Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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 #25

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment lost.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I can assure you that my comments will be brief. Brevity is the key here.

We have seen over the last 27 or 28 hours an attempt by the NDP opposition to obfuscate and delay this very important piece of legislation. As a result of its delaying tactics, millions of hard-working Canadians are concerned about their financial futures. In fact, they are concerned to the point that many seniors and many small business people have contacted us continuously over the last 27 hours imploring us to get this legislation passed.

We have a responsibility to protect those Canadians. We have a responsibility to protect the Canadian economy. We cannot afford any more undue delays.

Therefore, in order to expedite this legislation, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Once again I rise to speak on C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

As has been pointed out many times throughout this debate, this situation was created by the government and its crown corporation Canada Post. It was not created by the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

Now we have before us a bill that makes a complete mockery of the hard-fought democratic rights of workers in this country. I would like to make it absolutely clear one more time that I support the right to organize, the right to free collective bargaining, and the right to strike. When workers take a risk and stand up to be counted on issues like fair wages, working conditions, and pensions, all Canadians benefit.

This situation is the government's own doing. They interfered in a legal labour dispute. The dispute was having minimal impact on the delivery of mail from coast to coast until the Minister of Labour interfered.

After serving their 72 hours' notice, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers initiated limited rotating strikes. They did this because they knew it would send a message to the employer that they wanted to get serious at the bargaining table. At the same time, the rotating strikes minimized inconveniences to Canadians who rely on postal service across our country.

That is how the process works. The ability to withdraw their labour is the power that employees bring to the bargaining table. It is the counterweight to the tremendous power that the employer holds in the negotiating process.

When the Minister of Labour then intervened and said if mail service was interrupted she would take action, she sent a clear signal to Canada Post that all the corporation had to do was stop the mail from being delivered and she would give them the legislation they were waiting for. That very evening they locked out the hard-working members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and stopped disrupting mail service in its entirety.

It is outrageous. As the owner of Canada Post, the government should have told management to go back to the table and negotiate a lasting resolution to this dispute. Instead, the Conservatives introduced this draconian bill that arbitrarily imposes a settlement that is, unbelievably, less than what Canada Post was offering.

I want to quote an editorial from the Globe and Mail from June 15, 2011, about the effects of imposed settlements on labour relations. It said:

The decision to legislate will not make for a better deal between the companies and their workers. It will mean a sacrifice of labour peace in the longer run. And it will not solve the structural problems affecting either company or its bargaining units--pensions at Air Canada; pensions, and relevance, at Canada Post. The federal government should hold its fire.

I could not agree more. The government should have held its fire. It should have waited and let the negotiations work.

Let us be honest with ourselves and with all Canadians about what this lockout and this rollback of hard-earned wages and benefits are about. They are all about money for the government.

On June 10, 2011, the labour minister was chosen to sit on a committee that is mandated with finding savings in Ottawa to the tune of $4 billion per year. Where do they expect to find all those savings? On the backs of public servants, of course.

Four days after being appointed to this review committee, the minister introduced a back-to-work bill that legislates wage increases that are even lower than those proposed by Canada Post in negotiations. It was not even a strike. It was a lockout.

Why did the minister not just introduce a bill that ordered Canada Post to unlock the doors and let the union continue its responsible job action of rotating strikes that had minimum impact on Canadians?

Even better, why not do as the union had offered: let them go back to work while negotiations continued? It is because the minister saw an opportunity to take advantage of the postal workers and score some points with the Prime Minister by legislating rollbacks. The wage piece alone in this bill represents $35 million from postal workers and their families.

Canada Post corporation generated $7.3 billion of revenues in 2009. It has remained profitable for 15 consecutive years. In the last 10 years alone it paid the Government of Canada almost $400 million in income taxes and another $350 million in dividends. Clearly the government wants even more.

Interventions of this type are particularly disturbing because not only do they deny workers their fundamental rights, but they send a message to the management in all sectors that serious negotiations are not necessary; the government will simply intervene and force employees back to work.

Workers' rights are enshrined in our Constitution, but this so-called law and order government continuously ignores Canadian laws and makes workers pay the price. In the Conservatives' Canada, the rights of workers are always secondary to the rights of corporations.

I cannot help but think of a similar situation in my hometown of Hamilton. At home, it is the courageous men and women of Steelworkers Local 1005 who are paying the price for the government's corporate ideology as we speak. Here is what happened in Hamilton. The Conservative government approved the foreign takeover of Stelco by U.S. Steel, a takeover that has devastated my hometown and left 900 workers, as well as more than 9,000 pensioners, fearing for their futures.

Let me remind members in the House of the details. U.S. Steel bought Stelco in 2007. The purchase included both Hilton Works in Hamilton and Lake Erie Works in Nanticoke. The Investment Canada Act required U.S. Steel to demonstrate that its investment would provide a net benefit to Canada. In order to do that, U.S. Steel made commitments with regard to job creation, production levels, and domestic investment. Once those commitments were purportedly secured, the federal government signed an agreement that committed U.S. Steel to 31 different promises. U.S. Steel started up its operations in 2007, but it was just a year later that the company began laying off its workers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

In 2009 the government started to ask questions, and U.S. Steel responded with a number of different--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

I would ask all hon. members to keep their voices down. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has the floor and it is difficult to hear.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, in 2009 the government started to ask questions, and U.S. Steel responded with a number of different reasons why it should be excused from meeting its previously agreed to commitments. For once, the government did not buy the excuses and initiated court action in July of 2009.

By taking U.S. Steel to court, the federal government acknowledged that it does have a legal duty to ensure that foreign investments provide a net benefit to Canada, and therefore the government does have a role to play in the dispute. Now, production is all but shut down completely, and just like the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, steel workers in Hamilton are now locked out. They are both fighting for fair wages, decent working conditions, benefits, and a defined pension plan. But unlike at Canada Post, the government is completely washing its hands of the lockout in Hamilton. So where is the real similarity between what is happening at Canada Post and at U.S. Steel? Well, this government is picking winners and losers and the price is being paid by workers in our country.

I am proud that union members are not taking that lying down. They are taking a stand for themselves and for future generations. They are fighting against the corporate impulse to race to the bottom, whatever the costs may be, and I am proud to stand with them in that battle.

This is about the future of work for our children and grandchildren, who deserve to earn a decent wage and earn decent pensions after a lifetime of work. Our parents and grandparents were proud to be part of the struggle for our future. Now it is our turn. I urge all members of the House to stand united against this heavy-handed bill for all workers and for future generations.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here tonight.

I just wanted to make a comment about the vote. Fifteen minutes ago we stood and had a vote in the House, and if my addition is right, I think there were only 71 NDP members who were here to vote on the motion. I am just wondering if the member could tell us, after 27 hours of filibustering--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order.

The member knows that he cannot refer to who is or is not here. I appreciate that this is in reference to the vote, but I would ask the member to be cautious in terms of referring to who is or is not in the chamber.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would never talk about individuals either being here or absent from their post, but I think the vote was 71 members of the NDP out of 103 who did choose to vote against the bill.

I would like to ask the chief opposition whip, who is actually in charge of making sure her members are here to vote, why, after 27 hours of filibustering, they had the kinds of numbers show up that they did. Is it because those folks do not want to do their work, or is it because they object to the extreme position taken by the party?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that NDP members are solidly united in opposition to this legislation.

As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, if you have a commitment to allow both sides to arrive at a negotiated settlement, it actually helps to occasionally talk to some of the other parties.

What New Democrats in this House are doing from coast to coast to coast is connecting with the locals of CUPW in their ridings and talking to them about what is at stake in this dispute so their stories can be brought to this House. That is what this place is about. We are representing them in this House, and our members are taking every opportunity to have those conversations.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair appreciates all the passion that members are bringing to this debate, but if the Chair cannot hear the member, I presume that other members cannot hear them.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from the onset of the debate, the leader of the Liberal Party talked about the importance of amending this legislation.

This is an issue of critical importance, and we look to the government to demonstrate goodwill in terms of the whole collective bargaining process. It is something that we believe not only the workers but even the corporation should have a right to. It is something that this legislation is taking away.

We are all so anxious to hear about the possible amendments the New Democrats might have. I asked a question of one member who indicated that they have already shared some of those amendments with the Conservative government.

Is the NDP in a position to be more transparent and share those amendments with the viewing public and in fact all members of this chamber at this time?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the appropriate time for us to bring amendments forward is of course in committee of the whole, and we will be doing that.

It is a bit ironic that the member is talking about how the Liberals are all committed to bringing forward amendments and taking this process seriously when in fact what just happened is that the Liberals voted in support of the government.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the members who have been here for a while should remember a certain Nisga’a debate we had in this House of Commons. There were 478 amendments brought by the Reform Party of Canada, which delayed this House for over 64 hours. I remember it very clearly. The members of that party said it was their democratic right to be able to do that. I wonder why they are not honouring the democratic right of the NDP to do something to help workers in this country.

I have a question for the hon. member. We have a new cabinet minister in the country now. It is a misnomer to call her the Minister of Labour, as she is now known as the Minister of Management. I wonder if my hon. colleague could tell us why the Prime Minister would change such an important portfolio.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course that question is very apropos, because as I said in my speech, this is all about making sure that the government's coffers are enriched on the backs of workers.

Canada Post has been paying dividends and income tax to the government. The more Canada Post can save, the richer the coffers of the government. It is completely outrageous that we are paying down the biggest deficit in Canadian history, which was accumulated by the Conservative government right across from us, and Canada Post workers are being asked to pay down that deficit. It is completely outrageous.

I agree with the member. The Minister for Management needs to take responsibility for her actions. I would encourage her to come back, become the Minister of Labour, and actually help negotiate a settlement to the labour dispute.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you have observed that this is June 25. You have observed that as a Quebecker, I am proud: I have not apologized like the NDP members who showed disrespect for Quebeckers and French Canadians by sitting in the House of Commons on June 24. I thought the celebrations for this June 24 were extraordinary. Mostly, I spent a lot of time listening to my constituents. That is one of the reasons I am proud today that I voted as I did, to move to second reading, and if there are amendments, to get to them.

One thing is certain: first, people want workers to have rights and want those rights to be respected. In Quebec, people want a negotiated agreement to be possible. What they do not want, for example, is for us to be dogmatic and filibuster for hours and hours when we know very well that the longer we wait, the more harm is going to be done to the postal workers and the public. Today, many in the public are sick of this. That is why there has to be some balance. When the Conservative government is dogmatic and the NDP is dogmatic, everyone loses. That is why the House should sit in committee of the whole post-haste so that amendments can be moved and solutions to the problem found.

I am noticing a lot of talking. We are in a parliament here. Everyone is standing up and talking. I would like to have a bit of order so we can hear. Or maybe you do not understand my French when I speak; that is probably what it is.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are talking when I am talking. Is it okay? You are asking for decorum. I would ask you to please make them shut up so we can talk.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order.

The chair would agree with the member for Bourassa. There is a dull roar in the place. I would ask all hon. members to give the hon. member for Bourassa all of the respect he deserves.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is unfortunate that you understood me better in English than in French. I am going to have to say nicer things in English next time.

One thing is certain: this is a bad bill. The Conservatives keep talking about a strike. It is not a strike, it is a lockout. Clearly the other side of the House does not respect the rights of workers, it does not accept that there is a right of association, and it does not want a negotiated agreement. A rotating strike is strictly a pressure tactic. It is the management of Canada Post that decided to cut mail delivery back from five days to three and then ordered the lockout. Then, as if by coincidence, the Minister of Labour wanted to impose legislation.

The Liberal government had to enact a back-to-work bill in the past, but at that time it was enacted after a general strike that had lasted two weeks. It was an essential service at the time. It must be understood that 14 years ago there was no Internet as there is today and there was no email and no ability to make payments electronically. The situation had therefore caused a huge number of problems, both for small and medium-sized businesses and for seniors, who wanted to get their mail. Today it is less serious, but a solution will still have to be found.

Certainly we hope to have a settlement and an agreement between management and the employees and we want workers' rights to be respected, but we also have to protect the public. The government has a majority. I understand that like us, the opposition is rising and presenting its views, but too much systematic obstruction is as bad as not enough. I will say to everyone who supports this opposition that when we stretch the elastic too far, it snaps back and hits us in the face. People are going to be thinking this is not right. That is the difference between dogmatism and pragmatism.

From the outset, we have said that if amendments were made to this bill, we could perhaps work to find a solution. It is unthinkable to tie the hands of an arbitrator, to require the arbitrator, as the bill specifies, to take either the side of the employer or the side of the workers. If that is the way in which we are going to proceed, we may well ask ourselves what arbitration is. Is it just choosing one side over the other?

Of course, we know full well how arbitrators work. They must be given every ability to work with both parties to reach a compromise. Arbitrators represent neither the union nor the employer. That is why we cannot pass legislation that will tie an arbitrator's hands. That is unacceptable.

It is true that salary provisions were included in the bill in the past. But in the current negotiations between the employer and the workers, Canada Post had proposed a salary scale. Why does this bill propose lesser amounts? If the minister is already on the side of management, why did she include in the bill amounts less than Canada Post had proposed?

For all these reasons, we are voting against this bill. But we look forward to the House resolving into committee of the whole in order for us to discuss whether it is possible to come to an agreement.

We are voting against the six-month hoist because the lockout continues. There is no agreement between the employer and the union, yet we are telling the workers that we are going to wait another six months. What are we going to tell Canadians for all that time? This is why we have to find a compromise, and this is why the Liberal Party is the pragmatic party. We are practical people, and we feel that we must find a better way than to hold up Parliament.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is waving at me. I suppose he is pleased to see me. So I will wave back. Of course, we can work to protect the interests of workers, but a filibuster just wastes time. We have just spent 35 hours on second reading. If we want to spend another 35, we can and they are going to, but they are in no way serving the workers or serving Canadians. That is why we have to find solutions together. As their slogan says, “Travaillons ensemble”. Let us work together.

Let us find a way together, during the committee of the whole, to see if there is a capacity for some amendments.

Of course I do not have a lot of trust in the government, for obvious reasons. However, I trust in people, and I believe that people deserve a service.

At the same time I want to ensure that people realize the workers are also Canadians. When I asked a question to the minister, she said she prefers to protect 33 million people rather than 45,000 workers. These 45,000 workers are Canadians, so I do not know why we have two tiers. Was she saying there are two kinds of citizens?

We must find a pragmatic solution, but night after night of filibustering is not the way to find a solution.

People are saying that there was an election. There is a majority government. We can urge, we can stall, but if we truly want to work together, we must get together in committee of the whole to propose amendments.

People were mad about this filibuster because June 24 is Quebec's national holiday. People were asking why Parliament avoided sitting on a Friday because of the NDP and Conservative Party conventions, but Quebec's national holiday was not important. Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day for French Canadians is not important. We can sit that day.

We must be responsible. We can exert pressure and discuss at length, but there must be an outcome. At the end of the day, we need to serve the public. We can find a compromise, a balanced solution. I hope that we will be able to discuss possible amendments.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the member for Bourassa. This is the same question that his colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt asked in the House. I also asked the NDP the same thing. I think it is very important that we get an answer.

In this place we talk a lot. That's all we do in this place. It's important to match our talk with action.

We never got an answer about this very important question. The NDP talks a lot about the rights of workers, but as I understand it their own local 232 still doesn't have a collective bargaining agreement. This has been years in the making. As a result, many new hires in the OLO and other parts of the New Democratic caucus are being made as management in order to avoid the seniority that comes with being part of a local.

My question to the member is when will the NDP put in place a collective bargaining agreement for some staff and “walk the walk” as they “talk the talk”?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will have to live with its own contradictions and will resolve its problems. What I am interested in today, at 12:45 in the morning, is not showing hyper-partisanship, but finding a solution so that we can first respect the collective constitutional rights recognized by the Supreme Court. And then Ms. Mailloux in my riding can receive her mail. I told Ms. Mailloux that it was a lockout that made no sense, but that I was going to make sure that she got her mail. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. At some point, we must realize that too much is just as bad as not enough.

I would like us to stop with the gobbledygook and set aside partisanship so that we can find a solution. We can stretch things out. The members just have to say the same thing all the time. They have been repeating the same thing for 36 hours. We know the arguments. They are always saying the same thing. It sounds good. The members from Quebec all apologized because they were unable to take part in Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, but they are still making the same arguments.

Can we move on? Let us bring forward amendments, and we will work hard. We want to work so that there is service, but we want the workers to be respected as well.