Debates of Jan. 28th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Canada Post

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

Mr. Speaker, on his recent trip to Israel, the Prime Minister took lots of Conservative donors and about half his cabinet, but he could have done something really useful if he had taken the minister responsible for the postal service.

If we go to israelpost.co, we can see that the Israeli post office, totally government owned and run, has over 100 products and services. Its motto is, “From everyone, to everyone, everywhere, every day, and at an equal price to all”.

Building on the hon. member's comments that we need to pursue some profitable services and products in our postal service, perhaps the Prime Minister should revisit Israel and do something useful.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question, but I certainly heard a recommendation for the Prime Minister and a suggestion for the Minister of Transport to look at other options and to suggest to or demand that Canada Post look after the interests of Canadians instead of doing something to harm them by cutting services, and in doing so, cutting well-paying jobs that Canadians need. We need to be increasing employment opportunities, not cutting them.

I thank the member for his observation. Clearly, the government could learn some lessons from other countries throughout the world.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberals in 1981 who established Canada Post as an independent arm's-length crown corporation and in law gave it a mandate to be financially self-sustaining. The Liberals doubled the price of stamps when they did it, too, but that is a different issue. The Liberals gave Canada Post the mandate to be financially self-sustaining. It is an obligation.

With letter mail declining by a billion pieces between 2006 and 2012, not unlike what is happening in other countries in the world, and revenues plummeting as a result, and Canada Post having to be financially self-sustaining, will the member opposite, like her colleague who is heckling right now, stick her head in the sand and suggest that there is no financial problem when Canada Post is losing $60 million a month right now? Will she admit that Canada Post has taken action to ensure that there are no financial problems down the road and that it will get back on track to being financially self-sustainable?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Canada Post has made hundreds of millions of dollars in the past decade. Right now we are asking Canada Post, with the support of the Conservative government, to look at other options, to think outside the box in terms of how to generate more revenue. Instead of saying simply that we are losing money, let us find a way to be more creative, to be more productive. There are ways.

The problem with the government is that it fails to consult Canadians on any kind of recommendation or any kind of policy with respect to making changes. If Canada Post is in a difficult situation, let us work together instead of the government dictating to Canada Post how it should solve these issues.

As for Canada Post being an independent crown corporation, it is interesting that the government chooses to intervene in independent crown corporations when it meets its agenda.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate for a few moments in this debate. I have 10 minutes and a lot to say, so let me begin. I am going to be hosting a town hall in Dartmouth on Thursday evening from 6:30 to 8:00 to talk about these cuts. I am pleased to have a go at it tonight because when I have a town hall I let me constituents do the talking instead of taking up the time myself.

I am pleased to be here to talk about this motion and to talk in support of home delivery by Canada Post to Canadians. I have been listening to the debate all day and to the members opposite trying to explain why they are moving in this direction, and I still do not have a clear answer. Let us be clear. They sound like they know what they are talking about. The government has it down pat in terms of cutting services. Whether it is services to veterans, closing down offices, closing down services to fishermen, closing down services for people on EI, closing down libraries, or not ensuring that military personnel and their families get the services they need, the government is really good at closing down services. It has all the answers when it comes to why it is that Canada Post has to shut down home delivery to two-thirds of Canadians and why it is that it has to jack up prices by more than 50% for small businesses and charities. It has all the answers.

If the Conservatives are so smart and sure of themselves in their explanation and arguments for this, why did they announce the decision in the dead of night? Why did they announce the decision the day after Parliament closed, when there was no one watching or listening and no one to question them, to try to hold them to account and to get some answers? There was neither a minister nor an executive from Canada Post in sight when Canadians got wind of what the government had announced and began to demand answers. They government members did not have anything to say then, but they stand in the House today and have all the answers.

The Conservatives talk about how people are not sending mail any more, that they are responding to the times. Let us be clear about this. We know that Canadians have been using mail less over the past number of years. What has the government done about it? Has it done anything? Has it made the kind of changes that need to be made to make Canada Post services more acceptable to Canadians? No, they have not. They waited until this particular point in time and said to thousands and thousands of seniors and people on disability, who would have trouble accessing these community mailboxes, they are on their own, and tough luck. They are saying to small business people and charities, who depend on mail delivery, that Canada Post cannot afford it any more and that they will have pay nearly double the rates they are currently paying. It is simply not good enough.

I was talking to Carl today, a man from Dartmouth. He is 88. He said he just got off the phone with his sister, who lives out in the country down near Lunenburg. She is his younger sister. She is 87. He is upset about this because he said it is going to be difficult for him to access the mail in weather like this and weather that we have had throughout the winter. He said his sister has gone days, if not weeks, trying to access her community mailbox in the country.

I had a call from Sue the other day. She said there have been times over this winter when she has gone a number of days not being able to get into her mailbox because of the ice and snow.

As I indicated, I am anxious to talk about this, but so is my colleague. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from York South—Weston who wants to chime in as much as I do. I was hesitant whether or not I would split my time, but I think I will, nonetheless. He is a fine fellow and I know he has a lot of important things to say about this.

Why is the government on this and so many other issues not prepared to consult with Canadians, is not prepared to consult with Carl, Sue and so many of the people in Dartmouth who are going to see the service cut? Why are thee Conservatives not prepared to come with me to the town hall at the Woodlawn United Church on Thursday night and hear what people have to say?

People are concerned about the fact that they are not going to be able to get the service they normally do. I hear government members say there are other Canadians who do not get door-to-door service any more and depend on community mailboxes. We fought against that because we believed it was wrong too. Two wrongs do not make a right. The government has to figure how it is going to provide services to Canadians, how it will be able to make Canadians' lives better, how to make Canadian families' lives more affordable instead of finding ways to cut back services.

Recently the Conservatives announced a big program called the Canada jobs strategy. It was announced last year with great fanfare and they spent millions of dollars on advertising for this wonderful program. They could not even get that right. They still do not have a Canadian job strategy. Their job strategy, the way it is currently designed, will take program money away from the most vulnerable learners, people who are trying to access jobs by overcoming their literacy problems and breaking down the barriers to their becoming employable. That is what the government is proposing, but it cannot even get that right. Maybe that is the problem. Conservatives cannot sit around and come up with services they can expand or renew because they cannot get it right. That is what Canadians are looking for.

The government says it does not have any money. We know it has given tax cuts in the trillions of dollars to the largest corporations in Canada. It has foregone trillions of dollars in revenue and has to stop delivering the mail to 88-year-old Carl who lives near Mic Mac Boulevard or Mic Mac Mall. Is that fair? Do Canadians not deserve a little more respect from the government than having fingers wagged at them saying that they will have to do without and can no longer depend on this service because Conservatives cannot afford it any more, but that they have to give more money to the oil companies and the banks.

In terms of the whole issue of expanding services and whether Canada Post could start making money from postal banking, the government should be examining those kinds of options. It should be able to come to the House and tell us that they are going to expand these services and ensure that Canada Post will try options like those adopted in other G7 countries to ensure that services are available for Carl, Sue and the other people in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who desperately need and deserve these services. This is a service that we should be providing to all Canadians. It connects our communities from coast to coast to coast. That is the kind of country that we on this side of the House want to live in.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's intervention and want to move to the issue of postal banking and ask a number of questions on that today to find out whether the member supports postal banking without having the facts, or whether he has the facts and that is why he supports postal banking.

My question is very simple. What would it cost Canada Post to capitalize a postal bank? What would it cost Canada Post to operate all those postal branches as banks? How does he expect Canada Post to be able to pay for that initiative?

We will find out whether he has the facts about postal banking or whether it is ideology.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member over there is a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary, but he has a title and he is responsible for this file: Canada Post. He makes a bit of a stipend for that. I do not know what it is, but say it's $30,000 or $40,000. This is his file.

Canada Post has just announced that it is going to cut services to Canadians and that it has examined options, yet the parliamentary secretary or the minister of state, whatever that member is, does not know what those options are. He does not know what the costs are. He does not know what the implications are for Canada Post. What is he doing?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary asked the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for some facts.

I have some facts here from Canada Post's financial results from 2003 to 2012.

The fact of the matter is that except for 2011, it made a substantial profit. Even in 2012, Canada Post, from operations before taxes, made $131 million. That is the group of companies. Canada Post, specifically, made $98 million.

I have to ask the parliamentary secretary, when the Canada Post group of companies made roughly $1,581,000,000 over 10 years, what has happened all of a sudden? Is the member for Random—Burin—St. George's right when she says there really is a move here to create the conditions to privatize Canada Post? Is that really what is happening on the government side? Is it creating the conditions for privatization of Canada Post when, in fact, it has been making money?

It made this announcement when not many people were watching and it does not look at other options. What is wrong here? What really is the government's game? I ask because, ultimately, the minister is responsible for it, even though it is a crown corporation.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question asked by the member for Malpeque of the parliamentary secretary. Let him answer it on his own time.

Let me deal with something else that I want to answer; that is, there is no question that Canada Post, up until last year, made nearly $2 billion in profit.

The question is, what is the CEO, who is making a half a million dollars, doing over there? What is he doing over there to ensure that Canadians receive the services that Canada Post is mandated to provide? Is he examining the alternatives that other G7 countries around the world have examined and have successfully implemented to ensure that their postal services are viable? Or has he been sitting on his hands, trying to lecture seniors that they should be using this opportunity to get some exercise? I think that is wrong.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity, brief though it will be, to enter into the debate on the future of postal services in Canada. That is really what is going on here. The government is clearly not about serving Canadians. It is about making profits for itself. That is what Canada Post has been doing for the past 10 or 11 years and longer. It has been making profits that the government has not invested back into Canada Post in ways that would have created the conditions to allow Canada Post to expand its services, not retract them. It might have been able to put back home delivery in places that do not have it now, which are very few, and only those homes that have been built since 1980 or 1988, whenever it was that the Mulroney government, another Conservative government, began the slide away from a post office that delivered to people's homes.

York South—Weston, my riding, is home to a greater percentage of persons with disabilities and seniors than most of the rest of Toronto, and that is because the housing is cheap. However, 99% of my riding is presently served by door-to-door delivery. We are saying to 99% of my constituents, and I would imagine to 99% of the constituents of many Conservatives in urban ridings, that they should just go whistle. They will not have door-to-door delivery in a few more years when Canada Post stops it.

Canada Post is going to have to come up with a whole lot of cash to be able to buy the land required to put super mailboxes in dense urban areas. It will probably require billions of dollars to put in 106,000 super mailboxes across Canada, most of them in dense urban areas which do not have the space.

The parliamentary secretary talked about not knowing how much it is going to cost for Canada Post to expand into other services. He does not even know how much it is going to cost for Canada Post to do what it has said it is going to do.

What the Mulroney government introduced in 1980 was only to be for new developments. That was the promise made at that time. Thus, people could in fact make decisions about where to live based on where door-to-door delivery existed. People did and have made those decisions. Now Canada Post has decided that promise is gone and it is not going to bother with it anymore.

Canada Post, and the government here today, has misled the public on just how much of its business it is actually changing. It suggests it is only one-third of Canadians. It is 99% of the people in my riding. It is 99% of the people in most urban centres who now receive door-to-door delivery, and except for those in apartment buildings who already have door-to-door delivery, the rest will now lose it. In fact, it will be better to be in an apartment building than a house in terms of door-to-door delivery.

These super mailboxes are a scourge of many urban municipalities. In the last five years, CBC found and counted 4,800 incidents of theft and other vandalism at these super mailboxes. They are out in the open, unprotected. The mailbox at people's front doors is protected by the homeowner. The super mailboxes are a scourge of litter and are not maintained.

For seniors, disabled persons, or even an able-bodied Canadian trying to get to a super mailbox in the winter, it can be challenging. Canada Post does not maintain the area around them; they rely on the municipality to do that. Municipalities believe it is Canada Post's responsibility, so nobody does it.

The fundamental issue that nobody seems to be talking about is what the Minister of Finance is doing to protect his plan to balance his budget by the next election. That is what is really going on here.

The Minister of Finance, quietly, at about the same time that Canada Post made the announcement that they were getting out of the door-to-door service, told Canada Post that he was going to give them papal dispensation on their pension plan deficit, that it was not going to have to pay back $1 billion a year for the next two years. Who is going to have to pay it back if Canada Post does not have the money, which it will not? It will be the treasury. The Minister of Finance will have to come up with $2 billion over the next couple of years. “Oops, there goes my balanced budget”. The government is not going to let that happen. The government will give it more time to pay it off, and they will not have to pay it off in the next couple of years.

These deficits are strange and created only by the fact that we have very low interest rates right now. Most corporations and pension plans in Canada are facing these same structural deficits. However, only Canada Post is being offered a $2 billion gift over the next couple of years by not having to pay it back. The CEOs of many other corporations in Canada would love to have that papal dispensation apply to them. They would love to have the ability to walk away for a couple of years from their deficits. However, it is Canada Post.

There is a strategic reason for it. It is because it will interfere with the finance minister's plan to balance the books. Nobody from that side in any authority is talking to the press or to us about what was really going on in the secret backroom negotiations between Canada Post and the federal government. However, something must have taken place to cause that to happen on almost the same day as the announcement. Canadians are not stupid. They believe there were discussions between the government and Canada Post long before the announcements were made, and I would suspect those discussions included the Canada Post pension plan deficit.

This is not an ongoing deficit; it is a wind-up deficit. If Canada Post were to go bankrupt tomorrow and stop operating, then it would have to come up with money to fund its pension plan. It would have to come out of the treasury. That is the way it works. Canada Post is not likely to go belly up tomorrow. On an ongoing basis, its pension plan is actually in really good shape, but on a wind-up basis, there is a deficit.

I, too, will be holding town hall meetings for the citizens of my riding, 99% of whom will lose their door-to-door delivery very shortly, to give their feedback to the government. I will be collecting names on petitions from individuals who show up on Friday night at the senior centre in Weston, or Saturday morning at the York Civic Centre, to talk with us and the NDP critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina, about what they think of the government's plan to eliminate door-to-door delivery, particularly in the dense urban area of Toronto.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #42

Business of Supply

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion lost.

The hon. government House leader is rising on a point.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to designate Thursday, January 30, as an allotted day.

That House resumed from October 29, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation—bargaining agent), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Parliament and the members here have seen a litany of legislation, introduced by government members, that would restrict fundamental freedoms in order to build a new federative pact.

Every time, we are baffled by the methods that are used in the House, that disregard any will to consult, even though we are talking about social issues.

The Conservatives are redefining labour relations using a restrictive vision of the freedom of association as recognized by the charter. Bill C-525 is yet another way to erode the civilized power relationship between employers and unions.

Over the years we have seen that the union movement, for all its good and bad, has helped workers in the public and private sectors get their rights recognized on many occasions. The history of labour relations in Canada has been enriched by the battles fought by public sector employees who paved the way for union recognition and balanced negotiations that gave meaning to the word “justice”.

The government can come up with all the arbitrary legislation and restrictive measures it likes, but, given the significance of the issues we are now dealing with, we are asking it to think about the consequences of Bill C-525 for parliamentary and public sector employees.

The mandatory voting system that will be imposed for certification will cause insurmountable difficulties for unions, in an economic climate in which the union movement is in somewhat of a precarious position.

In recent years, we have seen a high number of failed attempts at unionization in a number of sectors—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

There is too much noise in the House.

There is too much noise in the chamber.

The hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain has the floor.

I would ask the indulgence of all members to recognize that we have one of our members speaking on this motion. I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government can come up with all the arbitrary legislation and restrictive measures it likes, but, given the significance of the issues we are now dealing with, we are asking it to think about the consequences of Bill C-525 for parliamentary and public sector employees.

The mandatory voting system that will be imposed for certification will cause insurmountable difficulties for unions, in an economic climate in which the union movement is in somewhat of a precarious position. In recent years, we have seen many failed attempts at unionization in a number of sectors of the economy because of the economic disparity that exists between employees and employers.

A number of companies are getting around the certification rules in effect in Canada by imposing unusual labour standards, by manipulating the weakest and most disadvantaged employees, and by threatening to fire those attracted by the benefits of association. To propose the abolition of the current card system is a curious message to send to employers, especially from, to say the least, a major employer in the world of labour relations.

For decades, we have seen the financial status of thousands of Canadians deteriorating because of the industry crises shaking a number of communities in the country. Coming up with changes to the current bargaining system is one thing, but obstructing the limited opportunities for certification that unions have is another. We cannot deny that this country's growth and prosperity have depended on the toil and the commitment of workers and employees in all economic sectors. We cannot deny that our socio-economic progress stems from the efforts of many of the employees who are unionized today.

Think about the Canada of yesterday, the Canada of our parents or of my youth, where the word “equality” found its meaning solely in the dictionaries of our respective languages. The government's desire to upset the balance of power in labour relations and its narrow vision of the word “negotiation” are black marks on the record of social progress made in Canada since the Second World War.

I remember the changes made to Quebec's provincial public service in the early 1960s. Inequality was the norm. Women had so few rights, even within the public service, that they were forever stuck in low-paying jobs, on the fringes of power. The labour movement awakened the public conscience. Quebec was Catholic, then secular and, above all, committed to modernizing employee-employer relations. It seems odd to us to take a step backwards when society is undergoing such profound change.

Can we meddle with unions to straighten out labour relations in Canada? The answer is self-evident. However, the Conservatives' desire to change our country's basic values raises a thorny issue, that of social equality. We agreed to civilized employer-union relations, so that everyone can have access to decent working conditions.

Everyone here has witnessed the exploitation of the weakest in our society, yet the alternative being proposed here is not to study union accreditation rules but to limit access to unionization.

They should give us their statistics and their studies on how the current certification system is being abused. We are still waiting for their hasty conclusions on the place of the union movement in Canada.

As usual, we are left with only public speculation, which leads to these bills that restrict our rights. We are trapped in Conservative rhetoric. According to the Conservatives, unions are the only threats to the social balance of our communities. According to them, unions are the only cause of all of our economic troubles. This government's refusal to recognize the importance of healthy labour relations is reflected in a harsh bill that serves a political class inspired by an agenda from another era.

Instead, let us look together at how the existing certification rules work and what employees really need. Hundreds of millions of current and future unionized workers will be affected by Bill C-525. We can all agree that narrowing the prerogatives of unions is part of the Conservatives' magnanimous plan to change the very foundations of our democracy.

We wish that the government would realize, once and for all, that workers' rights and the rights of Canadians in general pose no threat to the cornerstones of our economic system. However, the potential dissolution of hundreds of union locals as a result of the adoption of Bill C-525 represents a genuine threat to Canada's socio-economic well-being.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to give a speech, my first one in 2014.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you and all of our colleagues in this House a very happy and prosperous new year.

Second, I would like to thank all of my constituents in the great riding of Medicine Hat for their support over this last year.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of the employees' voting rights act, which intends to modify the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin, for raising such an important question in the House. I have the privilege of having him sit beside me this afternoon.

We can all agree that employees should have the right to decide freely, without pressure, whether or not they want to be represented by a union. In Canada, freedom of association, which includes the ability to form a union, is a fundamental right guaranteed by various federal, provincial and territorial labour laws, as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act also guarantee the right to certify or decertify a union.

We all understand that for an employee the decision whether to be represented by a union or not is an important one. It is equally clear that the decision made by employees regarding their unionization has an impact on their employer.

When elections are held, Canadians choose their representatives by secret ballot vote. They make their decision in a voting booth, without pressure, sheltered from the looks of others. Why do we vote this way? The secret ballot voting remains the single best way to ensure democracy, so it should be available when individuals choose if they would like to be part of a union.

As we know, currently unions can be certified to represent an employee bargaining unit through using a check card system. It is clear that the best way to guarantee that this important decision is made freely is by using a secret ballot vote. It is the very essence of the employees' voting rights act. It would give employees the right to express their opinions in a more democratic way.

I believe the employees should be able to fully express their views regarding the type of union representation they want in their workplace. I also firmly believe that their views should be expressed under the best possible conditions, to ensure the decision accurately represents the will of the employees.

Having said that, there are areas of the bill that we feel should be amended. That is why it is important for stakeholders, including unions and employees, to share their views regarding the bill. I am confident that the discussions will highlight the strengths of the bill. I am certain the stakeholders will provide constructive feedback to the House committee. This process offers them a unique opportunity to suggest ways that would strengthen and maintain workplace democracy.

The employees' voting rights act would allow us to begin an important debate on workplace issues, and I would like to recognize the hard work of the member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin on this file.

We all stand for election. We all have an opportunity to have people vote for us, and we know that every one of those votes is done by secret ballot. This is no different for employees who want to join a union or decide they do not want to join a union. They need to have that right to vote without the pressure that might be applied, and they could do that with a secret ballot vote.