Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

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

We are all obviously in the same boat. My office has received emails from ridings across Canada. The Conservative party will not acknowledge this. I even received an email earlier from a postal worker telling me that he voted for the Prime Minister in the previous election but that next time, he would vote for the NDP, because he is very disappointed by the Prime Minister’s lack of support. In fact, I think the email’s author was from Saskatchewan.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that most Canadians support our bill, which is before the House this evening. According to the polls—if my memory serves me correctly—70% of Canadians support our efforts to resolve this issue.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. There are tens of millions of Canadians currently affected by the postal crisis, so I would like to know what he has to say to Canadians who are having to deal with the fallout from the current predicament.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Jean has 30 seconds to answer the question.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

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

I would simply say to them that there is a process that exists in the history of labour relations in this country whereby employers and employees cooperate in good faith when they come to the bargaining table. There is no precedent in the history of this country for a government to arrive, take the place of one of the parties, and lay down the law, including conditions that are worse than those previously offered by the employer.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to take a few minutes to wish all of my constituents in Trois-Rivières a happy national holiday and to let them know that I will be there for the activities. I imagine that I should be there in a few hours.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We were celebrating the 24.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I was obviously expecting that response. Thank you to my dear colleague from Bourassa.

I went through this preamble not because I have not slept much and am rambling, but because I noticed that here, in this House, we have witnessed a miracle. The calendar on the desk shows that it is still June 23. So I have plenty of time to return to my riding to celebrate.

I joke, because as I have been listening to the debates over many hours now, I started to realize that it would really take a miracle to put an end to this. But in looking at the calendar, I realized that that was the miracle. In this House, we found a simple way to stop time and still continue working. We have been debating in this House for hours, we are moving forward, yet it is still June 23.

Why is this miracle that is possible in this House not possible with the bargaining of a collective agreement? We could require that Canada Post and the workers provide the service and, at the same time, ask the two parties to hold clear, clean, fair, just and precise negotiations, stopping time until a settlement is reached. If it is possible for the House of Commons, it must be possible for everyone.

The problem we have been seeing for a while is not about the differing opinions that we all have as much as it is about the demagoguery used by our government colleagues to try to force a bill down our throats. A bill that is indigestible, to say the least.

Over the past few hours, I have amused myself by taking note of the most demagogic lines we have heard. I did not sort them by order of importance to pull out the top five or top three, because that would have meant participating in this demagoguery. Regardless, I have no doubt that the Canadian public watching us on CPAC is interested in this debate. There were people in the gallery until 3 a.m. I think that is telling. Not to mention, I have been receiving so many messages that the BlackBerry I have on my belt is more like a massager.

What have we been hearing in these debates? First the legitimacy of the union and of its negotiation committee in particular has been attacked. I believe that a committee that gets 94% of the votes to represent its members has significant support. Here, in Parliament, we have a government leading in a legal manner after winning only 40% of the votes. I wish people would stop making this argument.

Then they talk about negotiations that have been going on for eight months. I have a slight problem with the word “negotiations”. The beauty in negotiations is trying to achieve a balance between the interests of the employer and those of the employees. All the work done to achieve this balance must not however be destroyed by the intervention of a third party. That seems obvious to me. In this case, the government should be using its power of intervention to force the parties to negotiate, and not to impose a settlement. Let us face it, the telegraphed lockout and the arbitrator's mandate make it easy to predict the outcome of this dispute, unless the government shows openness and allows real negotiations, in return for which the postal workers are prepared to resume mail service if the collective agreement they had before the lockout is maintained. That is the second demagogic argument that should be dropped.

With regard to damage to the blessed economy, it goes without saying that this dispute cannot last forever because of the economy, which was hardly affected by the rotating strikes. However, the impact has been tremendous since the lockout, but not for everyone. When we talk about a lockout, what are we talking about? We are talking about employees thrown out on the street without any wages who are told to stew for a while until they have had enough and are prepared to go to employer and accept what they would not have accepted otherwise.

What happens in the meantime? The crown corporation's profits go up because its expenses have gone down. In fact, I am expecting an email from the CEO of Canada Post encouraging me to defend the workers because his bonus increases with every day of the strike.

Enough has been said about strikes and lockouts. I do not need to add anything more. The concept seems to be clearer in everyone's mind. Even the Conservatives are speaking more and more about a lockout, which is the real situation.

I received a little message. The union had offered to stop all strike activity—including the rotating strikes, which, I would remind the House, were not terribly disruptive—if Canada Post would reinstate the old collective agreement while the mediator was continuing his work. The corporation categorically refused. This illustrates the current atmosphere.

Since we are in the process of negotiating instead of the parties—which is not at all our role—let us explore things from the inside to see how the situation is playing out for the locked out workers. I would like to share a few facts.

Canada Post management decided to adopt a really tough negotiation strategy. As soon as the union notified the corporation of its intent to take strike action, all leave and insurance coverage were cancelled. The collective agreement was tossed out the window. As a result, the employees were left without the financial resources to deal with serious illnesses. Some were forced to pay the full cost of medical expenses for themselves or their loved ones. Some had to pay thousands of dollars to buy medications they need to treat their illness or that of their loved ones, because Canada Post decided to cancel all musical coverage, I mean, medical coverage. A little music would have done us some good, since music has a calming influence.

Employees on sick leave were contacted and informed that they would no longer be receiving a salary during their absence and that they no longer had medical coverage. At present, there is not a single Quebecker without medical coverage, apart from the postal workers. Any corporation that brings in such draconian measures cannot do so without knowing that it has this government's support. It is truly unacceptable.

In closing, members on both sides agree that some sort of legislation is required to get the mail service running again, but we will never, and I mean never, support Bill C-6.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that the parties could not reach an agreement and that we are all discussing this matter here. It is even sadder to see the NDP members working very hard to hide the facts from Canadians.

The fact is that the parties commenced negotiations eight months ago. The fact is, according to the Canada Labour Code, the minister appointed a conciliator and then a mediator. Despite all these communications and conversations, the fact is that the union chose to go on strike. Of course, the union had the right to choose to strike, but after that, the corporation had the right to choose to have a lockout.

I have a question for my friend, my colleague, from the other side, because I have been having conversations with career companies, transmission shops, mechanic shops, grocery stores and restaurants. I have a note from someone who says that if he doesn't get his cheques, he cannot pay his rent, and if he misses his rent, the NDP will have to pay for it.

The question is: What is the NDP's plan to reimburse those small businesses for the damages caused by stalling this legislation?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his friendship. It was short-lived. First it was friend, then colleague, but perhaps we may develop it over the years.

Quite simply, perhaps I was not understood. Maybe it is the language barrier. Not only have the parties not agreed so far, but I can also predict that they will never agree, as long as the fight is unbalanced, two against one. If you really want to resolve the economic problems of your small- and medium-sized businesses very quickly, end the lock out.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech. What I am seeing here is a government that, since its budget was adopted, is cutting, cutting and cutting public services. It is cutting pensions. It is making cuts everywhere.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. It is as if the government has seized this opportunity. Actually, we have known for a very long time that it wishes to make cuts to the public postal services. For a long time, post offices in the regions have been lacking funding. It is as if the government is taking advantage of the strike just to try to get around the rules and make cuts to postal services using special legislation.

I would like my colleague to comment on the true intentions of the government, which is accusing us of wanting to hide things from Canadians. Instead, I think that it is the government that is trying to hide things from Canadians.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very relevant question; to me, the answer is quite simple. In this House are two ideologies that are far apart. The party in power, the government, believes in the economy and in money as it believes in God. I quite like money too, not for what it is but for what it allows us to do. That is the difference on this side. We want to create wealth so that we can then better distribute it for the benefit of each and every Canadian.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to commend my colleague. At 5:30 in the morning, I think he is still doing a pretty good job. However, I have a question.

In the world of labour relations, if somebody is given impossible conditions by an employer, he or she may leave. It is called “constructive dismissal”. If someone is on rotating strikes and precipitates a lockout, similarly it is the responsibility of the union, not the employer, that brings about the ultimate division between the two. Could the member comment on that?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

There is only one way for everyone to win; that is when two parties can negotiate with no interference from a third party, in the context of a strong, fair and equitable balance of power.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member began his remarks, I noticed that it was 5:15 a.m. It is now 5:29 a.m. So it seems to me that his question period has been cut a little short. The hon. member actually has a minute left to answer questions.

I would just like to ask you that you always keep your eye on the clock so that we can make our points and, of course, answer questions. At some stage, we would really like the Conservatives to rise to defend their position. We fondly hope that they will be able to do so, and, as we do so ourselves, that we will always have the full 15 minutes to which we are entitled.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am not sure which of the clocks the hon. member was regarding, but certainly on the digital clock that the chair occupants have the opportunity to view, we indeed went about 30 seconds beyond the time that was allocated. We try to do our best to be judicious and fair in all respects.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster takes too much time, he is the one using up all the time. With his long points of order, he is preventing his own colleague from being able to answer questions. I had questions I wanted to ask and I am very disappointed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think the matter is resolved sufficiently. We will continue with debate. We will resume debate with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have decided to speak once again as part of the debate on the back to work legislation for Canada Post employees because what is going on here is very important. We are about to take a step that should never be taken by any rightful government.

At no time should a government decide to so shamefully violate the rights of workers, when there is the simple solution of removing the locks and putting an end to the lockout. If this government had done what it should have done from the beginning of the dispute, which is put an end to the lockout and allow Canada Post workers to continue to work, we never would have needed this bill, and mail service would not have been suspended for Canadians and Canadian businesses.

But no, the government would rather introduce legislation that mocks the workers of this country, that violates workers' rights, that imposes working conditions that are worse than what was offered by the employer. The government would rather set our country back, even though we have always been proactive about the rights of our citizens.

For three and a half years, I wore the Canadian flag on one of my shoulders, in both red and white and in green camouflage. What is important is that I was always proud of this flag and what it represents.

Every time I travelled abroad, in Europe or in Africa, when I was asked to talk about my country, I was proud to do so because this country has always respected and promoted the fundamental rights of its citizens. I talked about all the battles Canadians had to fight to improve our standard of living.

I honestly believe that there is nowhere better than here, this land where I grew up. And I would want nothing else for my future children.

That is why I urge my colleagues from all parties in this House to look past their partisan quarrels, because what is going on here is much bigger than that. Not only the workers of Canada Post, but all workers in Canada will suffer the consequences, and the dignity of our country will be undermined.

When this government so shamefully shows that it can side with the employer in a dispute, it does not just hurt the postal workers, but the entire political institution all of us here represent.

We are not talking about overpaid employees with obscene benefits, as some would have us believe; we are talking about men and women who work hard, who have average salaries, who work irregular schedules at the start of their career which quite often does not allow them to enjoy their family life, and whose working conditions sometime cause their health to suffer. We are talking about most Canadian families who work every day for this country.

Let us talk a little bit about the working conditions of Canada Post workers. Some of you may recall the election campaign that started in 2005 and ended in January 2006, in the middle of winter and during the holidays. Most of you who campaigned at the time probably went door to door. Was it not terrible to walk knee-deep in snow, go up icy steps and deal with the freezing cold conditions?

We do not often have to campaign in the middle of winter, but Canada Post employees have to face the winter every year and not just for the duration of an election campaign. They cannot take a coffee break to warm up when it is too cold outside. People do not invite postal workers into their homes to let them warm up and to encourage them to carry on.

The French version of our national anthem, of which we are so proud, says “protégerons nos foyers et nos droits”, which means “we stand on guard for our homes and our rights”. It seems to me those are the two things we are talking about here.

What does it mean to stand on guard for our homes? I think it means to protect the health and safety of our workers. I think standing on guard for our homes means to ensure that workers have a decent pension plan.

What does it mean to stand on guard for our rights? I think it absolutely means to preserve the right of workers in this country to negotiate.

In my work as a nurse, I learned that if I did something for my patients instead of letting them do it, or I did their thinking for them, I would never get anywhere with them. To successfully get lasting change, it is essential to give them the tools they need, but also to allow them to solve their own problems themselves.

With this bill, the government is interfering in a dispute where that was not needed. At the outset, the government should have ordered that the lockout be ended and the parties return to the bargaining table and find a way to agree, and that they find a middle way between the demands of the two sides, to achieve a fairer solution.

Let us talk about that: a fair solution. In this bill that we have been discussing for some time now, there is one thing in particular that is revolting: the wage cut. It is not a wage cut imposed by Canada Post; no, it is being imposed on the workers by our government, a government that deserves credit for being clear about the interests it is prepared to defend.

I would like to say one thing to all Canadians who are watching us or will be watching us later in the day: it is not your interests that our government is prepared to defend, it is not the government that is prepared to spend hours on end in this House to try to persuade the party opposite to bring forward reasonable and respectful legislation.

Our government seems to have respect for only certain people, the ones who are at the top of big corporations, the ones who make profits. The government should not forget, however, that the profits made by Canada Post do not fall from the sky. Those profits are the fruit of the hard work done by the postal employees, and I am sure that all those employees will be grateful to the government for the gratitude it might show them, gratitude that could be expressed, for example, in a bill that did not provide for lower wages than they had been offered. I hear them saying thank you from here.

We do not agree on numerous points, on either side of this aisle, but we agree that the workers should go back to work so that everyone who relies on the postal services can breathe easier. There are two ways of achieving that result. The first is to pass an unfair bill that jeopardizes the social benefits that all workers in this country enjoy. The second is to end the lockout and allow the postal employees to go back to work with dignity. I am on the side of human dignity.

Once again, I call on the government today to reverse its position. Not for the NDP. We are not here to win or lose a vote; we are here because something brings us together: the profound conviction that each of our fellow Canadians deserves respect. Our fellow Canadians deserve better than that. The government has the power to prove that it respects Canadians and Canadian workers.

So I suggest that it end the lockout, and most importantly, I call on all my parliamentary colleagues of all political stripes, on behalf of everyone we represent here, to vote against this bill as long as it remains unchanged.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address one point made earlier by a member of the NDP that the government side had not mentioned anything about people who might take a different perspective in our ridings. I certainly have received emails in support of the back to work legislation. I have also received emails in support of the opposition's position.

One thing I heard earlier was that we were fixating on the suspension of time, June 23. The clock is still ticking and with every minute that passes, while our colleagues are making money, my constituents are losing money. I heard that there were two solutions, but there are actually three.

When will opposition members quit thumping their chests, produce solutions, get into committee of the whole to deal with the issues and put forward their solutions instead of their complaints, end this debate and get this resolved?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer here with another question, one that I think provides the answer. I wonder why my Conservative colleague, who has the chance to be in the lobby of the people who control the situation, is not talking to the ones who are responsible for it and asking them why they are not doing something, why they are doing nothing to take the padlocks off and end this lockout. All Canadians who are affected by the absence of postal services would benefit from that solution.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to very passionate speeches by the members of the New Democratic Party. I know they believe what they are saying. Liberals agree that the government bill is a bullying bill. It is absolutely unfair and would be decided on what the arbitration outcomes would be, et cetera.

Members know the government is fixated on what the bill says and has decided it will not change its mind. The NDP is fixated on this filibuster and does not seem to want to change its mind. Meanwhile, nothing is getting resolved.

I am really frustrated. Every hour we talk in the House nothing is happening. The mail is not flowing, people are not going back to work, we are not deciding on a solution to put the government in its place by saying that if it is not a bully, then it should listen to the amendments. Why could we not go into committee of the whole and get some amendments on the table?

We were asked to come here and find solutions, not simply be intransigent, as both sides here are.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we would not need to introduce amendments and propose changes if the government did what it has the power to do: demand that the lockout end and take the padlocks off the doors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question.

She talked about standing up for our families and our rights. I think it is very important.

But some have said people are complaining. Others said they wanted to fix a few problems. Personally, I would like to know whether my colleague thinks what we are doing today is a waste of time.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here now is absolutely not a waste of time. The government is on the verge of taking a step I believed could never be taken. It is about to trample the rights of workers.

Each minute we spend talking about that will never be a waste of time. Even if it takes many more hours to get through to this government, I think it is well worth it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is to reiterate, as we all do, why we are here. We are here because the government seems to be working hand in hand with the board and management at Canada Post. I suggest that an historical review of what has gone on would show that there was probably a lot more co-operation than is seen now and that would probably be appreciated by most Canadians.

Again, the reason we are here at 5:45 in the morning is not because anybody particularly likes speaking in the House of Commons at this time on a Saturday morning, but because we want to ensure, given the government is not—