House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was post.

Topics

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I appreciate the comment, but that is a point of debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of State for Transport.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:45 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in the House on a point of order. I have not risen to make a point of debate. This is a proper point of order.

Standing Orders 16(2) and 18 have been repeatedly violated during the time the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl was speaking, but it is not the first time. The level of decorum is getting rapidly worse. Standing Order 16(2) says that when a member is speaking, no member shall interrupt him or her. Standing Order 18 says that no one shall have offensive words used against them.

We are losing the thread here and I ask the Speaker for help to ensure we maintain the higher level of decorum that we had at the beginning of the 41st session.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is correct. These are part of our Standing Orders. Order in the House is dependent on the goodwill of all members and the debate must occur with respect to all members in the House. I would ask everyone to remember that as the debate continues and I will certainly enforce the rules of order.

The Minister of State for Transport.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:50 a.m.

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba

Conservative

Steven Fletcher ConservativeMinister of State (Transport)

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the economy. If the member was—

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:50 a.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you confirm with the desk officers that I actually received 10 minutes? I do not think I did.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I am advised that, despite the interruptions, the hon. member has received more or less 10 minutes. However, I want to add that it becomes disjointed when there are continual points of order that are really not points of order, but questions of debate. I ask everyone to be mindful of that as well.

The hon. Minister of State for Transport.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:50 a.m.

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba

Conservative

Steven Fletcher ConservativeMinister of State (Transport)

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to jobs. We are approaching a work week on Monday. This Canada Post work stoppage has caused significant damage not only to Canada Post and its future but also to the economy of Canada. If the member were really interested in preventing jobs from being lost, we would get this legislation done over the weekend.

We get their point now, loud and clear, that the NDP are beholden to big labour. We understand that. If there were any doubt before, it is abundantly clear that the NDP are holding on to their biggest link in Canada, big union bosses. However, there is a bigger picture here, the needs of Canadians and small businesses to get on with their lives. What the NDP are doing this weekend in this filibuster is preventing normal life in Canada from occurring.

Could the member not simply allow the legislation to move forward? We get the point of the NDP, but we need to get on with the bigger picture, and that is to be here in Parliament for Canadians.

Will the member support the government's legislation?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:50 a.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Madam Speaker, if the Conservatives got the point, they would take the legislation off the table. Let me answer the question with the end of my speech, that the attack on postal workers must not be tolerated, that the attack on rescue centres must not be tolerated, that the attack on Canadian labour must not be tolerated. Our way of life, the Canadian way of life, must be defended. I was not supposed to be here today, but the line has been drawn. I could be nowhere else.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:50 a.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his eloquent speech to the House today and for the passion he brings in representing his community and to this issue.

Given that this is a lockout by the employer, in fact a strike by the employer, in which the government has now chosen to intervene and take the side of the employer, could the hon. member give us his opinion of what the long-term impact will be on collective bargaining, not just for postal workers but for any groups of working people in the country, as a result of this very damaging bill before us today?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:55 a.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Madam Speaker, let me answer that question with another part of my speech that I did not get to because I was interrupted by the Conservatives opposite.

I had a conversation yesterday with two union leaders in St. John's, one of whom told me a story about a senior postal worker, a women with 30 years' of seniority. She does not need to be on the picket line. She can retire any day because her pension is safe, but she heard the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons on Thursday and it motivated her to walk the line. It motivated her to continue the fight, because what is so important and what long-time workers see as so important are the pensions and benefits for the people coming behind them. That is what is so important.

I hope that answers the hon. member's question.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 9:55 a.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Madam Speaker, mind-boggling, unacceptable and outrageous are some of the adjectives used to describe the government's attitude and the way it is handling this matter. I do not know whether the government has really not understood anything or it is just trying to prevent Canada Post workers from continuing to provide services to the public. The sole purpose of that action is to create a precedent that will enable the government to impose its vision every time.

Today, I am asking this Conservative government to put the interests of Canadians ahead of partisanship and ideologies. This government, elected by only 40% of Canadians, has a duty to serve the interests of the whole population, as it has promised many times before and after the May 2 election. I do not understand why this government, which made so many promises before the election, is now depriving Canadians of services and seriously harming the Canadian economy.

It should be noted that Canada Post subsidiaries and its joint venture annually spend $2.8 billion on goods. Therefore, we are not just talking about the businesses that no longer have access to Canada Post services, but about Canada Post itself, which provides those services, thereby creating 300,000 additional jobs that are currently being threatened. The economy is a daily topic of discussion. There are 585 domestic flights scheduled for Canada Post services. There are also 100 delivery vehicles and 18 rail services. All that money is being lost because the Conservatives have shut down our Canada Post services.

Job-creating small businesses are waiting for postal services to resume, so that they can send their bills and receive their cheques. The government could end this crisis immediately by allowing the employees to return to work, resume services and negotiate with their employer in good faith and on an equal footing.

From the beginning of this crisis, the government has not just interfered and imposed its vision; it has run a propaganda and smear campaign demonizing Canada Post employees. Once again, as my colleagues have pointed out many times, the government is trying to polarize matters, create conflict and divide Canadians.

The Conservative government knows full well what it is doing. Its plan is clear: cut services, privatize Canada Post and create a precedent. In the meantime, this government has no qualms about depriving people of services and putting a squeeze on family budgets. The government keeps saying that we are responsible for this situation even though the government, and the government alone, can put an end to the lockout and let Canada Post employees resume the work they never wanted to stop doing. But that has never been the government's priority. It is perfectly obvious that its priorities are elsewhere. The government is there to serve the CEOs of large corporations, banks and oil companies. The government is asking employees to make concessions and tighten their belts, as if Canada Post were truly in trouble, and all the while, its CEO is collecting a salary in the neighbourhood of $500,000 with bonuses. That is insulting; it is a slap in the face to all Canadians.

Today, the hon. members across the way have targeted postal workers. Tomorrow, they will target other public servants. And the day after that, will they take aim at all workers? Yes, the Conservatives must make their friends happy. It is much more enjoyable to go off and play golf with the heads of big business than to mix with the average Canadian and the real workers who make our economy go round.

Apparently, this government, with its irresponsible policies, is oblivious to the pride Canadians have in their postal service, one of the best in the world, one of the most efficient, one of the most accessible, a service provided by the Crown, a service that is not yet in the hands of the private sector. But for how long?

Canada Post employees have always done an excellent job serving Canadians from coast to coast, rain or shine, at an extremely reasonable cost. I really do not know how the hon. members across the way will be able to look their letter carrier in the eye after passing this special legislation. Nor do I know whether they could have taken this approach prior to the May 2 election. It is a classic move. They disregard Canadians and serve the interests of their cronies at the beginning of their mandate, and then, come election time, they claim they are going to help the economy.

This government has the power and the duty to put a stop to this crisis immediately. It can intervene right now so that employees can go back to work and negotiations with the employer can resume.

At this time, the population is being held hostage for ideological reasons and partisan purposes. This government has to act. Yesterday, while we were debating here, the Prime Minister was not even in Ottawa, but he just had to add insult to injury. And even though he prevented the members of this House from returning to their ridings to celebrate the national holiday, he went to Quebec himself.

Be that as it may, it is not stopping: the calls keep coming in, and I continue to get emails from worried citizens who are asking us to continue our work. I think that this government is distancing itself even further from the population, and isolating itself. It has been completely blinded by its partisan goals. This government, which has no consideration for workers, is conducting a veritable disinformation campaign by continuing to accuse us, while all of the power rests with it: all it has to do is lift the lockout and send the parties back to discuss what would be best for both of them and their new collective agreement.

I wanted to add that a few hours ago Martin Victor sent me a message saying that he had been sleeping on his couch for two nights in a row in order to follow the debates on Bill C-6, and he added that he was willing to die on that couch in order to see this bill defeated.

There was a 64% turnout in the last general election. At this time, the population is worried about the debate and constituents are getting in touch with us to tell us about their concerns. My colleagues across the way say that they are only receiving emails from small businesses. That is logical, because the people in their ridings are writing to us, because we listen to them.

People from Prince Edward Island, where no NDP members were elected, unfortunately, are writing to us to thank us for our honesty and solidarity. Scott Gaudet wrote to me to say he was happy to see a new way of doing politics in Canada. He said he was disgusted with this harsh law.

The NDP is asking the government, which is accusing us of delaying the process, to order an end to the lockout so that employees can return to work and their collective agreement can be ratified in the manner agreed to.

For a while now, much has been said about the eight months of talks that have taken place. Personally, I am still looking for information about that matter, but I would like to know how many rounds of talks took place over these eight months. How much time was spent at the bargaining table? It is all well and good to say that the parties negotiated for eight months, but if they only met a few times over the course of these eight months, then the Conservatives are waging a public disinformation campaign. I am quite tired of all of this and I am also anxious to go home, but I am extremely proud and pleased to be here defending my fellow citizens.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10 a.m.

Conservative

Jim Hillyer Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Speaker, I will just read this email. It says:

Members of Parliament:

I am following the debate on ParlVu, and it seems frustrating to me that in trying to follow some of the things that some of the Hon. members are discussing, it seems like the majority of them have not read Bill C-6..

I know this is a lockout....

Can the members not read that the very first provisions require the EMPLOYER to end the lockout? That the very next subsection prohibits the EMPLOYER from impeding employees from returning to work? Can they not read that C-6 requires the EMPLOYER to resume respecting the collective agreement until a new one can be put in place?

Can they not read section 13 which states that nothing in the act precludes the Union and the Employer from agreeing on a new collective agreement before the bill comes into force?

I find that some honourable members are wasting our time and tax dollars by not reading Bill C-6 and properly interpreting its intent.

Will the NDP quit constructing straw man arguments and focus on the bill?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:05 a.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

We have all read the bill many times over. We have also familiarized ourselves with the measures proposed in this special legislation. Of course we support an end to the lockout, but we certainly do not support basic wages that are 18% lower, an increase in the retirement age and reductions in annual leave entitlements.

We oppose the so-called “orphan clauses“ pursuant to which newly hired young persons from my generation would enjoy fewer benefits than workers already in the labour force. Obviously, the NDP cannot support two-tiered systems. While we do want the lockout to end, we certainly do not want it to end under these conditions, with special legislation that will deny these new workers their rights.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:05 a.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her passionate speech.

To answer my Conservative colleague's question, I would simply say that maybe the person who sent him the e-mail should read clause 16 in its entirety. The clause reads as follows:

Nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to limit or restrict the rights of the parties to agree to amend any provision of the new collective agreement, other than its term as provided for in subsection 14(1) or the salary increases referred to in section 15—

Perhaps my colleague could explain to the person who sent this e-mail to the Conservative member that we are well aware of the many orders issued to the employer. However, there was also a restriction with regard to clause 16. That is what we have been trying to get across to the Conservatives for several days now.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:05 a.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks. Actually I am reading the same clause myself. They say we have not read the bill. That shows just how the Conservatives view the public: as ignorant people who do not do their work.

Excuse me, but we also do our work. Yes, we have read the bill and many other documents. We are informed and we do indeed have sources. We would not accept clauses like that.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:05 a.m.

Newmarket—Aurora Ontario

Conservative

Lois Brown ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

Madam Speaker, we all know how technology has changed the requirement for mail delivery in Canada. Many of us sit here with our computers. I listened to the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing last night talk about having no access to Internet and wanting more Internet services in her riding.

According to the NDP platform on the web, the NDP is actually advocating for broadband access for everyone, something with which I agree, but it would reduce the number of people employed in the postal service.

While it is all well and good to grandstand about more services and pay, could the member tell me which job she advocates eliminating in her riding?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:05 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has 30 seconds left.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:05 a.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Madam Speaker, I will keep it brief. Under the current offer to letter carriers, the time they spend delivering the mail will increase from four hours to six hours because the machines will sort the mail for them. This will lead to a reduction in the number of employees.

Our proposal is designed to encourage these jobs and get the workers back on the job as quickly as possible. I certainly do not think that our proposal would reduce jobs that much when compared to this offer.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:05 a.m.

NDP

Paulina Ayala NDP Honoré-Mercier, QC

Madam Speaker, where are we now? That is the question on everyone's mind this morning. What facts have been established thus far? What facts do we agree on?

The first thing we agree on is that Canada Post management decided it did not want to negotiate the renewal of its employees' collective agreement because it felt that the workers' demands would compromise the growth of Canada Post, keep it from reaching targets, harm its competitiveness and derail attempts at streamlining. In the face of this refusal to negotiate, the workers decided to put pressure on their employer, Canada Post. In addition, these pressure tactics, rotating strikes, were not intended to disrupt services offered to customers but simply to disturb Canada Post management's peace of mind.

As in all collective bargaining, pressure tactics are intended to force a compromise, to highlight the importance of employee co-operation to ensure that the company is operating well. And it has been established that the employees' union had more than 9,000 workers on standby to ensure the continuation of essential services. These employees, conscious of the needs of the customers who are dependent on Canada Post's services, did not want to harm the public, neighbours, friends, business owners, family members, etc.

It has been established that the impact felt by Canadians since the start of this dispute was not caused by Canada Post's employees, but by the actions of its management. We have said it often enough that no one can deny it any longer: things started to deteriorate for the public when Canada Post management declared a lockout.

This measure, which is hardly novel, is different because it affects a sector of the public that is dependent on postal services, which have a near-monopoly. It has also been established that the government acted hastily by intervening in this dispute, by appointing itself judge and jury, when there was no indication that the situation was degrading to the point of immobilizing the postal service. Again, there was no indication, before the lockout or before this bill was introduced, that public services would be compromised.

For days the government has been saying that Bill C-6 was necessary. Day and night we have demonstrated, and we will continue to demonstrate, that this is untrue. The government is content to repeat, like a broken record, that the collective agreement expired eight months ago and that the situation could not continue. Do eight months of negotiations, if they can even be called that, really represent a critical delay given that the employer was not even co-operating?

Many examples of past negotiations to renew expired collective agreements show that a delay of eight months is nothing out of the ordinary. In Quebec, we have seen much worse without the government getting involved. Take, for example, Quebecor and the Journal de Montréal dispute. The lockout lasted over a year—not just several months; over a year.

The government claims that the difference is that Canada Post offers an essential service. That argument does not hold water because, and I will say it again, the unionized workers at Canada Post planned to have 9,000 employees available to work and provide services. Unionized City of Montreal employees, police officers, firefighters and other professional bodies offering truly essential services have been negotiating for over a year without a collective agreement. Eight months is not enough; it is not a justification and it does not threaten the delivery of essential services to the public.

Eight months of negotiations do not justify the government's intervention, particularly when the unionized workers have committed to continue providing services. Eight months is not even a significant precedent, never mind a length of time that requires government intervention.

These are the arguments that the government has been presenting for days to convince us to allow Bill C-6 to pass. These arguments do not hold water and the government and the opposition parties both know it.

So what is the truth? What is the justification for this situation? What is the government's plan?

The government is saying that it wants to find solutions. So why does it not tell us the truth, show us its plan and Canada Post's plan, and tell the House today the real goals of this charade?

Is the government allowing this exceptional process that is keeping us in the House for a historically long period simply for ideological reasons, or does the government have a larger motive? I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is not making the Canadian public go through this simply to satisfy its ideology. That would be too sad. But if that is not the reason, then what is?

Since September 2010, there have been discussions in England about the future of the Royal Mail. The government is talking about rationalization and the possibility of privatizing the postal service because it is losing money.

In Germany, 20% of the postal service was privatized in order to pad the coffers of the government corporation that was losing money. In Belgium, postal services were privatized because they did not make the desired profit. In Denmark, postal services were privatized because their performance did not live up to expectations. It was the same thing in Finland. Even Japan is currently considering privatizing its services.

However, Canada Post has generated a profit of $1.7 billion over the past 15 years. Then why are we having this debate today? Why are we taking our cue from countries with services that lost money when not only does Canada Post make attractive profits, but it provides exceptional service for less than what is charged in Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, England, Japan, Australia and the United States? Why are we attacking Canada Post workers when, unlike all the postal services I mentioned, our crown corporation's performance is exceptional?

Should we not instead be thanking and recognizing these employees who make Canada Post successful? Is the real issue the fact that, in this wave of privatization across the globe, Canada Post is one of those rare, profitable public corporations and this makes it very appealing to private investors?

Can the government state today in the House that it is not subjecting Canadians to this ordeal simply to pave the way for the possible sale of Canada Post? Can the government state that it is not doing all this to break the union, lower wages, increase profits and make the product more attractive for private investors?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:15 a.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Madam Speaker, it is remarkable that here we are a couple of days in and we still hear the exact same arguments. In fact, I am sure I have heard that same speech before.

Regardless, we have heard a number of members talk about the wages being paid to the executive at Canada Post.

I received a number of emails from local postal workers in Peterborough. They had no choice about joining the union. It is mandatory. One postal worker wrote to me, and I will just read the part where he said:

This union is corrupt!

This union charges $80 a month in fees and is not accountable to anyone on where that money goes.

This union organizes union conferences for its top brass in foreign countries like Fiji and Maui.

That exact same union will not allow its members to vote on Canada Post's last offer. That union member had no choice about being a member of the union. Now he would like a choice as to whether or not he could accept Canada Post's most recent offer. The NDP is standing in the way of that. Would the NDP not encourage CUPW to allow its membership to vote on the most recent Canada Post offer?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:20 a.m.

NDP

Paulina Ayala NDP Honoré-Mercier, QC

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member has understood correctly. I am talking about the salaries paid to Canada Post executives. I think that he has simply got the wrong person.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:20 a.m.

NDP

Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to let my colleague know that I really enjoyed her speech, as it shed light on the situation for me. I also want to ask her a question, as I am not sure I understood correctly. If my understanding is correct, the situation is very serious.

Am I right in my understanding that this government has fabricated a situation from beginning to end in order to push Canada Post workers into being incredibly productive, so that the government could sell Canada Post to the private sector in the long run? Did I understand that correctly?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:20 a.m.

NDP

Paulina Ayala NDP Honoré-Mercier, QC

Yes, that is correct, Madam Speaker.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:20 a.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, this debate has been going on for quite some time, and my constituents are very interested in having a resumption of mail service. They are not really interested in whether it is management that is at fault or if it is the union that is at fault. All they know is that they are not getting their mail. They need their mail for the good of their businesses. They need it for the health of their economy. They need it to meet payrolls.

Families need those payrolls to be able to put food on the table. The New Democratic Party is carrying on a filibuster that is preventing a law that will allow workers to go back to work.

I hear in the hon. member's speech that it is because the New Democratic Party members think there is a wage decrease in the proposed legislation. I counted it up. There is a 7.5% wage increase in the legislation. That is an increase in excess of what many of the people in my constituency are receiving.

Has the hon. member looked at the bill? Is she aware that there is a 7.5% wage increase?

Would the member not agree that it is a good idea to give workers the opportunity to go back to work, have the benefit of that wage increase and allow our economy to have the benefit of the mail service, rather than having our economy crippled at this fragile time?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 10:20 a.m.

NDP

Paulina Ayala NDP Honoré-Mercier, QC

Madam Speaker, the lockout should be stopped, so that the union leaders can negotiate with Canada Post. It is up to them to resolve the situation.