Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to touch on the sort of revenge factor that the member has built into at least her strategy, if not the entire party's.

I have been talking with constituents this morning. The great Kenora riding covers 326,760 square kilometres. There is no road access to 25 communities. The mail lies at the heart and soul and the ebb and flow of a lot of the business activity and social economic activity. We have an opportunity here to put these folks back to work which is what my constituents are overwhelmingly asking for. They are saying put back to work legislation in place so that we can get our regional economy and Canada's economy back on track.

I know the angles that the NDP is working here. Its members are saying that we could have had rotating strikes, or some sort of hybrid response, so that not too many things would be affected. But at the end of the day, seniors are not getting certain important pieces of mail. First Nations communities are not getting essential pieces of mail. Small businesses are suffering.

My question is quite simple. Does the member not believe at this point that putting an end to this by using back to work legislation is the most effective way for us to move forward?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the other side for his question.

First, I would like to say that the situation has gotten worse since the lockout. The rotating strikes did not disrupt mail distribution for seniors and for all members of society. I want to point out that this happened when Canada Post locked out its employees. There is no point trying to blame the workers. The workers are proud of what they do. The workers are prepared to return to work if we unlock the doors at Canada Post.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for her speech. It was very informative. At the same time, it seems as though it addressed a number of points I have been hearing since this morning, that NDP members are just talking for the sake of talking, that we just want to stall the debate and prevent people from doing all kinds of things, when that is not the case.

There are fundamental principles at stake. I will not allow our colleagues from the other side or from the second opposition party imply that our right to speak means nothing in this wonderful chamber. I was pleased to hear the member refer to that, because, even if we would have rather had the day off like everyone else, I think that the best interests of Canadians are at stake. When I say “Canadians,” that includes workers and other people.

I would like the member to answer a question that we often hear from the other side about the fact that the union did not transmit the employer's offers, even though the union received its mandate from the employees at the start of negotiations and it is not obligated to return—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to give her colleague the chance to answer.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I think Canada Post has been posturing since the beginning so the government would introduce this bill that we have been debating since yesterday. Canada Post had started making offers to the union but now the Conservative government is interfering and coming between the employer and its employees

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

First of all, as a Quebecker, let me begin by wishing all Quebeckers a wonderful Fête nationale.

Unfortunately we cannot join in the celebrations today. This is distressing for me. It is very important to me to be a Quebecker and a Canadian. So the Fête nationale is extremely important to me. To all my fellow citizens of Alfred-Pellan, to all my family and friends, and to all of Quebec, happy Saint-Jean!

A whole generation of new workers entering the labour market will be affected by the bill the Conservative government has introduced. Why? First of all because young people are the next ones who will enter the labour market and who will become the next postal workers at Canada Post.

Allow me to point out just a few features of the bill we are debating. First of all, wages will be lower for the next workers hired. They will make $875.50 less over four years than what was planned.

As for their pensions, the new employees will have to wait five years longer than others to be eligible for their pension.

That is not to mention the dangerous working conditions that Canada Post workers could face.

Because this bill affects the next generation of workers, I thought it very useful for all members of the House of Commons to hear what young people had to say on this subject. So I asked them, through various social media, what they thought about this subject, the lockout at Canada Post and the bill the government is bringing to the table.

Today, I want to give them a voice. I will let you hear what they had to say about this subject.

To start with, the first person, Daniel Carette, a young father, 26 years old, says that bargaining should proceed in the usual way, there should be no government intervention, and in addition, important government cheques are sent by mail in any event. So he suggests that the employees be allowed to bargain their agreement in peace. He adds that he is not very keen on unions, but he is on side with what was won in the old agreement, and it should not be eliminated from the new agreements, particularly when the employer is not having problems.

Philippe Long writes that he thinks the lockout is pointless, and that for the managers who are criticizing the employees because of their rotating strike to impose a general lockout and paralyze the country is no better.

A master’s student at Laval University in Quebec City, Caroline Roy-Blais, wrote that Canada Post employees had decided not to take the public hostage, by organizing rotating strikes and continuing to deliver government cheques and other papers. She adds that the employers decided to impose a lockout so the government would get involved in the bargaining and compel the employees to “agree to” dangerous working conditions and lower wages for people hired in future.

She also says that she is against government intervention. First, she writes that although the government says it is a fan of the free market and is not interventionist, it is unabashedly intervening in the dispute. Second, she asks why two classes of employees are being created. Equal pay for equal work, she writes. Third, she says that employees’ right of free association in a union is important, and employees should not be prevented from organizing to get better working conditions, based on the entrepreneurial right to make money.

She also adds that we must not forget that the “orphan clause” is intended to give higher wages to postal workers who are already employed, but freezes wages for future employees. She suggests that this means that if someone is hired after the agreement is signed, they would not be entitled to the same wage for the same work! She concludes by saying that this is not fair at all.

Jean-François Paradis, a young father in the Montreal region, said that Canada Post was trying to impose a new distribution method that has tripled occupational injuries, which is not acceptable. This is a lockout. It is not a strike. There is no mail distribution because of Canada Post. If it goes on any longer, it is the fault of Canada Post, which was waiting for special legislation instead of negotiating.

I also received a short comment from Patrick Allard. He thinks this is a real shame.

This morning, another citizen, Eric Jacques, wrote to me. He said that Canada Post has been earning a profit every year for 16 years, yet managers say that they need to cut costs. Where is the logic there? Letter carriers were carrying out a rotating strike to maintain service, and the government said that it would not intervene as long as mail was being delivered. So Canada Post imposed a lockout, so that the government would take action and the corporation would not have to negotiate in good faith. If we truly want to improve the health of the economy, we need a plan with good wages, like those of mail carriers.

Those are just a few of the comments I received. That is what the next generation has to say about this labour dispute. These are engaged people who understand the problem. They do not understand what the Conservative government is trying to do.

I sincerely hope that the comments from these few Canadian citizens will be taken into consideration by members on the other side of the House, so that we can reach a better consensus for the sake of the workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech and I find some of it very misleading. She seems to want to portray the action the government is taking as unusual.

I would like to recount to her a bit of the recent history. In 1978, there was back to work legislation. In 1987, there was back to work legislation. In 1991, there was back to work legislation. In 1997, there was back to work legislation.

The reason is we have two parties that have a history of not settling. These are two opposite sides that have had over eight months to come up with some type of agreement. They have had numerous meetings with the minister. They have been given every opportunity to come up with an agreement.

The real question that Canadians want answered is, how long is the NDP going to allow these two parties, together, to hold Canadians hostage?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First of all, the NDP, like the workers, would be happy to see a return to work. It would be very simple to get workers back to work immediately, because all we have to do is unlock the doors. It is as simple as that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her wonderful comments this morning. It has been so amazing to hear the very passionate speeches taking place about the principles that are at stake here and how people tackle these different principles. I notice that she spoke about the two tiers of salaries that were tabled by the employer and she also spoke about the next generation.

I wonder if the member could comment more about what a living wage or a decent wage is for a family. It seems unfair that the employer could tell employees because they are new and younger, they would therefore get less money. As someone who represents the younger generation, how does she feel about the fact that because a person is a new employee or is younger, he or she would get a lower wage?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question.

It is easy for me to imagine what it would be like for someone who went to work at Canada Post after the labour dispute and was subject to this two tier system. There are two people who do the exact same job, but do not have the same salary or benefits. Someone who was hired one month before me could retire five years earlier and would have more money in his pockets to support his family. That is completely unacceptable. We are doing exactly the same job. Equal pay for equal working conditions. That is all I have to say.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that it was a certain member who said, in Montreal in 1997, “In terms of the unemployed of which we have over 1.5 million, don't feel particularly bad for these people”. Who said that? It was our present Prime Minister who quit his job as a member of this House because he felt he would better serve at the National Citizens Coalition where he ran the campaign to deunionize Canadian workforces.

We see the Conservatives today pretending they have the interests of the workers in hand. We have the old crocodile who has dressed himself as Little Bo Peep, and he has his bonnet pulled down over his snout to try to hide his true intention. However, if we pull the bonnet back, we will see the same dismissive attitude and the same arrogance against common working people on these benches today that we heard in 1997.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about the Prime Minister's dismissive attitude towards working people.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan has roughly 40 seconds to answer that question.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is currently a real lack of respect for the workers, first with the lockout and now with this back-to-work legislation. It is absolutely unacceptable. There are other ways to handle this.

We truly advocate teamwork. We are prepared to negotiate with the government in order to come up with a better way to settle the current dispute at Canada Post.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like many of the MPs in the government, I too have been inundated, not with complaints, but with words of encouragement to continue our opposition to this interventionist bill.

Do the members opposite realize that their party is interventionist? The party that advocates individual and economic free enterprise at the expense of everything else is being interventionist, but not just anywhere. It is being interventionist for the sake of personal and political interests. The government is controlling workers, not companies. We are not naive. There have been other special bills like this before, but not when the Internet was in every home. Today, we can make payments by phone or by Internet. If anyone is left out, they can call their MP and people who can help them out. As others mentioned earlier, the most important cheques were being delivered. As I was saying, we are not naive. An agreement was reached between senior government officials and Canada Post to impose a lockout in order to introduce a special bill to reduce working conditions and force Canada Post employees back to work under lesser conditions.

I was listening to the radio this morning. Economists and sociologists were unanimous on this. I hope that certain people realize that their position is increasingly being challenged. The government can admit its mistake. We are prepared to work with the government to come up with a special bill that will suit all Canadians. The government would come under less criticism than if it continues on its current course. Once again, I am reaching out. I hope the government will listen to us and take our considerations and public opinion into account.

People back home fear that the current government's attitude will become more widespread and that the government will take away the fundamental rights of workers in Canada who contribute to the economy, which would not be viable if 75% of the population did not contribute to the tax base. I would like the minister to explain how she plans to deal with the potential loss of many high-quality jobs in our regions.

What do I tell the people in the various towns in my riding? They are fighting to keep their post office. The post offices are in part the heart of these villages. What do I tell people at Château Mont Ste-Anne who are currently locked out? Do I tell them to go back to minimum wage? What do I tell the AbitibiBowater retirees and workers who are worried about their pension funds? Do I tell them to go back to work until they are 70? They have paid into their pension all their life.

What do I tell the young workers in my riding and young Canadian workers? I myself am a young man. Do I tell them that they will have to work until the end of their days without security? Canadians have rights.

Is the government prepared to change its mind to suggest negotiation opportunities without flouting the workers' rights? Could this interventionist government work with us and listen to us to help Canadian workers? Could this interventionist government step back, reflect and admit its mistake?

I am reaching out. The entire NDP is reaching out. We can make other proposals for the good of the workers.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said they are not naive on his side. After listening to his speech, I would put forward they are very naive. I would ask any member of the NDP who has run a business, met a payroll, and had to work with the postal service to run their business to stand up and let us know.

I am sitting next to my colleague, the newly elected member for Brampton. He runs a manufacturing business and needs cheques to come in before he can put cheques out to pay his employees. This is the type of small Canadian business that is being affected by this.

These two parties cannot make an agreement. They have to get this resolved. We are trying to get it resolved in the best way for both parties.

How long is the NDP going to allow these two parties to hold Canadians hostage? How long are they going to let that happen?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I do not think that he understood my message.

I have another proposal to make: remove the locks. That way, our colleague will have his cheque, and all the entrepreneurs will have their cheques and their papers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member indicated the New Democrats are reaching out to the government. He is not the first one to make reference to the fact that they apparently have a series of amendments they would like to bring forward. I know the member is concerned about the postal workers and wants to see what it is they are referring to.

Can you explain to me why there is a need to hold back on sharing that information with members of the chamber? What is it the NDP are in fact looking at that could possibly assist us in trying to draw this thing to a conclusion in which we would find more people being able to have a discussion?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is well meaning in his question. What concerns me is if we are going to have fair bargaining, and we are attempting to bargain with the government, then we would be undermining our ability to build trust with the government by asking our members to reveal what those negotiations are.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I believe this is a question of debate.

I will ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to complete his question very quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, based on that point of order, I can assure the member that stood on the point of order that I likely have more confidence in the new member than I do in the member who has the experience.

Why not share with Canadians what it is the New Democrats are talking about so that we could actually have an engagement on that discussion? We might be able then to—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

I would like to give the hon. member time to respond.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that there are a great many possibilities. For example, we can keep the current collective agreement.

With the unanimous consent of the House, we can do what we want. If we decided together to amend the special bill with the unanimous consent of the House, we could leave in two hours, and it would be done.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the comment by the member on the opposite side.

I am a small-business person. I have three successful small businesses. They are all profitable. I understand small businesses. I am a lefty capitalist; I believe in profits, but I believe in sharing them equitably with the other people in our society.

Madam Speaker, thanks for this opportunity to speak to the government's legislation. The Conservative government is attempting to ram Bill C-6 through Parliament within hours of suspending the regular rules of the House, just as it did with the HST implementation bill.

Labour disputes happen in any modern market-based economy. They are a fact of life and a result of the competitive dichotomy set up between profit-centred companies and workers who push for living wages and safe working conditions. That is a normal situation for market-based economies, which you allegedly believe in.

Normally, disputes work themselves out without a lot of government interference. I am surprised by the current government. Before the Conservatives were in office, and afterwards, they always talked about how they were all for smaller government and hands-off government that lets markets work things out for themselves. That is the claim.

Instead, though, we see a very interventionist government. This is a heavy-handed government that is now egregiously interfering in the collective bargaining process we have developed over many decades. For a party that claims a hands-off philosophy, this is the most meddlesome federal government in a very long time.

This is just another symptom of the fundamental changes happening within the Conservative Party. Conservatives in this government have wandered far from their roots. Their forefathers must be turning over in their graves.

Whatever happened to Conservative claims for small government? The first things they did after getting a phony majority was stack the Senate and appoint a huge ministry, one of the largest ministries in the history of Canada. There are more ministers, more limos for ministers, more perks, and more staff. All that was after they bulked up spending on the Prime Minister's Office. We have never had a PMO that is so large or that has spent so much.

The current government has always talked about fiscal responsibility, but its track record shows that it does not understand the concept. It is blowing billions on fighter jets, mega-prisons, and indiscriminate corporate tax handouts. It is opening military bases everywhere across the globe. In the process, it is racking up a record deficit, the largest deficit since Brian Mulroney.

Now it is interfering in labour market negotiations in a way that is nothing less than a violation of Canadians' Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If it does this now, where will it end? Will the government step in every time there is a dispute in the marketplace? Is it going to legislate every time two sides do not agree on something?

Let us be very clear. We have no postal service right now, because Canada Post shut down service completely. It locked its workers out.

I was disappointed to hear on the CBC this morning at 5 a.m, quoting the minister on that side, that this is a strike. There was no countervailing force on the news to indicate that it really is, as we know, a lockout, not a strike.

Let us start at the beginning. The workers had concerns about their contract. They went on rotating strikes a few weeks ago, on June 2, and there were some service slowdowns. Their attempts were measured, and they were responsible. It is true that it was not an ideal situation, but I did not hear any hue and cry from the people in my riding, including small businesses. Life went on during those rotating strikes.

After the workers started the rotating strikes, they even offered to end the strike action if the company would agree to keep the old contract in place during negotiations, but Canada Post refused. Then on June 15, Canada Post decided to lock everyone out and shut down Canada's mail service completely. That was irrational, and it was unreasonable. That is when I started to hear about it from my constituents. People rightly complained. Small businesses were being affected. Canada Post management should have taken that into consideration before taking that irresponsible action.

However, instead of introducing legislation to end the lockout, to resume rotating service, and to get both sides back to the bargaining table, the government decided just a few days later to interfere with the right to collective bargaining and to impose a settlement below even what management had demanded. Therefore, Canada Post is being rewarded for shutting down the mail service that so many of our constituents rely on. This is a dangerous precedent, regardless of the particulars of this or any labour dispute.

Can any large corporation here in Canada, from now on, knowing the government's ideology, simply refuse to negotiate and then wait for the government to interfere and legislate people back to work? Will Canada Post be encouraged in the future to hold our postal service hostage anytime it does not feel like bargaining?

This is a dangerous path the Conservatives are leading the country down. It is one that would lead us to more entrenched positions, more, not less, labour unrest, and more, not less, interruption of the services Canadians rely on. What incentive will there be in the future for corporations to bargain in good faith or settle?

The government should not be in the business of imposing labour contracts for businesses and workers. That is not free or fair collective bargaining. That is not letting the process work. It is not letting the marketplace work. The Conservative government must stop interfering.

This is an extraordinary level of intervention for a government that says that it prefers to let the market sort things out. I am left wondering if this may have something to do with the government's desire to privatize Canada Post service and to reduce service to Canadians.

The government has been moving towards privatization for our postal service for a long time, and we know it. Canadians living in rural and remote areas, such as much of Thunder Bay—Superior North, will suffer most from this privatization. They are greatly impacted by these losses of service.

I have rural postal services in my own riding that are threatened. For example, the community of Dorion, in my riding, is about to lose its postal outlet this summer. This outlet is currently located in Canyon Country Service on Highway 11, and they are having to close permanently for circumstances beyond their control. However, Canada Post has found no local alternative. It has not let anyone know about any progress in finding one. This is not a good sign. It is one of our more worrisome examples of a worrisome Tory ideological obsession.

Canada Post insists that it is still respecting its so-called policy of not shutting down rural services themselves, because they can throw up their hands and say that there is no alternative.

Despite a fat salary for the CEO and bonuses for its executives, Canada Post is profitable. It does not need to shut rural services any more than it needs to privatize or to walk away from the bargaining table in these labour negotiations. The company made $281 million in profit last year. The CEO is making more than $650,000 a year, and his salary is going up by a lot more than the rate of inflation and by a lot more than what the workers are requesting in these negotiations. Why take the desperate move to shut down all postal services across Canada?

I want to talk a little about the people who are impacted by the Canada Post lockout. As I said before, I am a small-business person. Of course, my business, like so many across the country, relies on post offices for service. Lots of businesses rely on that. Many send their payments by mail. The Canada Post lockout and shutdown of the service has negatively impacted them, and Canadians will carry the can for it, not the poor posties who want to do a good job for a reasonable rate of pay. This service is important to them. This is impacting the workers who want to work and have been locked out of their jobs in the same way Canadians have been locked out of their postal service.

I would like to read a quote:

Nobody knows how much the population of Canada still relies on the Post Office more than postal workers. We see the medication, the card$ of $upport to out-of-town students, the food being sent to the far north. We see the frustration of our co-workers when they see all that they have fought for over the years being stripped away in one fell swoop of a pen by [our] Communist [Prime Minister]. It's maddening and frankly quite sad that a government would invite this sort of turmoil and suppression on its own people.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment first and then ask a brief question.

I am glad that the member opposite talked about owning three successful businesses, which makes him management, in my view. I wonder how his customers would feel if every other day some people in his shops did not show up for work because they were on a rotating strike. How long would he put up with rotating strikes while his successful businesses suffered?

I have heard from the hon. member and other members that the Canadian people are going to suffer. What percentage of the 30-plus million Canadian public are supporting this government in making sure that Canada Post gets back to work? What number do they need before they understand that Canadians want this Parliament to work? They want us to move this legislation forward and get Canada Post back to the activity of serving all Canadians. Is it 70% or 80%? What number do they need to hear before they finally take action?