotating strikes specifically because it does not want to block mail delivery and wants to minimize the impact of strike action on small businesses.

A few days ago, Canada Post announced that it was the last chance to process the mail backlog before the avalanche of holiday packages hits. That is not true. Canada Post invented a false crisis over the mail backlog to get the government to intervene, and the government took the bait. Canada Post said that there were hundreds of mail trucks, which has since been proven to be untrue. Canada Post convinced the government that there would be no Christmas without back-to-work legislation.

People are receiving their mail and their online orders, in spite of what the Minister of Labour said. Nancy Beauchamp, a member of the CUPW bargaining committee, confirmed that at the Léo-Blanchette processing centre in Montreal, for example, there are currently no delays and no backlog of mail.

The minister also said that low-income Canadians waiting for their cheques were penalized by postal workers' rotating strikes. This is not true. The mail delivery process will not allow for the cheques to be delayed. The union chose to hold rotating strikes so as not to impact the public.

Now, the Liberals and the Conservatives are walking hand-in-hand toward a law that will undermine the constitutional right to free bargaining. The alarm that Canada Post is sounding is only as legitimate as the Liberals and Conservatives make it. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has acted in good faith in this dispute. It proposed ideas for improvement, but Canada Post turned a deaf ear. Management refused to implement any lasting solutions to the problems pertaining to pay equity between men and women, the job insecurity of some of its employees, or the health, safety, and unpaid overtime of rural mail carriers. This was an opportunity for the Liberals to clearly show whose side they are really on.

Rather than standing with workers and supporting free and fair bargaining, the Liberal government chose to support Canada Post management to the detriment of employees. Are the Liberals aware that forcing employees to go back to work will cause them to lose all of their leverage? The government knows that Canada Post employees have always been willing to negotiate in good faith and to quickly reach collective agreements. The Liberals could very well have ordered Canada Post to do the same by trying to negotiate in good faith with the union, but instead, the Liberals are hastening to Canada Post's rescue.

Now that Canada Post is concerned about profits and companies like eBay and Amazon are concerned about the delivery of their packages, the Liberals are imposing a return to work that would wipe out the efforts of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. This legislation would reintroduce the same working conditions. We need to reach an agreement, not vote on back-to-work legislation that will scrap all the negotiation efforts.

The government keeps saying it is in favour of negotiations, but it introduces a back-to-work bill. What is the logic behind that?

Yesterday, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour said she was confident “that we have used every tool in our tool box to get a negotiated agreement.” Is she confident? Have they really used every tool in their tool box?

Let them call the employer and tell it to sit down at the negotiating table. If Canada Post management had truly wanted to avoid a strike, then all it had to do was show up on time at the negotiating table and stop asking the government to bail it out of its bad management decisions.

That is what is happening today. What is worse is that the Liberals believe it. Does the government believe postal workers who want better protection and better working conditions? We must let negotiations continue. Rotating strikes will let the mail be delivered, which is what the union always wanted.

Now, the Liberals, including the member for Gatineau, want to convince us that we cannot wait any longer and that arbitration is the route to take. I may be naive, but I still hope that this arbitration will be transparent and fair, and that it will put employer and employees on an equal footing. However, when we take a closer look at how arbitration works, we quickly understand the government's decisions. Under arbitration, the decision-making process and the final decision are completely confidential. The union will not be able to rely on the means currently at its disposal to achieve a balance of power with Canada Post because all employees will be forced to go back to work under the deplorable conditions that I described earlier.

Things were the same for Canada Post in 2011. The union was afraid of being forced to accept a collective agreement despite arbitration and special legislation. That is why it pursued a negotiated settlement. The Harper government's back-to-work legislation imposed regressive collective agreements on postal workers. Today's back-to-work legislation is clearly infringing on workers' rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Liberals think that has changed, they have a short memory. Need I remind them that, in 2015, the Prime Minister made it a priority to improve labour relations at Canada Post and uphold the principle of freedom to negotiate?

Let me say that back-to-work legislation for postal workers will be a very tough sell. That is why I move, seconded by the member for London—Fanshawe:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-89, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, because it:

(a) prevents the use of the constitutional right to strike, an essential part of the collective bargaining process; and

(b) clearly violates the rights workers have under the Charter.”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on a point of order.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 62, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, that the member for Elmwood—Transcona be now heard, since he rose first.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for the opportunity to close the debate. I wish we were not closing the debate at this time, but considering that the time was allocated so severely in the motion that set the context for this debate, it is an honour to close it.

I will close it by addressing what I think was one of the principal arguments that we heard from the Liberals throughout the debate today, which is that they really had no choice and this crisis is beyond their control. What we have heard consistently throughout the debate today is that is not the case. Postal workers have been on rotating strikes, but the mail is getting delivered. In fact, in some parts of the country, there has only been a disturbance for one day out of the five weeks that Canada Post has had rotating strikes. I am sorry but that does not a crisis make.

I know there are small businesses and Canadians who want to receive their packages and the fact is that postal workers want to deliver those packages, but they do not want a circumstance where one in four of them can expect to get hurt doing it and not be able to enjoy Christmas with his or her family because he or she was injured working in unreasonable conditions that have persisted at Canada Post for a very long time now. That is what the government is asking those workers to do: to go into a workplace with the highest rate of injuries in the federal sector. We just think that is completely unacceptable and we do not believe we had to be here.

We have heard the labour minister defend this all day, and that is a shame. The person who should have been on her feet all day is the minister responsible for Canada Post, who has failed to put in management that is willing to address the real workplace issues and causing workers to get hurt, who has failed to address the mandatory overtime that is disrupting the family life of workers at Canada Post and contributing to the injury rate, and who has failed to put management in place at Canada Post that would address the real pay equity issues that exist between rural and suburban carriers and urban carriers. If we had real leadership from the minister who is actually responsible for the corporation, we could have avoided this situation.

To hear the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour talk about a crisis as if the government has no control over it is a little rich. Frankly, Liberals are asking too much of postal workers who were legislated back to work under bad terms and conditions in 2011 and have been doing their utmost to make sure that people continue to receive their mail reliably at a great cost to either themselves or their colleagues. This was an opportunity to do something about that.

We have heard a plethora of excuses from the Liberals as to why, even though they are undermining the collective bargaining rights of Canadians with back-to-work legislation, we should accept it because they got rid of Bill C-377, a major objection to which was the fact that it would reveal the contents of union strike funds to employers. The idea of getting rid of that legislation was to support union workers being able to strike and not be undermined by their employers. If the government is going to repeal that legislation with one hand and then legislate them back to work and artificially end the strike on the other hand, it amounts to the same thing: it undermines the right to collective bargaining.

We have heard about hard decisions. The fact of the matter is that governments do have to make hard decisions, but what is not true is that every time a government has to make a hard decision, workers get the short end of the stick.

When Air Canada went to the Liberal government early in its mandate and said it wanted to get rid of the provisions that required it to have its maintenance work done in Canada because it wanted to do the work offshore, the Liberals jumped to the pump and got it done. They made sure the corporate executives at Air Canada got what they wanted.

When big multinational companies went to the Liberals throughout the TPP negotiations—and they had an opportunity to substantially renegotiate the TPP deal—they decided to continue with the temporary worker provisions. Again we heard the Liberals say they were fixing the TFW program and making it better. Then they smuggled the provisions of that program into chapter 12 of the TPP. They could have done something for workers then, but no, they said it was time for hard decisions and sided with the big multinationals.

They did it again with their friends on Bay Street on the CEO stock option loophole. They were lobbied dozens of times to break an election commitment.

When that hard decision came up, what did they do? The Liberals sided with the folks on Bay Street and broke their election commitment. Workers are going to pay the price for that, and are paying the price for that, because then they are told, “I'm sorry, we don't have the money to do what we want to do.”

When it came to Netflix paying its fair share, Netflix came and lobbied. It was time for a hard decision. What decision did the Liberals make? They again sided with the large multinational so that it would not have to pay its share.

On the carbon tax, when the biggest polluters and the biggest moneymakers came to them and said they wanted a break on the carbon tax, unlike for everyone else, the Liberals granted it to them. That is the theme.

Whenever there is a hard decision, workers lose with the Liberal government. That is the problem.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Hochelaga on a point of order.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have worked hard tonight, but other people have also worked hard, with us and for us. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking the table officers, the speakership of the House, the security officers, the pages, the people who served us food and the bus drivers. Thank you very much.

Also, I think we can pick up after ourselves and clean up our own glasses and whatnot, here and in the lobbies. It is the least we can do for the people who helped us here tonight.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member for Hochelaga for her comments.

It being 12:46 a.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 third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of amendment to the House]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #949

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the amendment defeated.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #950

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:05 a.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:05 a.m.)