Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2018

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before introducing that, I took the opportunity to bring it up with the Speaker, who was in the chair before you. He consulted with the Clerk, and we were told that it was completely in order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the member for Kingston and the Islands have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has the floor.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the shenanigans we have seen from the Liberals, I am not surprised that he went this way. We could talk about Tommy Douglas opposing the War Measures Act. We could go back to Mackenzie King or Laurier. The point is what they are doing right now, after rotating strikes, without doing anything about Canada Post.

I would like to see if my friend would actually be in favour of reviewing their mandate and what the government-appointed board members of Canada Post have done in this strike. This is the government that is responsible for putting those executives on the board. This is the government that is responsible for removing the workers' right to strike, and it has to be accountable for that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I watched the voting process, the member for Hamilton, for example, was one of the individuals who participated in what I would suggest was that token effort. He was, in fact, part of a government that not once, not twice, but three times brought in back-to-work legislation. If we were to listen to the debate over the last couple of days, we would hear a lot of hypocrisy on the other side.

I am wondering if my colleague, in trying to point out our reactions, reflects on some of the comments from the New Democrats. Perhaps they should be just a little embarrassed about how they are trying to manipulate something the government has regretted having to do but feels obligated to do, much like many other governments have in the past.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, someone else did something before.

They would actually be implementing measures that would remove the right to strike from workers. They would be doing so with a Crown corporation to which they have appointed the members. They should be accountable right now, not passing the buck everywhere else. They are responsible for this, and they will be held accountable.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister described back-to-work legislation as a last resort. It is important to note that these negotiations have not even reached a full-scale strike, and it is a huge stretch to describe rotating strikes as reaching a last resort.

The minister also indicated that one of the criterion the arbitrator would consider is financial sustainability. One of the ways to improve Canada Post's financial situation would be to move it into new lines of business, such as postal banking, which the government has ruled out.

I would also note that one of the reasons there are questions about Canada Post's financial sustainability is that the government forces it to value its pension plan on a solvency basis, which is unrealistic. Would the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques agree that it would make far more sense to assess Canada Post's pension on a going-concern basis, like the rest of the federal public service?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. When we talk about postal banking, we know that five or six years ago, Canada Post actually asked for a report on the viability of such an option. It never made it public. A journalist got the document through an access to information request, and actually that document revealed that postal banking would be a win-win situation for Canadians and for Canada Post. Still, it refused to implement it. The government is doing nothing to implement it. In fact, the government is just letting the board do whatever it wants. There is no accountability from the board of directors of Canada Post. The anti-union practices we have seen in the past are still being reflected today, with the complicity of the Liberal government.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

I was not at Canada Post in 1981, but I worked there for 15 years. I remember some of the workers telling me about why they took to the streets. As a mother, I was able to take maternity leave. Now, there are rural mail carriers who have to use their own personal vehicles and their own gas to deliver the mail in rural areas further away from urban centres. There is an inequity when it comes to salaries, working conditions and, most importantly, safety.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the back-to-work legislation violates their rights.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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

Our respective ridings are located in rural areas. There are many postal workers with rural routes in my riding.

Earlier, someone talked about a Canada Post employee in the gallery who said that she worked 14 hours but was only paid for six. That is the type of inequity that postal workers are currently facing. That is what the union is trying to remedy through the bargaining process.

Why is Canada Post refusing to recognize that making its workers work eight extra hours without any pay is a problem?

The government wants to force unionized employees to go back to their old collective agreement, which would mean an estimated 250,000 hours of work between now and Christmas, not between now and next year. Those hours will be worked by employees in rural areas, and they will not be paid for them. That is the reality that the Liberals are imposing on us, in collusion with Canada Post. All of this is being done against the wishes of workers.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that Canada Post Corporation had no interest in negotiating in good faith, and I have no idea whether it has negotiated in good faith. However, if we look at subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii), it seems to me that it is now in the best interest of Canada Post management to make a reasonable offer. Otherwise, the arbitrator will choose the best offer, which could be the union's offer.

Does he not think the bill is a good incentive for Canada Post to negotiate as it should?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, his question is a little ridiculous.

Canada Post managers knew that the government was going to intervene. If they thought they stood a better chance with a mediator, they would have already negotiated, but they refused to do so.

This bill does mention that the mediator could give more to the unions. If Canada Post managers were really worried about that happening, they would have negotiated in good faith before, but they did not.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mirabel.

Obviously strikes and lockouts are always a last resort for both workers and the company. When they happen, they will always affect not only the workers and the company, but customers, suppliers, communities and the economy.

Our government believes in a free and fair collective bargaining process, one that allows the right of employees to strike and employers to lock out. Obviously, strikes and lockouts are not ideal. They are almost always more messy than clean. Sometimes government does have to step in but only as a last resort, not as common practice.

Back-to-work legislation does not represent success, it represents failure. When a federal government uses back-to-work legislation, it must ensure that it is not only fair to the workers and the company, but that it is fair to the citizens of this country.

I want to talk about how this is not only legislation of last resort but that it seeks to legislate a fair process, not an agreement in favour of one party over the other. Throughout these negotiations, the Government of Canada has been proactive and tireless in our good-faith attempts to help the parties reach agreements. As the minister has discussed at length, federal conciliation officers and mediators have been assisting the parties throughout these negotiations.

When bargaining reached an impasse, we appointed a special mediator to bring a fresh set of eyes to the table. Negotiations stalled again, so we offered voluntary arbitration. It was declined by the parties. We also reappointed the special mediator this week in hopes of getting a deal.

We have strongly encouraged the parties to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion. We believe that a negotiated agreement is always the best solution. As the Minister of Labour has said, we have done everything possible to assist the parties to end this dispute, and despite our efforts, CUPW and Canada Post management have been unable to reach an agreement.

It is with great reluctance that we have been left with no other option but to introduce back-to-work legislation to get our postal service back to functioning at full capacity. We have heard plenty of times today that our government is no better than the previous Conservatives when it comes to respecting labour and enacting back-to-work legislation. There is nothing further from the truth. I have no problem comparing our record on ensuring fair and balanced labour laws to theirs.

I would like to remind people that in the previous government, the Conservatives introduced back-to-work legislation a record four times in the first year in office, and threatened to use it on two other occasions in the middle of a collective bargaining process. Instead of being fair and balanced, the Conservative government was just the opposite, whether it was the threat of back-to-work legislation even before there was a disruption, appointing inappropriate arbitrators or enacting back-to-work legislation that imposed worse conditions than what the parties themselves had agreed upon. I spoke earlier about the fact that the arbitrator gave a smaller increase in pay to the CUPW than Canada Post had agreed to during negotiations. The Conservative government also used the Canada Industrial Relations Board as a pawn to delay the employees' right to strike and the employer's right to lock out.

In three years, our government has done nothing of the like. Liberals have tried to be fair and balanced in our actions towards labour relations, and specifically with how we are dealing with this labour dispute at Canada Post. I would like to remind people of how the previous Conservative government handled the Canada Post dispute. It introduced back-to-work legislation after only two weeks of rotating strikes, legislated a wage rate that was lower than the rate that the union and management had already agreed upon, and forced the arbitrator to only look at the financial considerations of the company, with nothing about the workers. The Conservative government's first arbitrator had no labour experience and was not bilingual.

After being forced by the courts to appoint another arbitrator, the Conservatives picked a three-time failed Conservative candidate who had to be removed after another court challenge. We are doing nothing like this in our legislation. To the contrary, this legislation is about creating a fair process to ensure we get an agreement on key issues not only for the company but the workers as well, by an independent and fair mediator-arbitrator. This legislation does not tilt the scale in favour of one party over another.

The principles that will guide the mediator-arbitrator process include the need to ensure the health and safety of employees, which has been mentioned numerous times today; to ensure that employees receive equal pay for work of equal value, which has been referenced today; to ensure the fair and equal treatment of temporary, part-time and other employees as non-standard employees as compared to full-time permanent employees; to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of Canada Post; to create a culture of collaborative labour-management relations; and for high-quality service to be provided by Canada Post at a reasonable price to Canadians. These guiding principles, I believe, are fair and balanced and should be reached in an agreement.

No government wants to legislate workers back to work. However, parties of all stripes have legislated workers back to work. The NDP today has tried to mislead Canadians and unionists in this country about the use of back-to-work legislation by NDP provincial governments. Seven NDP premiers have used back-to-work legislation on at least 15 occasions. There are three members of the NDP in the House today who were members of NDP provincial governments that enacted back-to-work legislation. The members for London—Fanshawe and Hamilton Centre were both members of an NDP Ontario government that legislated teachers back to work three times in three months in the fall of 1993. The member for Vancouver East was also a member of a B.C. NDP government that voted to legislate public education support workers and cleaning staff back to work in the year 2000. That bill was passed in one day.

I know those governments, like ours, did not take these decisions lightly. I know that there comes a point in all labour strife that responsible governments must take action. Canadians need to know that our government does everything within its power to help parties in industrial disputes resolve their differences without a work stoppage. This is no Harper-era legislation. We are legislating a process, not an agreement. It is completely different. We are not forcing specific conditions on the union. We just need to get to an agreement and Canadians expect us to get to an agreement.

If we had any hope at this point that the differences between CUPW and Canada Post were close to resolution, we would not be tabling this legislation. After five weeks of rotating strikes, we are forced to say that enough is enough.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I attended a press conference at noon today with most of my colleagues and about 30 mail carriers. I heard one mail carrier say that Canada Post had received welfare and child benefit cheques on Monday but they sat there, and Canada Post did not ask mail carriers to deliver them until Thursday.

Does the member think that Canada Post is acting in good faith by doing that?

If that is not acting in good faith, why did the government decide to support the employer, Canada Post, which uses tactics like that to influence public opinion, instead of the workers who are being wronged?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when parliamentarians get involved in these types of debates. Those types of stories become reality, and that is not a fact. I know the CUPW members have made it a priority to make sure that people who depend on their cheques get them. That is noble and fair and very much appreciated by those who live from cheque to cheque. I commend CUPW, as do my colleagues, for taking that action.

We are not trying to impart a resolution as far as an agreement goes. We are looking at a fair, honest and open process so that the two groups can come to some kind of agreement that can work for both of them. It is about the process and that is why we brought this legislation forward.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I had a dime for every time I heard someone from the government benches today say that they really do not want to do this, it is a last resort, our hands are tied, if only there was some way that we could have dealt with this, I would have a heck of a lot more money than the people on short-term disability at Canada Post who have not received a dime for the last five weeks because the minister did not have the courage to intervene.

The fact of the matter is that had the minister responsible for Canada Post been doing her job all along, then we would not be in this position. If she had appointed management with a mandate to get to the table and to make real changes in the workplace, either through collective bargaining or not, they could have accepted those ideas as good ideas and implement them in the workplace. There are a lot of ways that this could have been headed off and we would not have gotten here.

I cannot accept that from the member when he says that there was nothing else that could have been done. The only person , as far as I am concerned, who needs to be legislated back to work is the minister responsible for Canada Post, who has not been doing her job. I would like to know when she is going to start.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this may not come as a surprise that I agree with very little of what the member across has said. I believe that both ministers have been on this file and have been focused on this file. For a year, these negotiations have gone on. Our federally appointed mediators were engaged right from the start. When we saw that the strike had been called and things had been stalled, we went again and appointed another mediator to put a clean set of eyes on this and an impartial set of eyes, and then later appointed a special mediator.

This has been a focus, something that has been top of the heap as far as the focus for both ministers. It just goes to show how entrenched both parties are and how difficult. We could do nothing other than this because both parties have just dug in on those particular issues.

We are doing what is responsible. We are doing what Canadians expect us to do as a responsible government.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to speak to a bill that takes away one of the most basic rights of honest workers. I would like to begin by stating that I stand with the workers who are facing strong-arm tactics and who are being denied freedom of expression and the power to negotiate. The government is treating them like cattle, but Quebeckers see them as people. We recognize their work, we appreciate the service they provide and we are with them.

Taking away workers' right to strike makes government less democratic and more authoritarian every time it happens. In 2015, the Supreme Court was clear about that in its decision.

The ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services in the process of the negotiation of a collective agreement is, and has historically been, the irreducible minimum of the freedom to associate in Canadian labour relations....the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process...

I am not the only one to have said it today. It is a quote from the Supreme Court.

This is a ruling from 2015, not 1822. Many things have happened since 2015, starting with a federal election that put the Liberals in power. Unfortunately, there is the same corporate culture as there was under Paul Martin. When a party moves to the other side of the House of Commons, it leaves a lot behind on the opposition benches, starting with its honour.

Let us begin by making one thing clear. “A rotating strike is not a strike, it is a pressure tactic used to force a negotiated settlement.” It was a fine, loyal Liberal who said that. The former mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, who lost the election, said that on June 23, 2011, when the Conservatives wanted to ram special legislation down postal workers' throats.

I want to clarify something else. Special legislation is the kind of last-resort measure a government uses to end a strike that has been dragging on and on and is affecting essential public services. It is not a measure to be taken lightly before strike action even begins in earnest. The government is not taking a last-resort measure today; it is literally depriving postal workers of their right to strike. Special legislation makes no sense when there is not even a strike on. Others have said so before me. The current Minister of Transport, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, said exactly that on June 16, 2011, when the Conservatives were trampling on postal workers' rights with their own special legislation.

Does it come as any surprise to anyone that the Liberals would say one thing while in opposition and do exactly the opposite when in power? No.

Here in the House and elsewhere, people are used to Liberal ways. The Liberals are always like that. It is really something to see the government spend its time boasting about what a tough negotiator it is with respect to protecting the right to strike around the world in talks with its trading partners, when it is now suspending that right here at home. That comes as no surprise to anyone. Everyone knows that when it comes to workers' rights, the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. The two parties are one and the same.

By imposing special legislation, they both infringe on workers' rights. It is shameful. By imposing special legislation, they both fail to show a modicum of respect for workers. That too is shameful. By imposing special legislation, they both conduct negotiations in bad faith, and that too is shameful.

Liberal or Conservative, the federal government is and has always been the government that treats its employees the worst. No one in the two major government parties cares about job security. That is what the little people care about. They are elitists. Workplace health is important to people who do physical labour, who work outside. Very little thought is given to that in ministers' wood-panelled offices. The only workplace injury they might get is a paper cut.

It is no coincidence that postal workers have been treated to special legislation in 1987, 1991, 1997, 2011 and today. That is how it works in Ottawa. It is 30 years behind Quebec when it comes to labour law. It is no coincidence that it is only at the federal level that employers still have the right to hire scabs when workers are on strike. It is no coincidence that it is only at the federal level that the right of Quebeckers to work in French is violated.

It is no coincidence that the federal government is the only one that could not care less about the safety of pregnant women and their unborn babies, since it will not let them apply for preventive withdrawal without penalty when the job becomes dangerous.

This is what happens when a government is so high and mighty and so far removed from the real world that it knows nothing about how things work in real life for ordinary people.

I introduced a bill to fix all of this, but even before it was debated, I could already tell what the two federal champions of management were thinking. They always side with the employer, never with honest citizens who simply want to earn a living with dignity.

In the face of so much bad faith in a case like this one, we have every right to wonder why the government will not back down. There are a number of possibilities. The first is that the Liberals are once again beholden to the web giants, and their campaign coffers are filled to the brim with donations from these giants, much like the Prime Minister's bank account was filled with money from Chinese bankers in July 2017.

The second possibility is that the government does not understand the issue, which is improbable, but would not be surprising.

The third possibility is that the Liberal members are, as usual, weak, spineless and gutless in the face of cabinet, which is helping itself to billions of dollars in public money to enrich its buddies, as we saw with the cannabis industry. What a bunch of cowards.

If I were a Liberal member of Parliament, I would be embarrassed to walk down the street and meet my constituents. If this were the wild west, the Liberals would be tarred and feathered. They would be paraded around town so they could feel the weight of the shame and contempt they inspire. A good Liberal MP is an obedient sheep who licks the master's boots. They should be ashamed of what they are doing.

It should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois sides with the workers and strikers and will vote against this bill.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague on the other side of the House. I do not really agree with him, but I do have a question for him.

He and I come from the same area, the Lower Laurentians, where there are many small and medium-sized businesses. With e-commerce, more and more parcels are being sent by mail. With the holiday season approaching, how will we make sure that middle-class Canadians get their parcels? Small and medium-sized businesses cannot use courier services like FedEx and UPS because they are too expensive.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but find it surprising that my colleague wants small and medium-sized companies to have their parcels delivered by Canada Post. I can understand why, but I am somewhat surprised because buying local is also important. It is important to shop at local stores.

I am also surprised that my colleague is giving us lessons in economics, given that her government posted another $16-billion deficit in the last budget.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The government keeps repeating that it is imposing special back-to-work legislation because postal workers are holding a rotating strike.

In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, there has been just one day of strikes since the start of the job action. That is like one statutory holiday. The same goes for Sherbrooke and Abitibi-Témiscamingue, where postal workers were only on strike for one day.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the government is exaggerating the crisis fabricated by Canada Post. It has blown the situation out of proportion. What workers really want is to deliver the mail and, of course, to negotiate a collective agreement and settle the safety issue once and for all.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually quite simple. The government decided to use a bazooka to kill a fly. As usual, it is trampling on workers' rights using special legislation when they are not even really on strike.

The real problem is that it is using economic principles as an excuse, while its $16-billion deficit proves that it is definitely not the best money manager. We will take no lessons from the Liberals on the economy. They think they know how it works, but I seriously doubt that special legislation will work to solve such an issue.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

One of the real questions here is whether this situation could have been avoided. A strike could have been avoided if the government had taken its responsibilities seriously and if it had appointed managers to Canada Post who would have taken the rate of illness and injuries seriously.

Does my colleague think the government did everything in its power to avoid the situation we are discussing here tonight?

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government did not do everything in its power.

Instead of really working hard and settling the dispute, the Liberals imposed special legislation. They wanted to settle a dispute, but they did not have the guts to really get to work. They decided to pass special legislation instead. It is as simple as that. It was less complicated for them.

They are acting in bad faith.