Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2018

Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was six years old in 1990, so I am not going to accuse anyone of anything. With respect to the current situation, there is a cost to the Canadian economy with respect to this strike. It is a matter of balancing interests.

Yes, constitutional rights are at stake if forcing workers back to work through legislation is done in an improper way. We know that it is not unconstitutional in every case, and we know this because the court has set out a pathway for doing this fairly. It is about ensuring that when an arbitrator is appointed, it is done in consultation with the union. It is about ensuring that no issue is taken off the table if it is a key issue and that we are not imposing terms. We are not doing so in this legislation.

The members have spoken about ensuring the health and safety of employees and ensuring that employees receive equal pay for work of equal value. If the members had read the legislation, they would know that those words are, in fact, guiding principles in the act.

With respect to Canada Post, is there ever a scenario in which this member would legislate workers back to work? If there is a cost to the Canadian economy for maybe a year, is that sufficient? Is there ever a point at which the cost is too much?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the mantra of the cost to the economy. I say that it is a fabrication on the part of the government and Canada Post. We know that CUPW members who are keeping track of these so-called trailers of parcels are reporting that they do not exist. There is, of course, a delay, because this is a rotating strike, but there is no significant backup. It is nothing that cannot be addressed in two or three days.

The corporation has said to CUPW workers, “Let us have a cooling-off period. Go back to work, and we will deal with this on January 21”. That is absolutely ludicrous. The corporation will pull the same stunt as was pulled in this chamber on workers who are part of our security service. They were told in the summer of 2017 to go back to work, and we would negotiate with them. That never happened.

In terms of mail delivery, CUPW has assured us that it will get back on track.

I would like to point out one last and very interesting thing. A notice was put out across the country in Canada Post sorting areas. It had to do with the government support cheques, such as the child tax credit, that were supposed to be delivered. The corporation told the mail carriers not to deliver any of them. They were ordered not to deliver any of them until November 22.

The corporation created the crisis. It is creating and driving this scenario so that public opinion is against the workers. Public opinion should never go against workers, because members of the public are the workers.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to my colleague for her speech.

I was here in 2011. The Liberals are telling us not to worry, that they will certainly raise the issues of pay equity, lack of security and the difficult and dangerous work that postal workers are doing.

In 2011, we rose in the House to condemn a two-tier pension system that pitted older workers against younger workers. We condemned the fact that it took a Supreme Court decision to make Canada Post respect pay equity.

Nothing has changed over the past seven and a half years since that debate. We are told that we need to trust the government and Canada Post. We have no reason to trust Canada Post.

Canada Post has been showing for years—not just this year or in recent weeks—that it is not able to negotiate in good faith. I would like my colleague to tell me how it is going to help us if the government tells Canada Post that things are working out for them?

The government is basically telling us that it does not matter if Canada Post has been negotiating in bad faith for a decade or even longer, because it is going to bail it out. That is what is at stake, and I would like her to elaborate on it.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the most salient thing here is the fact that for seven and a half years, the CUPW members of Canada Post have been working toward pay equity. They understand, absolutely, equal pay for work of equal value. They understand that women are as valuable as men and that it is important to make sure that women have financial security, yet Canada Post has been blatant in its disregard of that.

Even now, after the courts have deemed that Canada Post must bring about pay equity, we are still waiting. The decision was taken in September. It is now the end of November, and those workers still have not received any of that money.

Even worse, rural and suburban workers have been forced to do their entire routes. They are paid for six or seven and a half hours, but if it takes them 10 hours, so be it. They are not paid for the rest of the route. It is not fair. It is not right. Again, they are women trying to support families.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, I am not pleased to rise in the House today to once again debate this type of bill, this bludgeoning, this hammering of workers' fundamental rights.

I am rising because that is our job and that is our role. That is what the NDP is here for, why people have placed their trust in us. We are able to rise here and do the job of defending those who organize, who want improved working conditions, who want to defend their health and safety. They know full well that we are the only party they can trust. When they see the Liberals emulating the Conservatives' strategy, people know very well who they can turn to. They know who will fight for them until the end, who will be there and who will defend the fundamental rights and working conditions of our constituents, our provinces, our towns and our regions.

That was a brief introduction because I want to bring everyone back to seven and a half years ago. In May 2011, for the first time in history, the NDP formed the official opposition. That was a great day for our party. I, along with a number of my colleagues here, was part of that election, that class, that orange wave. We were thrown into battle very quickly. The NDP had just won an historic victory by becoming the official opposition, but the Conservatives had just won a majority in the House.

That meant that, for us, as people on the left, as progressives, the season of great battles had just begun. This was a battle for public services, science, a respectable image of Canada on the world stage, the environment, the country's minorities, Statistics Canada. It was a battle on all fronts. We were there. We worked hard, with passion and devotion, and I think people remember that.

The first major battle we fought was on behalf of Canada Post workers. Members will recall that we were in a ridiculous situation where the government had imposed special back-to-work legislation when there was a lockout. A Crown corporation had stopped mail delivery, and it was the government that forced people back to work by imposing a collective agreement on 45,000 postal workers.

We did not let them get away with it. We showed them what the NDP and progressives are made of. We made an unprecedented move to slow down the passage of this special legislation and to give negotiations a chance to improve the well-being of postal workers.

I clearly recall that our leader back then, Jack Layton, gave a speech in the House that lasted more than an hour at the start of this long battle, which went on for four days. Jack Layton gave a great speech about workers and a more just and fair society where people can assert their rights to improve their living conditions. I invite those who have never read or heard this speech to look for it. It is on the Internet. It is extremely inspiring, especially coming from a man who was seriously ill at the time.

Then, for four days, NDP MPs talked non-stop; we were all greenhorns then, including my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly, who is smiling as he recalls it. We maintained our presence in the House, day and night, for four days, when the vast majority of the NDP was made up of new MPs. We had been elected about three weeks earlier, but the cause was important, and we wanted to get the message across and show exactly where we stood as progressives and New Democrats. We did not hesitate. We went for it as the NDP team.

We gave postal workers and their union a chance to return to the bargaining table to try to reach an agreement. In fact, negotiations were ongoing while we were doing our job as parliamentarians in the House.

I have a little anecdote I like to tell that refers to a French expression. Since we had started this battle on a Thursday and proceedings had continued without interruption or adjournment from Friday to Sunday at noon, the clerks' table indicated that it was still officially Thursday. The day had never changed over, and so, francophones and francophiles alike will understand how amused I was at the thought of having gotten through history's first ever week of four Thursdays.

However, that is not what was important. Rather, it was to defend fundamental principles. Today, seven and a half years later, it is back to the future. I feel like I took the mad scientist's car in Back to the Future and am seeing the exact same movie. If it is not Back to the Future, it is Groundhog Day. It is the same thing.

The Liberals are doing exactly the same thing Stephen Harper's Conservatives did. I find it staggering that they are capable of looking us, and the postal workers, straight in the eye today and telling us that they are not like the Conservatives and that it is fine this time around because the Liberals are doing it. However, we are not in the same situation at all. The situation is much less serious.

Now I want to talk about the reality on the ground and the working conditions of the 45,000 or 50,000 people who deliver mail and parcels all across the country. I want to talk about the working conditions of these people. They make an average of $40,000 to $60,000 a year. They provide excellent service, and they are not part of the privileged class. They are people with demanding jobs, who are definitely part of what we would consider the middle class. The words “middle class” should ring a bell for the Liberal government.

These people have been suffering for years because their collective agreement is inadequate and unsuitable. I am talking specifically about their very heavy work schedules. Their working conditions have changed, and they are being forced to work much longer hours, late into the evening. In Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and other neighbourhoods in Montreal, we have outside staircases. In the winter, it is dark after 5 p.m. Mail carriers have to climb those outside stairs, in the snow and ice, using a little headlight to try to see if the steps are safe or if there is too much ice and snow. That causes life-changing work accidents.

Here are some statistics that I find very illuminating: in the past two years alone, the number of work accidents reported by Canada Post employees has increased by 43%. Are they right to demand better? Yes, and we understand. It is normal for them to demand better. That is how we have organized our society, in order to improve our quality of life and make sure that we work in safe environments.

In 2017, 25% of Canada Post employees reported a workplace accident. That is one in four workers, which is a record. It is the most dangerous federally regulated sector in terms of worker health and safety. Is it not logical that these exasperated, injured, frustrated workers are resorting to pressure tactics? Of course it is. We would all do the same. We would not accept those working conditions.

I remember demonstrating with Canada Post workers in 2012 or 2013 and seeing former employees come to demonstrate with their former colleagues. I met one of them and asked how he was doing. He replied that he had changed jobs. When I asked why, he told me he had had enough. He said he was never home and never saw his wife and kids. His work-life balance was atrocious.

That mail carrier decided to become a taxi driver, because it was too hard for him to keep doing his job. It was too demanding for his personal and family life. That is the reality on the front lines.

I will now take a moment to talk about female rural mail carriers. They come under the protection of another union, but they are fighting alongside their colleagues who are members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Seventy-five per cent of these women earn less than urban mail carriers. That is a serious problem. It is a problem of fairness and justice, but the Liberals are ignoring it once again. Worse still, these women are not even paid for the overtime they do. After a certain point in the day, if they have not delivered everything they have to deliver, they work for free. That is the reality.

I think those women are right to stand up, to use pressure tactics and to say that this is wrong, that this is not a respectful work environment and that they deserve better.

These workers are currently exercising a constitutional right. Also, they have decided to do so gradually. They are not on an indefinite general strike. These are rotating strikes that affect one municipality or a few municipalities for a day or two. Then the strike moves elsewhere in the country.

They did not decide to play hard ball. No, they decided to increase the pressure gradually, and it has not created any major disruptions at this time for our economy, for our SMEs or for the general public.

Let us be clear. Although we are being led to believe that there is a crisis, it is an artificial crisis, designed and manufactured out of whole cloth in an attempt to get legislation passed that would otherwise make no sense and have no purpose.

Plenty of people are receiving their letters and parcels. Online shoppers are receiving their orders.

Does it sometimes take longer than before? Yes, it does.

Is this a national or economic crisis? It is neither. It is an excuse that has been used to ram a collective agreement that does not respect workers' rights down those workers' throats. That is the problem.

Anyone who knows anything about labour relations knows that the threat of special back-to-work legislation tips the balance at the negotiating table. That is what the Liberals have done. They have taken away workers' power to put pressure on the employer. As soon as the Liberal Party suggested that it might introduce special legislation, then management could just sit back and wait for the situation to deteriorate enough to require special legislation, leaving the union without any bargaining power.

After that, good luck improving health and safety, improving work schedules and getting pay equity. It is nice to see that included in the Liberal government's bill, but it will never happen.

The Liberals are living in an alternate universe if they think that Canada Post will suddenly give the workers everything they are asking for just because their bill says so. It has not done it in the past decade or two. It is not going to start now. That is not how things work.

In 2011-12, the Liberals were the second opposition party, which is what the NDP is now. The Liberals got themselves all worked up saying that the Conservative government's actions were totally unreasonable. Once again, they are doing exactly what the Conservatives did. Today they are showing their true colours. They are attacking a basic right, the right to free collective bargaining. I think that bears repeating, because the Liberals should be ashamed of what they are doing. They are attacking 45,000 people, they are attacking a public service, and they are attacking middle-class people and families. Those people have a constitutional right, upheld by the courts, to do what they are doing right now, and they are doing it in an extremely respectful and peaceful manner. Moreover, not only are their rotating pressure tactics minimally disruptive, but important cheques, such as old age pension, welfare and employment insurance benefits, are still being delivered on time.

Postal workers are so respectful of their fellow citizens in need that during the lockout in 2011, they volunteered their time to deliver those cheques. Those are the people we are talking about. They have guts, and their communities appreciate them. They are respectful, and the one thing they want is for Canada Post and the federal government to respect them. Right now, they feel betrayed by the Liberal government, which made them promises but is now stabbing them in the back. That is what is going to happen.

On the subject of the process, the most important thing is to talk about these people, their families, workers' rights and free collective bargaining. That is the issue. However, I cannot remain silent about the knife that the Liberal government has just plunged into our back with its motion, which goes further than ever before to limit our ability to act as parliamentarians. Even Stephen Harper did not dare to go so far in gagging members of this House. It is absolutely incredible.

This is an unjustified attack on a fundamental right. Discussion and debate have been limited to three hours. At third reading, opposition members will not even be allowed to ask questions, even though we have been elected to this place to represent our constituents. The Liberals have put us under a super gag order.

I am not complaining for myself or for us as parliamentarians; that is not the key issue. However, this demonstrates the Liberal government's lack of sensitivity on this issue.

In 2011, the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood even said that we were confronted by a government that was taking hard right measures. In 2011, the back-to-work legislation for Canada Post employees was seen by the Liberal Party as a hard right measure. Today, the Liberals are doing the same thing, but since they are the ones doing it, it is fine. This must be progressive back-to-work legislation. This must be a progressive attack on workers. Since they are Liberals, it is easy, they just have to slap the word “progressive” on it to make it pass. No, this is absolutely unacceptable.

The NDP will speak out against this as forcefully as we can, because the right to free collective bargaining is vital in our society. Why? Like many of my colleagues, I firmly believe that it is because of the labour movement and free collective bargaining that we have people who earn $50,000 a year and have a pension, insurance, sick leave and weekends. The middle class was created in large part by the labour movement. It is because people stood up and fought for their health and safety, their retirement and their work schedule that we have a more prosperous, fair and equitable society. The Liberals should know that.

The Liberal government should know that by attacking free collective bargaining, it is attacking the middle class. It is driving down working conditions and setting a bad example. The situation could deteriorate further because of what the Liberals are doing. Canada Post is an employer that sometimes makes decisions that are extremely harmful to the physical and mental health of its employees. Now, the Liberal government has just thrown all its weight behind Canada Post management, to the detriment of workers.

I will give an example that a member from Manitoba gave during a debate, which I found astounding. At the beginning of the rotating strikes and pressure tactics, Canada Post suspended the payment of short-term disability benefits and extended parental leave benefits to members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. This led to physical and psychological distress. Employees are being punished for exercising a right, for defending themselves, for standing up for themselves to improve their living conditions. These employees will come to see the NDP as their ally in the House. They cannot trust the Conservatives, and now they see that they cannot trust the Liberal government either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with a question relating to a previous question and exchange that happened prior to his speech. It was in relation to something that happened in the early 1990s with the NDP government in Ontario. At that time, in the fall of 1993, there were three occasions when the NDP government of the day instituted back-to-work legislation for school boards in Lambton County, East Parry Sound and Windsor.

At that time, both the members for London—Fanshawe and Hamilton Centre were sitting as members of the provincial Parliament and as part of the NDP government of the time. Despite the fact that we may have heard differently, that is the reality of the situation.

Given the fact that some of the skeletons are coming out of the closet right now, would the member like to clear the air and let us know if he has ever been part of a government that has done something similar to what we are now learning happened with the NDP government in Ontario in the early 1990s, and in particular the members for London—Fanshawe and Hamilton Centre?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to my colleague is that making an approximation does not make something true or credible. In all honesty, I have never been part of a government that imposed return-to-work legislation against the will of unions and workers. I hope to have the opportunity to be in government after Jagmeet Singh becomes prime minister of Canada in the 2019 election.

In 1990, I was a student at the CEGEP in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. I was nowhere near these issues. That said, I find the Liberal members' tactics a bit dishonest. We are debating their bill that aims to force Canada Post employees back to work, and this is what they should be concerned about, especially since the bill could haunt them over the next 10 months.

I look forward to debating this matter in Montreal and across Quebec with Liberal Party candidates in 10 months.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent speech and his unwavering commitment to workers' rights.

As his colleagues said earlier today, with special legislation being debated under a “super gag order”, as he called it, the Liberals are changing the meaning of “Black Friday”.

The situation we find ourselves in today is surreal. In my opinion, we are seeing an unprecedented conflict of interest. On the one hand, the state as legislator is introducing special legislation in favour of one party, to the detriment of the other's rights. The rights violated are those of the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The favoured party is the management of Canada Post, a public corporation—the state as employer. The state as legislator is tipping the scales in favour of the state as employer. The Bloc Québécois unequivocally condemns this unacceptable situation.

Could my colleague comment on the issue?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for his question and for all the years he has stood up for workers' rights. We have worked together on similar issues in the past.

My colleague is asking an excellent question. It is truly a black Friday. This is a sad day for the constitutional rights recognized by Canadian courts. It is also a day overshadowed by the Liberal government's broken promises.

Right now, the Liberal government is using legislative means to benefit one of its agencies, a Crown corporation currently in the process of negotiating with its employees. It acts as legislator and employer at the same time, which is extremely problematic. It sounds like a conflict of interest or, even worse, an abuse of power.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems pretty insistent that this is a violation of constitutional rights. Perhaps he can explain to me why this proposed legislation, Bill C-89, fails the minimal impairment test under Oakes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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

It is not at all incompatible. The right to strike was recognized by the courts in Saskatchewan and British Columbia and by the Supreme Court. The back-to-work legislation passed in 2011 went through the same legislative process but was later challenged and found to be unconstitutional. The same thing may happen to this bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my mother used to say that a Liberal is someone who sits on the fence with both ears on the ground. I am starting to see that manifest here today.

Back in 2011, Liberals opposed back-to-work legislation and here they are introducing it. The Liberal governments of Christy Clark and Gordon Campbell in British Columbia stripped teachers of their right to collectively bargain. They said, just like the Liberals here, that it was totally legal, until the Supreme Court of Canada, years later, said it was not legal. The Wynne government ordered college workers and professors back to work and, of course, we know what happened in Ontario as people passed judgment. Liberals pretend to be progressive at election time, but when they are in government, they act just like Conservatives. That is what they are doing here and workers know this.

How would it have been different if the government had instead told Canada Post that the government was not going to intervene on Canada Post's behalf, that Canada Post was going to have to sit at the table, negotiate a collective agreement with its workers and there would be no backstop by the government? What does the member think would have happened?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his excellent question.

I think that an agreement would have been negotiated by the two parties, and that workers would have exercised their right to use pressure tactics and would have won some concessions, but not all, at the bargaining table.

However, we know how things work. The member knows more about labour relations and collective bargaining than I do. Without a third party, such as the government that just threw its weight behind the employer, there comes a time or a key moment when the parties reach an agreement that satisfies them both to some extent. The workers would have at least had the opportunity to improve their working conditions and to advance their health and safety rights, for example.

I think my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway was also right when he talked about invoking closure. There are moments that define us. We are either on one side of the fence or we are on the other. We cannot be on both sides at the same time.

The workers of this country know what side the NDP is on, and they have just understood what side the Liberal government is on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's passionate speech. He has a real way with words.

The current situation involves two fairly powerful entities: the Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

The market is dominated by these two entities. It is not a market where there are thousands of mail carriers. We know that the union speaks for unionized workers and management speaks for Canada Post, but who is speaking for small business people?

I am talking about those that are so small that they cannot even be incorporated. They are registered and travel around in their little car, which they use to provide services and work in their field. Who speaks for small and medium-sized businesses and small business people if not the House of Commons? Members are elected to the House by Canadians, including workers from across the country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will provide a two-part response to my colleague's question.

First, the NPD cares about SMEs. The rotating strike is not currently preventing SMEs from getting their parcels or from doing business as usual. They are not currently in crisis.

With regard to the fact that those entities are strong and powerful, I think that is a good thing. I agree that we have a strong and powerful public service that is able to provide good service to everyone. However, on the question of parcel delivery, I have three answers: Purolator, UPS and FedEx.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, Friday, November 23, is Black Friday, an English term used in the retail sector to encourage people to do their shopping and buy gifts for the holidays. Many huge banners announce incredible deals. People are increasingly being encouraged to shop online and to have their packages, goods and toys purchased for the holidays delivered to their homes by Canada Post, among others. It is a busy day for Canada Post workers.

Today, with the motion we have been debating since yesterday and the bill that will be passed by invoking closure, the Liberal government is giving a new meaning to the term Black Friday. Today is no sunny day, especially for our postal workers.

Today, the government is forcing the passage of a special act against Canada Post workers. It is using closure to force its passage. This is the same government that spends its time boasting about its progressive trade agreements that supposedly protect the right to collective bargaining.

The government turns around, introduces special legislation, sets aside the rules and takes away any bargaining power from workers. It is the undisputed expert in deceit. It says one thing while doing the exact opposite. This is true for the fight against climate change, for the fight against tax havens, for the defence of our farmers, for Quebec's demands, and this is again the case today with respect to workers' rights. However, we are not fooled by this deceit. The government is poised to deny postal workers' right to strike before they have even used it.

Make no mistake: the current rotating strikes are not a general strike and are only a pressure tactic before resorting to a general strike.

The right to strike is a right enshrined in labour law. This right has been recognized by the Supreme Court. In the case involving B.C. Health Services, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional nature of the right to collective bargaining by stating that section 2(d) prevented the state from substantially interfering with a union's opportunity to participate in collective bargaining in order to have a say in defining working conditions.

In Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court even gave the right to strike constitutional benediction “because of its crucial role in a meaningful process of collective bargaining.” Justice Abella stated, “The right to strike is not merely derivative of collective bargaining, it is an indispensable component of that right. It seems to me to be the time to give this conclusion constitutional benediction.” She said that it is an indispensable component of collective bargaining. That is not insignificant. With its time-allocated special legislation, the government is flat out disregarding the whole collective bargaining process. This is why we are hearing comparisons to Black Friday.

According to Pierre Trudel, a law professor at the Université de Montréal, the right to strike is the “irreducible minimum”. I want to quote from his reaction to the Supreme Court ruling:

The ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services in the process of the negotiation of a collective agreement is therefore, and has historically been, the “irreducible minimum” of the freedom to associate in Canadian labour relations. The freedom of association guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have little effect if it did not protect employees' right to strike.

Canada has a court, a charter and a constitution that its government is not even able to obey. What contempt for the fundamental rights of our workers. What a terrible day today is for their rights.

Mr. Trudel also writes, “The Court added that the international human rights instruments to which Canada is a party also require the protection of the right to strike as part of a meaningful process of collective bargaining.”

It would seem that the federal government is quick to renege on its own international commitments when it is in its interest to do so. What is the value of federal commitments? This is how we can estimate their true value.

First, the highest court in the land recognizes the importance of the workers' right to strike. In addition, Canada is a party to the International Labour Organization conventions that also recognize the fundamental nature of this right. Second, the Liberal government is suppressing this right by a special act to be passed under a gag order at the same time as it declares itself to be on the side of the workers and defines itself as progressive. Clearly, a perfect match of words and deeds. Progressive, my foot.

In an article in the McGill Law Journal, legal scholars Renée-Claude Drouin and Gilles Trudeau consider the institutional and constitutional dimensions of special back-to-work legislation. They tell us that, since 1990, Ottawa has passed no fewer than 14 special back-to-work acts, if we include this one today. That is an average of one special act targeting our workers every two years. This the fourth one for postal workers. That means that those workers will see their working conditions imposed on them one out of every two times, or half the time. What contempt on the part of the government.

In Ottawa, special legislation that takes away workers' rights has become the norm rather than the exception. Drouin and Trudeau, who both teach law at the Université de Montréal, wrote that “this situation is pernicious because it essentially denies certain categories of workers the right to strike and can also turn what should be an exceptional situation into a permanent solution”. This is what we are seeing today.

We all know that the balance of power between workers and management depends on the right to take this measure of last resort. When the balance of power is sound, each party makes concessions and together they agree to negotiated working conditions. Strikes and lockouts are lose-lose situations, and when the pressure is on, the balance of power forces both parties to come to the table, negotiate and make a deal that involves compromise on both sides. The threat of special legislation upsets the balance of power and sends management the message that it no longer needs to negotiate in good faith. That ruins the union-management negotiation process. That is what we are seeing today.

Since management knew that the government was going to do this, why would it bother negotiating seriously and doing the thing where both sides relax certain conditions in order to reach a compromise? Why would it do that, knowing the government was going to play the card that would give it a leg up? Of course, rotating strikes and a possible general strike right before the holidays have a serious impact on economic activity, especially on orders placed online at Amazon, eBay, Walmart and Best Buy. No one is denying that. Economic impact can never be an argument for infringing on the right to strike or declaring something an essential service and taking away the right to strike.

On that topic, the Committee on Freedom of Association, the wing of the International Labour Organization that interprets the conventions pertaining to freedoms, has stated:

By linking restrictions on strike action to interference with trade and commerce, a broad range of legitimate strike action could be impeded. While the economic impact of industrial action and its effect on trade and commerce may be regrettable, such consequences in and of themselves do not render a service “essential”, and thus the right to strike should be maintained.

Canada signed that, but it is not adhering to it. The language is hard to understand when read aloud. It is rather technical legal language, but the message is clear. Even though strikes have an economic impact, that right must be maintained. That is an international convention.

Passing back-to-work legislation is bad enough, but this is about passing back-to-work legislation before a strike has even been declared. Let me reiterate that postal workers are not on strike yet. The rotating strikes are being used as a pressure tactic before a general strike is declared, just like any other pressure tactic. Taking a measure like this at this stage of the negotiations is simply regressive and shows contempt for the workers and their rights. I am absolutely disgusted by this attitude.

This is the attitude of a government that considers itself easygoing and progressive. Time after time, we have heard the minister say that it is 2018, or 2017, or 2016, implying that it is time to be easygoing and progressive. Yeah, right. It is certainly not 2018 when it comes to workers' fundamental rights. It feels more like 100 years ago.

Legal experts Drouin and Trudeau also refer to the Supreme Court ruling in R.W.D.S.U., Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. to point out that our society has chosen to accept the negative economic consequences of labour disputes in order to maintain social cohesion. Yes, there are negative economic consequences, but there is a more important objective, and that is to maintain social cohesion. We do not want to go back to the way labour disputes were handled 100 or 200 years ago. Everyone would lose.

Let me quote the Supreme Court:

Labour disputes may touch important sectors of the economy, affecting towns, regions, and sometimes the entire country. The cost to the parties and the public may be significant. Nevertheless, our society has come to see it as justified by the higher goal of achieving resolution of employer-employee disputes and the maintenance of economic and social peace. The legally limited use of economic pressure and the infliction of economic harm in a labour dispute has come to be accepted as a legitimate price to pay to encourage the parties to resolve their differences in a way that both can live with.

That is the opposite of what this government is adopting under a gag order today. Today, this government is choosing to sacrifice the higher goal of economic and social peace in favour of economic gains before Christmas for the delivery of Amazon, eBay, Walmart and Best Buy packages. Regardless of what the court says, people still want their stockings stuffed, and for that, the government is stripping away the rights of workers. Well done, Liberals. That is what statesmanship is all about.

Since this is a government matter and since Canada Post is a Crown corporation, I would point out that we have a direct conflict of interest here. Today, the state as legislator is trampling on workers' rights to tip the scales in favour of the state as employer. This is simply unacceptable. What a conflict of interest.

Canada Post is profitable. In 2017, the Canada Post Group of Companies recorded profits of $144 million. That is 80% more than the previous year. The Canada Post Group of Companies includes Canada Post, Purolator, the SCI Group and Innovapost. Canada Post alone recorded pre-tax profits of $74 million. It is not going bankrupt.

In this context, it is perfectly legitimate for Canada Post employees to want to catch up and improve their working conditions. I would like to point out that, over the past 30 years, half the time, working conditions have been imposed rather than negotiated. Today’s bill deprives workers of their right to negotiate in four collective agreements.

In our opinion, their demand for improved working conditions is perfectly legitimate. They are asking for job security in a context in which one-third of workers hold part-time or temporary positions. They should be given permanent positions. They are asking for the elimination of mandatory overtime and that something be done about the work overload. Management has only to hire more people to meet the increased demand for package delivery. The number of packages is growing and, instead of hiring more employees, Canada Post is imposing mandatory overtime. That is ridiculous.

They are also asking for better health and safety conditions. The number of work accidents has increased by 43% in the past two years and is directly related to the increase in the number of packages delivered.

The union points out that, today, the rate of disabling injuries among letter carriers is 5.4 times higher than in other sectors under federal jurisdiction. It is high time to correct the situation. It seems to me that a freely negotiated collective agreement would do just that, but no; the state as legislator is tipping the scales in favour of the state as employer.

They are also asking for equal working conditions for letter carriers in rural or suburban areas and those in urban areas. This is another important issue, which is related to pay equity. Female letter carriers account for two thirds of the first group, but they earn about 25% less than letter carriers in urban areas, 70% of whom are men. That is another good example of the type of pay equity promoted by our great progressive government. It is nice to see them practising what they preach. I am ashamed for the Liberals.

The Bloc québécois supports postal workers in their demands. The Bloc québécois supports their basic right to the free negotiation of their working conditions. Here, we have always been, and will always be, on the side of workers. We do not merely try to get their votes and then betray them, like the Liberals do.

The Bloc québécois is against the adoption of this special law that eliminates workers’ right to a negotiated agreement under gag order before they have even started their legal strike. Labour laws are the legal framework in which the different parties can legally and legitimately exert pressure. Failure to respect workers’ rights violates a fundamental institution that ensures social and economic peace. That is what is at issue today.

The government’s decision to enact the law under a gag order in order to improve its position in the relationship of power once again undermines the very foundations of our society. It is a situation that we wholeheartedly deplore. What a way to do business, and what disdain for Canadians. I am ashamed to be in the House today and to see a government act this way.

Black Friday will no longer conjure up images of savings in big box stores and toys in the mail; it will be a day of shame for this government that violates workers’ basic rights.

Shame on them.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing that this bill will necessarily improve the employer’s position, but, unless I am mistaken, it seeks to appoint a mediator and an arbitrator. Normally, mediators and arbitrators seek to find a fair solution for all parties.

Why, then, does my colleague from Joliette think that the bill will benefit the employer to the detriment of the union?

I would also like to comment on a point raised by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. It is true that some mail service is maintained, but not so much in the north.

Should we throw the north under the bus so that the strike can continue?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and comments.

As I said in my speech, we recognize that strikes and other pressure tactics such as the current rotating strike have a negative economic impact.

The Supreme Court of Canada and the International Labour Organization recognize that there are negative impacts, but that that is the price we pay to ensure the social and economic peace guaranteed by free negotiation between parties with a view to reaching an agreement on working conditions.

What the government is doing today is depriving workers of their right to strike, which is a means by which they can improve their position in the relationship of power. Working conditions freely negotiated by the parties stem from this relationship of power. By eliminating this relationship of power and asking an arbitrator to rule on the matter, we are upsetting the balance that would have been achieved had there been free negotiation. That is what we are talking about.

The Supreme Court of Canada and the International Labour Organization recognize the right to strike as a basic right associated with bargaining. When working conditions are not freely negotiated, the work climate degenerates.

We condemn this situation and today’s legislation and gag order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette spoke a bit about the history of federal back-to-work legislation. One of the problems with the bill before the House today is that it will set a precedent and that everyone in the sector expects the workers to be forced back to work. In this context, it is almost impossible to hold real negotiations.

I would like the hon. member for Joliette to tell us more about the dangerous precedent this bill would set.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Regina—Lewvan for his remarks.

I am in complete agreement with him. This is a precedent-setting day, indeed. Special back-to-work legislation that deprives postal workers of their right to strike even before they call a general strike is quite the precedent. That being said, it is not the first time that special legislation will prevent workers from striking, but the fact that it will be used even before a strike is called shows the government’s bad faith.

As legal experts Drouin and Trudeau pointed out, today’s bill is the 14th piece of special back-to-work legislation in 28 years, for an average of one act every two years. That is appalling. What respect does the government have for workers and for their right to unionize and negotiate freely? In my opinion, none at all. It would rather protect the economy and deem it more important than Canadians’ basic rights. These short-term gains will have a terrible impact on our society in the long run.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his support for workers.

I would like to come back to the exchange he just had with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

My colleague has just identified several elements related to the right to strike. A pressure tactic that does not exert pressure is useless. Postal workers are being told to wait under January or February. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I think that that is when there will be a significant decrease in the number of packages to be delivered. Everyone will be in debt up to their ears because of Holiday spending. It is like asking teachers to strike during the summer.

It is also reminiscent of a labour dispute going on in Quebec. Employees of the Société des alcools du Québec, the SAQ, decided to strike on a weekend. If pressure tactics do not demonstrate the value of workers, it becomes difficult to negotiate and prove that they have value. That is why these strikes were called.

I raised that point in 2011. There is also an impact on other sectors, because any cold water poured on the bargaining process between Canada Post and the CUPW also affects other federal and provincial sectors. An employer only has to wait for the government to get fed up and for employers and the companies in question to exert pressure.

I would ask my colleague to comment on this fact. We are no longer talking just about postal workers. We are with them 110%, and we will do everything we can to fight for them, but we are also talking about every other worker whose rights are being taken away by legislation like this one and by this type of motion, of course.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for his remarks. I am in perfect agreement with his point.

Today, it is not only workers at Canada Post who will see their working conditions set back. The entire labour movement will be affected. They have just been deprived of the right to freely negotiate their working conditions. This will affect the entire labour force. We are entirely opposed to this situation.

As legal experts Drouin and Trudeau point out, what happens is that, when you enact this many pieces of special legislation, for example against the right to strike and against workers’ right to freely negotiate their working conditions, special legislation ends up being trivialized.

As we can see, the two parties who have historically held power in the House are making this kind of thing commonplace.

They are eliminating rights and they do not care because buying things is more important, and they would not want to get them in the mail late. That is what we are talking about here.

They are eliminating basic rights and trivializing the situation because that is what enacting 14 pieces of special legislation in 28 years does. Trivializing the act of eliminating workers’ right to freely negotiate their working conditions is a dangerous precedent. It will affect not only postal workers but every worker in Canada.

Do we want to guarantee social and economic peace? That is what a legal framework for negotiating working conditions and collective agreements is all about. Do we want to maintain social peace? We have adopted rules and we need to follow them. If we eliminate the rules during Canada Post’s most profitable quarter and say that we are doing it in the interest of the economy, that is short-term vision that jeopardizes social stability over the long term.

That is what we are talking about today. That is why we stand firmly on the side of workers and condemn this situation and this special legislation. It is pretty devious of the government and the Liberal Party to claim to be progressive and on the side of workers and then not hesitate to deprive them of their rights.

They say they are progressive.

[Som hon. members]

My foot.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the deferred recorded division on the amendment standing in the name of the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte to the motion for third reading of Bill C-81, an Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, currently scheduled on Monday, November 26, 2018, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, be further deferred until Tuesday, November 27, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders and that, immediately after that recorded division, the question on the motion for third reading of the said Bill be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and taken up immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?