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.
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not want to approve of or comment on the past actions of the Liberal government. If the Conservative government chooses to learn a lesson there, that is their business, but I believe that we need to get back to the bargaining table. I would urge the government to stop pointing a gun at the union's head.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I am focusing on solutions.
Recently there have been challenges for organized labour in Canada, with Air Canada, Canada Post. In Greece, there have been demonstrations against cutbacks. In Spain, government officials are meeting to discuss labour reforms.
I am wondering what role the hon. member thinks globalization has to play in the challenges that unions face today and what actions the government might take to address this issue.
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.
There is an opportunity to be had here and bridges to be built. Various countries around the world have very different practices. Union coverage and membership rates vary greatly. It would be very interesting to take the time to study it, to see what works best and to consequently make a proposal in partnership with the union members themselves.
Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is recognized that workers have the right to negotiate their labour contracts. Canada's courts have also recognized the workers' right to join with other workers to ensure that their rights and labour contracts are respected.
If draconian measures are imposed on the workers, what will the consequences be when these people want to ensure that their right to negotiate better working conditions is respected?
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member.
There will be consequences. It is a question of taking away their right to speak freely, to make demands, to hold talks and to truly join forces for a common goal. We cannot back down on this if we want to keep our society from irreparable harm.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I know that all members in the House are tired at this point, but it is our duty to be here to speak on behalf of our constituents regardless of our opinion.
As this is my first moment in the House to be giving a brief speech, I want to thank the constituents of Edmonton--Strathcona for re-electing me and for having the confidence in me to represent their interests in the House.
As have all of my colleagues in the House, I too have received quite a few emails, and some letters too. I do not know if those came by passenger pigeon; I thought those went via the way of the dodo.
As members on both sides of the House have said, our constituents are deeply concerned that they are not receiving their pension cheques, their old age security cheques, their provincial welfare cheques, disability assistance cheques and so forth. We all share that concern.
And we all share the concerns of the various non-governmental organizations that our communities depend on. They depend on government cheques for grants and donations and the campaigns they run in order to gather funding.
I am gratified by some of my constituents who have raised concerns about the impact of the strike on their businesses but nonetheless they have congratulated me on my re-election. They respect my determination and principles, wish me luck and tell me to keep up the great work.
Those are the kinds of constituents I have in Edmonton--Strathcona. They understand that we deal with difficult issues. They understand that there are pushes and pulls between employers, employees and unions. There are those who are not necessarily for unions and would like to strike the unions down.
One of the things that has troubled me in this debate is the suggestion by members on the other side of the House that somehow we are doing something importune by continuing this debate into the wee hours. Let us remember that it is the government that is trying to force this legislation through in a rushed manner. We were forced to resort to mechanisms to represent our constituents and those who are going to be impacted by this repressive legislation.
I too share, with my colleagues from Jonquière—Alma and Scarborough—Rouge River, the concern about the suggestion that we on this side of the House only care about people who work in unions. There is a bit of hypocrisy there. There have been complaints that my fellow caucus members are not speaking to the subject of the legislation. At the same time they accuse us of only representing the interests of union workers. They cannot have it both ways.
As some members have reminded the House, we are talking about legislation that is going to affect the rights and privileges of union members, particularly union members who are postal workers. Therefore it is logical that if members are speaking to the bill then that is what they would address.
In no way does that mean that our members, or any member in the House, do not care about people who work in any place of employment, whether they are sole proprietors, lawyers in a law firm, surgeons or dentists, working in a corner grocery store or a large corporation, or they are miners or farmers. Surely all Canadians have rights and privileges, and we have the responsibility to protect those rights and privileges.
I would remind the House that we are discussing a particular piece of legislation that the government has tabled in the House. By the way, it was at the last minute and just before we were about to adjourn.
I am also deeply troubled by the suggestion that we are either for seniors or for private entrepreneurs, or we are for union workers. Surely our responsibility as elected members is to represent every Canadian equally and to make sure their rights and interests are protected.
I heard a lot of discussion in the House about protecting the rights of various members who run businesses themselves, but I have not heard a lot about the people who are working for those businesses and whether provisions are in place to protect the rights and interests of those workers.
As a number of members on my side of the House have mentioned, it is through the organized labour movement that we have the right to practise what some members in this House call family values.
What are family values? Surely it is the right for people to have time off from employment to spend with their children, with elderly parents, to visit them in their retirement homes, to travel across the country and visit cousins.
That is what these workers are fighting for: the right to have extended time off. It is my understanding that what is being proposed is to limit the time off from work. That does not sound like family values to me.
We have heard in the House over the past week about the reports of rising family debt. Yet, the proposal in the government legislation is to reduce the salary levels below even what the employer was offering. The result down the line is that we will have even more family debt. Surely every Canadian should have the right to a livable wage.
If we do not ensure that the employers are providing a livable wage, somewhere down the line the taxpayers will have to supplement that. That is why we fight for a livable wage. People prefer to work hard and earn that livable wage. They do not want to have to turn to one order of government or another to supplement them, or to turn to a food bank.
We have heard the discussions by some hon. members that even some of our veterans, who have served valiantly overseas in defending the freedoms of our country or other countries, are now having to turn to food banks. We need to make sure that all workers, our armed forces, RCMP, police officers, postal workers, nurses, have a livable wage.
It troubles me very deeply. I am getting the sense that some employees should have rights and that some employees do not deserve those rights.
I want to give hon. members a concrete example of where unions have stood up for the kinds of workers that the government has been promoting: temporary foreign workers. In the province I come from there were tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers brought in. Who was looking after their interests? It was the unions that stood up and came to the forefront. They offered free legal assistance to these workers where the governments had dropped the ball.
Both orders of government dropped the ball on that. Who was looking after the interests of workers who were working for private businesses and big corporations? The government was not there for them; it was the unions that stepped up to the plate.
The unions had no interest in protecting foreign workers who could potentially replace their own members' employment, but they fought for proper inspections to ensure the rights of the temporary foreign workers were being respected. That is the value of the unions.
I have never been a member of a union. I have not done union work or labour work in my practice. That does not mean that I do not respect the work of my colleagues. I have great respect for my colleagues who have done this work. It is tough, hard, arduous work to be at those negotiation tables. It is a very valuable role to play, whether one is on the management side or the employee side. I think we should respect the advances that have been made in this country.
I have had the honour and privilege of working overseas in countries where we trade, and these rights and privileges do not exist. These are the kinds of countries where we are exporting products like asbestos. Daily I would go to my work and I would see the workers in bare feet going to construction sites. They were not provided with boots. They had no helmets, no proper clothing, no proper way to wash and no union protections. In fact in most cases, if they tried to unionize, they would be beaten.
We are very fortunate in this country. We are very fortunate that a lot of those who work in the unions have freely been offering their assistance to other nations to make sure they have the same rights and opportunities.
Why is that important? It is very important to an operation, whether it is a mine, a petrochemical industry or an agricultural operation, to have proper working conditions and health and safety. An organization has to maintain a healthy workforce in order to deliver its product.
We should be honouring these workers who are willing to stand up against a major employer. It is not easy to stand up to against a major employer.
I have to say that I find--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please. The member may know, despite some signals, that she has run out of time.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is not a union member but I appreciate her candour in what she said.
We have heard from a lot of union members and union leaders here tonight. We have heard from the member for Hamilton Centre , who was a union leader of the Canadian Auto Workers. We have heard from the member for Vancouver East, who was a hospital employees' union worker and leader. We have heard from the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who was a trade union representative.
We have heard from several union leaders. We will also hear from another union member because I have been a member of a union for 20 years as a professional educator. We have heard a lot about the democracy of the union and how members get together and vote and choose legislation. I want to challenge some of that. Many people who are members of unions are forced to join the union. To be a professional teacher in the public school system, I had to become a member of a union.
If unions are so democratic, why do they feel the need to force people to join? Who is standing up for the rights of the workers who do not want to join a union but are obliged to do so to work in their profession?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. A number of speakers here are worried that the agenda is much larger than the legislation may suggest. In reply, I would have to say that this may well be evidence of that.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I can stand and say that I am a union member because I negotiated collective bargaining agreements for the doctors, so I understand all about this. We were emergency workers so we could not go on strike. We had a difficult time negotiating. I understand the need to have a fair process but I have a suggestion.
We Liberals have been getting up and asking certain questions about coming to solutions, and it is not because we mind the time. I am a doctor. Staying up for 48 hours is not a big deal for me. This is something I have done all my life. I am not worried about the time spent here.
What I am concerned about is that I do not know where we are going. I would like some resolution. For instance, we, as Liberals, would like to support this process. We believe the government's bill is draconian and we agree with the NDP on what they need, but we do not want to hear all the spinning and the rhetoric. We would like to find a solution and we have solutions. I would like to see us get this done.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat what many before me have said. We have put forward the solution, which is to end the lockout.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members of Parliament are saying that some people did not vote to join a union, that they were forced to join. Could the member explain the difference between that and the present situation in the House of Commons where the Conservatives have a majority with only 40% of public support and plans to pass a bill that 60% of Canadians do not want?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is the ongoing dilemma, which is why we are here until the wee hours of the morning. Our responsibility is to oppose the government when we think that it is proposing legislation that goes against the interests of the broader public.
The big issue here is what the public interest is. Is the public interest to protect an employer against the employees? Is it to protect some people who are discouraged at not receiving their mail? Is it the right to a fair wage? What is the public interest? Surely we have a responsibility to think of all people in Canada.
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I spent the whole night wondering what I am doing here. Yes, there is Bill C-6, but what is really keeping us here is an ideological barrier, and this barrier is not created only by this side, by a fanatical group of unionists. Personally, I have never been part of a union. Unions defend perfectly legitimate rights. I do not understand why we are discussing this.
When a very sincere young woman stated her point of view with some emotion, I saw some of the members opposite laughing. To me, this is serious. If this were really a serious issue for them, they would not be laughing. If they want to make people laugh, they are already off to a good start. Look at what they did when things were not working at Canada Post: they closed the doors. If the statistics are not good, they eliminate the survey. It is raining in Saskatchewan, so they fire the weatherman. That is the type of logic we are seeing.
I am from Quebec and I should be at home celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, but I believe in one thing. The reason why I ran for a federal party is that I believed that it was possible to do something positive with the rest of Canada. I told myself that, in this great country, there were certainly a sufficient number of people who were interested in doing something positive. However, what I am finding out from seeing the members opposite turning around and talking to each other, is that they are ignoring the members on this side of the House. If they do not want to listen to me, then they should listen to Laurence Cannon, who was the only Conservative member who had anything intelligent to say the night of the most recent election. He realized that his party had become a regional party. If the Conservatives do not know what a regional party is, they need only look in the corner of the other side of the House and they will see two members of regional parties.
There is an expression that says, “He who laughs last laughs best.” They can continue to laugh for four years but things may not seem as funny to them then.
Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders
Delta—Richmond East B.C.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about honouring the process. We have been honouring the process for eight months. We have been trying to get a resolution, encouraging a resolution, offering conciliation and mediation services, but we also on this side of the House believe in honouring all Canadians.
We have a strong mandate to protect Canada's fragile economy by continuing forward with our recovery plan that was voted for by all regions of Canada on May 2.
Canada Post estimates that it is losing $25 million per day during this work stoppage. Since opposition members are not okay with bringing workers back to work through legislation, should we assume then that they are okay with taxpayers covering the cost of the losses of this crown corporation for an undetermined amount of time?
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
There is unanimity in this place about the seriousness of the interruption in postal services. We are all suffering because of it. We are waiting for important mail from our constituents, personal bills, and so forth. Some people are waiting for cheques that they need to survive. Everyone agrees that we must find a solution. However, we must agree to reflect on and listen to viewpoints that are different from our own. It is in this way that we will move forward and find solutions.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague why tensions have been rising at the bargaining table. Does he think it is globalization, pension shortfalls or the sluggish economy that have put pressure on employers to cut costs? I wonder whether he thinks these factors will cause lasting problems for unions and, if so, what might be done. I am trying to focus on solutions now and in the future.
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, we should not reintroduce globalization into this matter.
What is happening is that the government is taking rather radical action that will have very serious repercussions. It must be doing this for a reason, but obviously it will not tell us why. However, it will make excuses. Excuses are made to justify one's actions, whereas reasons are kept hidden until the end. That is the difference.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that these measures against Canada Post workers are part of a broader agenda, an agenda leading to privatization, an agenda that could affect not just Canada Post, but also essential services and other crown corporations in our country?
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I believe that some parts of Canada are very right-leaning.
I advise my friends opposite to monitor the situation. Perhaps one day their party may be called the Wildrose Alliance of Conservatives, or something like that.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, if you might indulge me for one moment, this is my first time rising to speak on a debate, so I would like to thank the good members of my riding of Burnaby—Douglas for electing me to this place. I would also like to thank my family, who supported me all the way through the election, as well as my lovely wife Jeanette, who has been by my side right through and still may be watching me on CPAC from B.C.
I would also, if I could, beg your indulgence for one more moment. My brother-in-law is very ill, and my thoughts are with him tonight. So if I am a little rattled, I am thinking about him.
I found this debate over the course of last night and this morning fascinating. I am not from a union family. I have been a short time in a union. However, to hear the passion that has been spoken on both sides of the House I think is a credit to the House. It is fantastic that we can come to a place like this, that we can express our opinions and debate each other, most of the time in a civil way. I think the decorum that has come to this House is really something we should all be proud of, and I hope we can keep it up, even though we are dog-tired.
As I said, I am not from a union family at all. In fact, my father is a management consultant. He has worked for very large companies, such as IBM, Westinghouse, and a lot of others. My own experience in life has been through private and public sector work.
One thing that is of great concern to me is what events like this do to the morale of large companies, of large organizations. I am very concerned that the tug, the pull, the struggle between the workers and the management is going to cause long-term damage to a very important Canadian institution, whatever the outcome. I hope that comes into the conversation at some point, the long-term impacts this will have.
I am not from a union family. I am not in the private sector. I am in the public sector, a university professor. What I do, essentially, is public policy analysis. That is my thing. So I feel a little over my head when I hear all the terms and phrases, conditions and ideas that are being used here. However, I have learned a lot, thanks to the contributions from both sides of the House.
What I am trying to figure out is what the problem is here. In public policy analysis, what we do is try to identify a problem first, work through a number of options, come up with viable solutions, and then try to implement those solutions.
From what I can see here, the problem that is facing the government, and indeed the whole House, is the problem that workers have been locked out from Canada Post.
This has been a gradual escalation. There have been tensions between the workers and the management. This has gone on for some time. There were rotating strikes. From what I can understand, there was not a full strike. Then the management decided to lock out the workers.
There has been some dispute in the House as to whether it has been a strike or whether it has been a lockout. So just to make sure of my facts, I decided to go through the various news sources to figure out whether it is a strike or a lockout.
I started with my favourite source, which is the National Post business section. It does say, indeed, that this is a lockout, that the employer has indeed locked out the employees.
I went to the business section of The Globe and Mail, and it indeed says it is a lockout as well.
I went to the CTV News website. It says it is a lockout.
I went to CBC News, both radio and television. They are saying it is a lockout.
So from what I can understand, the problem that is facing the government is that a crown corporation, which is at arm's length from the government, has locked out its employees.
I was struggling for a while. I thought maybe it was a strike and maybe the government is portraying the facts as they should be. I thought maybe this is a strike and this is the problem why the government is moving so quickly to force this measure through the House. But indeed it is not a strike. It is a lockout. I think this side of the House has tried to make that point time and time again. I think it is time we should recognize that this is what we are facing here, and that is indeed the core of the problem that is facing both the government and us here on this side of the House.
What we are debating here this morning is Bill C-6, an act to provide for the resumption of postal services, restoring mail delivery. There is a lockout at Canada Post, and the government has decided to force the workers back to work. That is the government's policy solution.
I have been puzzling through the discussions that have been going on in this House. I have been puzzling through the explanations as to why this is occurring, the effects this is having, and trying to decide whether indeed this is the best solution.
In public policy, there are essentially nine instruments that any government can use, or perhaps a combination of these instruments, in any kind of policy situation. They can be put in any kind of order, but how I like to organize them is in order of coercion. I like to organize them in a sense of how much muscle the government has to use to get its will through.
The first thing that—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please.
I realize, members, that there may be a changing of the guard happening at the moment, but there is an awful lot of noise in the chamber. I wonder if we could let the member for Burnaby—Douglas continue with his remarks.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In public policy we have essentially nine instruments that any government can use to solve any policy problem. Sometimes a combination of the instruments is used. I will just walk through these, because it is really what the government should be considering as it goes through any policy problem, including this one.
The first instrument that the other side of the House would probably favour in most circumstances is a market solution. It is the least coercive solution, where the government is hands-off and lets the parties solve things.
The second has a little bit more coercion. It is something called the symbolic gesture. The government might strike a commission to look into the situation, and the commission might make a report that is non-binding. The government is making some kind of expenditure, but it is not binding in any kind of way.
The third is exhortation, or asking people to do things publicly. The government could have asked the two sides to come together and make a solution for the good of Canada. Again, it is expending money, but it is not actually doing anything forceful at this point.
The two next ones would be tax expenditure. The government could kind of give people a break on taxes. I do not think that is applicable in this situation. You could do public spending: you might be able to supplement one of the sides to make up for the problems they are having.
Another instrument might be regulation. Again, that is a non-forceful way of regulating how the two bodies would talk together.
Another solution might be taxation.
Public ownership would be to totally reabsorb Canada Post back into the government.
The last one, of course, is a state of emergency. A state of emergency is perhaps the most draconian thing a government can do. What they can do is basically force parties back to the table in this situation.
What is strange to me is that a government that professes to be non-coercive and professes to say that market solutions are the way forward in most situations in fact has gone to the other end of the scale and used the most coercive measure possible to try to end this lockout.
I am quite puzzled by that. I do not understand why this has been the policy instrument the government has chosen to use in this situation. Perhaps it would have been better to leave the parties to work these things out on their own. Not forcing them back to work would definitely be preferable to the current Bill C-6 that is before us.
In closing, I have enjoyed the debate. I look forward to future debate on this. It is a great pleasure to stand and speak in this House.
Thank you very much.
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I do have to make a couple of observations.
The member talked about the nine ways in which these kinds of things can be solved. I will not list them all, but it seems to me that the government has utilized about eight out of nine. The only one that we have not used is a commission. Maybe their answer to everything is a royal commission.
The member talked about solving it quickly. Well, it seems to me that we have been doing this for at least eight months. So I am not sure what his definition of quickly is either.
The member talked about what events like this do to the morale of companies, large and small, or people. What I would suggest it does is it undermines the confidence of companies, it undermines the confidence of business in Canada. It seems to me that in the current situation we are facing, with the economic recovery and so on, what we need most of all is confidence.
I would like to ask my honourable colleague to address the impact of what is going on right now on the confidence of companies, big and small, the confidence of Canadians to know that government, or somebody, is standing up for their future in solving these kinds of things, using eight out of nine of the instruments that the member mentioned. When does this end? We need to move forward. We need to get on with this, because it is having an impact on companies, large and small, and Canadians of all stripes.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
There is another thing that has been puzzling me through the debate that is related to the question. Canada Post is a crown corporation. It is supposed to be at arm's length from the government, yet there is this kind of grey area. We are not sure when the government is involved in running Canada Post and when it is not involved.
We have heard that the government has been trying for eight months to strike a settlement to try to get the two parties together. We have not heard much detail on how that has been done.
With regard to the morale of the corporation, Canadians are going to be worried that the government is so quick to move to draconian measures. There would be much more confidence and better morale in Canada Post and in other organizations, in their own organizations where people are working, if the government were not so quick to go to this measure. It might be necessary if this dragged out for years and years, but it seems too quick at this point.
I would suggest another measure.