Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the aisle for his wonderful question. Let us remember—

[An hon. member]

Answer it.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer it if the hon. member will let me. That is what I am trying to do. Nobody has ever accused me of evading a question.

When a government supports a crown corporation's lockout of its employees, those employees have very few options left to them. What they are doing right now is trying to draw attention to what is going on. They are trying to get some action.

I am perfectly prepared to go back into my riding and explain to my constituents what the issues are about. They are working people. People come to this country and work hard at two or three jobs. They are the ones who are telling me, “Do not let them take away our pensions. Do not let them take away our decent paying jobs”.

I know they are being inconvenienced, but when it comes to rights, it is not about what is important for me, it is what is important for each and every one of us. This is their new home. This is why—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order.

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a former immigration minister, I cannot accept a reply like that. I hope that the hon. member will be much less evasive. She should have answered the question from the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. There are limits. This is not about taking one side or the other, but there is a certain reality, and services provided to Canadians must be protected.

My question is not complicated. At the moment, we are either blaming each other or talking about principles. We would rather find solutions. Does the hon. member not agree that we should immediately move into a committee of the whole and come to grips with this? We can drag out the time, but we could be working together on amendments instead of dragging out the time. Everyone is losing now, to tell the truth. If we really want to help the workers, let us get into a committee of the whole and find solutions instead of simply holding forth with grand principles.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

First of all, it would be very easy to stop all of this today. It could stop in the next 30 seconds. Open the doors.

Secondly, I will say this to my colleague over on the far side: immigrants understand. They know they are being inconvenienced, but I can tell you they will understand once we explain to them. These new Canadians will understand that this is about fighting for rights. They understand that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I stand here just a few hours after I first rose in the House to speak of this crossroads we are at, previously on the hoist motion and now on Bill C-6.

In these last 24 hours I have received messages from people in my constituency in northern Manitoba. I have received messages from people across the country. I have received messages from postal workers and from ordinary Canadians.

Many of these messages are thanking the NDP for standing up for them. They thank us for standing up for the postal workers and for what is rightly theirs as working people: their right to collective bargaining. They thank us for standing up in the House of Commons and raising the fact that what is being talked about here is a fair wage, a stable pension, and a recognition that no matter the age of the worker, or whether they have been with Canada Post for years or are a new hire, they ought to have the same right to a decent living.

In these last 24 hours I have also had the chance to hear from members across. I had the chance to hear humour, the chance to hear belittling, and the chance to hear a whole lot of heckling. That disrespect is nothing to us on this side of the House of Commons; we put with it. But that disrespect is most insulting to the Canadian people and to the postal workers who are on the picket line because they were shut out of their jobs when they decided they would take action by going on a rotating strike. The postal workers continued to deliver the critical mail that was needed by so many Canadians. They recognized that their work is an essential service. And they are now on the lines across Canada stating what we are talking about here today.

Instead of hearing many parties in the House, most importantly the governing party of the House, say that they are listening, we have heard neglect and quite frankly disrespect and insults.

What we are talking about here today is more than just what the workers of Canada Post have been calling for in their negotiation. The postal workers, other workers across Canada, and so many Canadians want the approach from government on this service to be focused on people rather than profit.

A few months ago the Canadian Union of Postal Workers welcomed their new president. In welcome, the members voiced their desire to have a positive working relationship. They asked for what they wanted to see: a less commercial and more socially responsible postal service and a management that understands that Canada Post is first and foremost a public service.

The members asked for respect for Canada Post's legislated mandate to provide and improve postal service while being financially self-sustaining and ensuring good labour-management relations.

They asked for an end to the cuts and privatization, including the national philatelic centres and customer contact centres. They noted this could be done by sharing the benefits and cost savings of modernization with the public and postal workers.

Finally, they asked for a commitment to work with the federal government to dramatically improve government policy and expectations for Canada Post, as outlined in the Canadian postal service charter.

These were the requests that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers asked for. They asked for a better service for Canadians.

To me, what pops out is the word “privatization”. Let us make no mistake about what we are seeing here today: an agenda of the government to move in that direction. They closed the national philatelic centres. They got rid of the customer contact centres. They got rid of the Canada Post food mail program and gave it to a private carrier. Now they are attacking the very workers who are asking for nothing more than a fair wage. The workers recognize that Canada Post has made record profits that in many cases have gone back to government coffers rather than being reinvested in not just the postal workers but more importantly the service.

That piece on privatization is not only about the direction this government is taking when it comes to postal service. The question is where does it go next? What other services are going down that path thanks to this government's leadership--or lack of leadership, for that matter? Where will it cut next, whether it be funding, imposing legislation, or taking a heavy hand and saying that Canadians should not have public systems that have been at the foundation of our country, such as postal services, health care, education systems, the CBC, or institutions across the country that bring us together? Where will it stop? What is clear is that it has begun.

Privatization does not just mean poorer services for us. Of course that is a key part of what it means, especially in some parts of the country that are already among the poorest.

We can look at rural Canada. As a rural Canadian and somebody who is proud to say that I grew up in a small community, maybe an average community for Canada, I can say not only how important the postal service is to us as a service, but also how important the postal workers are in keeping our communities connected in bringing home a living wage and raising families in our communities. If we are going down the path of privatization, which this government has proven to be interested in taking, rural Canada stands to lose the most.

I find it highly hypocritical that so many of the members across who were elected to represent rural Canadians, so many members with signed petitions decrying the possible closure of rural post offices or decrying the lack of funding going toward postal services, stand in this House and turn a blind eye to the demands of rural Canadians.

Women we know, many of whom work in the postal service, also stand to lose the most from privatization, women who already learn less money to the male dollar in Canada, a shameful fact, given that we are in the year 2011. That is also the case with the next generation, young people.

Much excitement is felt when we talk about young people and the energy they bring. Certainly our party is keen on the new group of young MPs. Our voices are here to say that the road this government is taking is feeding off of our generation. It is taking away the foundations of a country our generation would like to contribute to, but also the kinds of foundations our generation needs to be able to build a better future.

Finally, I want to say that this ultimately is not only about privatization but also an attack on working people, on the working class and the middle class.

I will read a quote that came out of the protests that happened south of us in Madison, Wisconsin. It speaks to the draconian legislation that is not too far off from what we are hearing and debating here today. One of the leaders there said, “All this legislation is an attack on the middle class, which blossomed in this country "--much like ours--" as a result of collective bargaining victories during the middle of the last century.”

Let us continue to a brighter future by supporting the Canadian postal workers' rights to collective bargaining. Let us have a government that stands for my generation and the future of our country.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I find highly offensive about the members opposite is their appropriation of the term “working Canadians”. I represent working Canadians, and many of the colleagues on this side of the House strongly represent working Canadians. Many of them, tens of thousands of them, voted for us in all of our constituencies.

It is highly offensive to my constituents when people like loggers, miners, ranchers, farmers, and tourism operators are not included in their definition of working citizens. These people work very hard and for many of them, a 60-hour week is considered an easy week. Not only members opposite represent working-class folks. We represent them as well. They are voting for us in ever-increasing numbers, especially in rural Canada.

I represent a widely dispersed rural constituency. Internet service is sometimes intermittent. Mail service is very important to the seniors and the businesses in my constituency. Can the member tell us why the NDP is persisting in hurting rural Canada?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the member's constituency given that it neighbours on my own. What I hear from people in northern Manitoba and quite frankly across Manitoba is that they want voices in the House of Commons that stand up for their communities and do not seek to pillage the very services they depend on, including the postal service. They want to be represented by people who seek to support institutions that hold up our rural communities. In the west there is the Canadian Wheat Board. I would ask the member and his colleagues how they feel about the Canadian Wheat Board, which supports our communities. Here we are talking not just about dismantling an institution that involves all of us. We are talking about an attack on services and on an approach that involves us all working together and recognizing that for all of us to be better off, we need to believe in our institutions and we need to stand up for the people who work in them.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have an email from a young constituent in Nanaimo-Cowichan who said he was opposed to this bill because of the devastation it would mean for future workers of his generation and because of the injustice that would be suffered by current employees of Canada Post and union members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. He felt that this could put his generation's security with unions in addition to the right to bargain into jeopardy as this incident could be used by the Government of Canada as an example of how to deal with future ordeals.

Could the member expand on what this kind of action means to the younger generation that is looking for well paying jobs and that has hopes for pensions in the future?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I thank my colleague for bringing forward the voice of a young person who is concerned about his future. We know that young people form the demographic that does not get involved in politics, but many of them did come out for this election in a big way. Many others say, “Well, why would I? What are the choices being made that benefit me?”

This government is surely helping them to feel that way by standing up for legislation that ensures that young postal workers coming into the workplace will earn far less, 18% or 30%, than do those who are there now and will have pensions that will not be stable a few years down the line. This is no way to invest in the next generation. Members of the government should take a harder look at the future they are providing for their children and their constituents.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, we have been waiting for these amendments. I want to make sure that the NDP member for Hamilton Centre and the NDP member forLondon—Fanshawe are not actually participating in creating these amendments, because when they had the opportunity in Ontario, they actually tore apart the bargaining agreements of the 30,000 public servants. They tore apart the contract, cut their wages by $2 billion and forced them to take 12 unpaid days off. So I just want to make sure that those two NDP members are not involved in these--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

I did say it had to be a very brief question.

The hon. member for Churchillhas time for a 30-second response.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madame Speaker, I believe it is important to focus on how we are seeing here a replay, to use an example, of another provincial government, the former Harris government here in Ontario. What the rest of us across the country heard was how devastating that agenda was on the working class, on people's communities and on their well-being. If that was a sign of things to come, then many of us are in for quite a ride.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a new parliamentarian, and I have a practical question that perhaps you can help me with. Is there not supposed to be a minimum of 15 members from the government party to make quorum?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

No, there needs to be 15 members total in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, we could start with a little reminder: Walkerton. This is what happens when a government places itself at the service of lobbyists and not at the service of the people. This is not an ideology, but greed.

Walkerton is a small town that was having its water tested by the government. One fine day, the Harris government, on the advice of lobbyists, decided to privatize the lab studies. So the private company, which was supposed to do much more for a better price, decided to make it much more profitable. The tests were erroneous and the residents were poisoned.

Unfortunately, this is the type of situation that we are facing. Once again, a government on the right decides to listen to lobbyists rather than face its duties. In this case, on one side, we have a very old Canadian union that was established in 1911. This union has taken part in many conflicts and has also brought many benefits. It created the context of a permanent, professional and non-partisan public service. It was an essential element in 1911. The petty politics of personal involvement were banished.

This union has become one of the best organized, most democratic and most powerful unions in Canada. It was part of many struggles in Canada. Over the years, it has created for itself a good collective agreement, with fair wages for fair work. It also established a defined benefit pension plan, and of course indexing has been added to protect pensioners from inflation. A clause for survivor's allowance, without penalty, has also been added to prevent the spouses of pensioners from falling into poverty. The union even gave same-sex couples the same rights long before any other unions. This is a very rich, very well capitalized pension plan with blue chip stocks in banks, Canadian financial institutions, PotashCorp and so on.

Unfortunately, plans like this one are coveted by everyone across Canada. This was obvious based on how quickly the government decided to intervene in the case of Air Canada. What was the problem at Air Canada? We were told that a strike at Air Canada would trigger an economic calamity, even though the company issued a press release telling everyone not to worry because the strike would in no way compromise the company.

Yet the government said it had to intervene immediately, that the union had to be crushed, that someone must prevent it from protecting its defined benefit pension plan. That was crucial in the case of Air Canada. The big shots that supposedly saved the company suspended pension contributions. Combined with some bad investments, this led to a $2.1 billion deficit in the fund, an actuarial liability for the company.

We can only imagine what a lovely gift the government was about to give the company. By waving a magic wand, it was going to force the union to come back, to give up its defined benefit plan and, as if by magic, between $500 million and $1.2 million would have disappeared from the deficit. The net worth of shareholders was going to jump by over $1 billion in just one day. Would that not have been great? That is what the Conservative Party is all about: friends first, the people second, like in Walkerton.

The postal institution is as old as Canada. As a joke, we used to say that, even before the RCMP and even before the first settlers arrived, a Canadian post office was setting up shop. That is not far from the truth.

Historically, this public service institution has always played a vital role in Canada. It has always been in operation, whether as the post office department or as the Canada Post Corporation. It has always operated under political authority.

Never in Canadian history has a Canada Post president, a crown corporation or a postmaster general taken action without getting the Prime Minister's approval first, especially when planning to cause havoc and declare a lockout. That cannot be done without the political authority's permission. And I am not the only one to say this.

Just recently, we have seen this with the Gomery commission. The hon. member for Bourassa would be able to confirm that the Gomery commission clearly showed that the Canada Post Corporation had followed the directives from the Prime Minister's Office in the matter of sponsorships.

So here we are with a big mystery. They are attempting to persuade us that the Canada Post Corporation started the lockout without permission from the Prime Minister, who had no other choice but to take action by imposing special legislation because he thought the lockout was so terrible. Wow! And he is trying to persuade 33 million Canadians of that. Let me just say that the number of Canadians who believe them after finding out the facts will drop. It will drop like a stone, in fact. No one can believe so implausible a story, that the Prime Minister does not know what his left hand is doing while his right hand is doing the opposite. The Prime Minister's authority is directly involved in all this. It clearly means that everything that has been happening is simply an ambush. They have intentionally led the union to a lockout in order to be able to ask for an arbitrator who, under this special legislation, will eliminate the pension plan for the benefit of their friends in power.

Unfortunately for the government, the longer the debate goes on, the longer people outside the House will talk about it and the sooner they will realize that the government's version of events does not add up. I doubt that 33 million people are going to believe, after a week or two of lockout, that the Prime Minister is not aware of what is going on in his own office.

What impact is this having? Some 55,000 Canadians are without an income or wages because of the government's decision. They can not afford to buy groceries or pay the rent. Moreover this is affecting the Canadian economy.

The members opposite are saying there is cause for concern and that it is important to do something about it. That is true. They have to end the lockout, stop making backroom deals and start doing their duty by listening to people and standing up for them instead of serving the interests of their friends and lobbyists.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Madam Speaker, the member hits it on the nose that 55,000 workers are seriously inconvenienced by this. The government is very concerned about that. We are concerned that an agreement could not be reached after eight months. We were concerned about the rotating strikes that cost Canada Post, and ultimately taxpayers, over $100 million, and now the lockout. At the end of the day, what we are concerned about is all Canadians. We are concerned about small businesses that are losing money. There is strong evidence that the economy is being hurt and at a very critical time when the global economy is still fragile.

Would the member see that the best way to end this now, the most firm, complete and final way, is to agree with the back to work legislation, support the government's concern for all Canadians, not just those who are unionized, but Canadians who do not have unions, Canadians who want to go to work are being negatively impacted? As a result, seniors are not getting their cheques and folks are not getting their passports or their visas for family members overseas who are ill. The government is concerned about this on a whole. These workers need to get back to work, and this filibustering is not helping.

Would the member please consider supporting back to work legislation as the final and complete solution to this problem?

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

Madam Speaker, what the hon. government member is asking of us is not to facilitate a return to work, but to condemn generations of Canadians to no longer have a pension plan that guards them from poverty. That is important to point out. For the sake of small businesses and people who are expecting official documents, why on earth is the government maintaining this lockout? All the Prime Minister has to do is pick up the phone. He just has to tell his guy to end the lockout, that he is the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Davenport.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government says that it does not interfere with Canada Post, of which it is the sole shareholder. That is a bit of a head-scratcher for many people. Then it turns around and does just that and offers postal workers less than what management offered initially.

Does my hon. colleague not think it would be fair if the government withdrew the wage clause in the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, the entire bill must be withdrawn, in my opinion. It makes no sense at all. The government created this mess and wants somebody else to clean it up. It makes me think of a chicken farmer who puts a fox in a henhouse and then decides, very intelligently, to punish the chickens. This is exactly the kind of logic this government is using.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, what is a real head-scratcher for any Canadian watching this debate is the theme of the NDP speeches. What the members are doing consistently is speaking about anything except what the debate is about, which is back to work legislation. In the last speech we heard about the CBC, about Gomery and about Walkerton.

The facts are very clear. This is about two parties that for eight months could not come to an agreement. The minister has bent over backward to try to get to some type of resolution. The question that Canadians want to hear tonight is how long will the NDP allow these two parties to hold Canadians and Canadian small businesses that are right now creating jobs for Canadians hostage? How long will those members condone the actions, as the Minister of Immigration said, that are hurting the most vulnerable—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must stop the hon. member there to give the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin an opportunity to respond.