Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2018

An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services

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

Madam Speaker, as the member points over here, there are fingers pointing back. Shame on that member.

The member stands in her place and tries to be critical of a government that is working with labour on a number of fronts, but her government in British Columbia in 2000 brought in back-to-work legislation that affected cleaning staff. If I were to be as dramatic as the member, I would maybe use some unparliamentary words to describe the behaviour of that NDP government.

Would the member not recognize that at times governments of different political stripes have to recognize the need for back-to-work legislation? Would those members stop the hypocrisy we are witnessing from the New Democratic benches today?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the last time I checked, none of the NDP governments ever set up a scenario whereby management purposely deprived people who are in need receiving their cheques so they could set the stage to blame the workers. That is the first time I have ever heard that in my 25 years in elected office. We heard that story from a postal worker today.

The government members think they are on the side of workers. What do they say to postal workers who have to find their own replacements when they are sick? Do members think that is correct? Why have the Liberals not done something to fix that situation in the labour environment? Why has it come to today that these workers are forced to negotiate some basic health and safety conditions within their collective agreement? How is it possible for postal workers to work their regular hours and then they are still required to finish their route and do the overtime without pay? Do the government members think that is being on the side of workers?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am sad and very angry to rise today in the House. Normally, I am always happy to speak on behalf of the people of Drummond, Canadians and Quebeckers.

Today's situation unfortunately reminds me of the 2011 crisis. I remember June 23, 2011. I remember rising in the House at 3:33 a.m. to stand up for postal workers, including the mail carriers of the greater Drummond area.

Today, I rise once again in the House, on a Friday evening at 6 p.m., when I should be with the people of Drummond. I should be with the volunteers who worked very hard to set up a passport clinic that helped more than 250 people. I should be there to thank them. I should be with my constituents in Drummond, discussing the importance of climate action at a screening of the film Earth: Seen from the Heart.

I am here this evening because the Liberal government decided to do the same thing the Conservatives did in 2011, but even more undemocratically. Once again, I will have to spend the night here, if necessary, on a Friday night, to stand up for workers. I never thought I would have to do this twice.

This afternoon I was at a press conference with the leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, several of my NDP colleagues, and several postal workers. The postal workers talked about how frustrated they are by the Liberal government's actions. They want to be able to negotiate their own collective agreement, as is their constitutional right, a right that was recognized in a case in Saskatchewan some years ago. They only want to do what they have the right to do.

Of course, Canada Post management tells us there is a crisis, but that is false. There is no crisis, and that is what people need to understand. The Liberal government and Canada Post management manufactured a crisis in order to introduce this illegitimate, anti-democratic special legislation that goes against workers' rights. It is shameful.

The holidays are approaching. The Liberal government says that mail and parcels have to be delivered, so what does it do? Ho! Ho! Ho! It gives a present, not to the public or the workers, but to Canada Post management. That is what is despicable in all this. I am talking about this fake crisis, of course.

On November 21, 2018, members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers who went to work discovered that the mail backlog had been greatly exaggerated. The Toronto local said that instead of the hundreds of trailers of mail that Canada Post reported, there were about 70, and they could probably be cleared in a few days. Postal workers also saw only one trailer in London, six in Hamilton, two in Halifax, 15 in Moncton, and none in Saint John. This is a legitimate rotating strike.

That means that postal workers are using legitimate pressure tactics. They are making sure that people in Canada, Quebec and the riding of Drummond are not affected. They are even prepared to deliver cheques and family allowances.

That is what they did in 2011. I talked with some postal workers earlier. They told me that they delivered cheques and family allowances without being paid in 2011. Today, it is being said that mail carriers are mean. I think that the successive governments, the Conservatives and Liberals, always like to go after the same people. Right now, they are going after mail carriers.

When it comes to signing international agreements, they go after dairy and cheese producers. These people are getting fed up with always being punished.

What the NPD is asking is clear. We are calling on the government not to intervene and to let the parties freely negotiate in order to come to a better agreement. How can the workers negotiate if they have no more leverage or bargaining power? If the government takes away mail carriers' right to hold rotating strikes, it is taking away all their power. That is the problem.

The NDP wants negotiations between the union and Canada Post to continue because negotiation is the only way Canada Post employees will get enhanced safety and equity on the job.

For example, one worker in Windsor has been working for Canada Post for 21 years. She is a passionate worker and loves what she does, but Canada Post's draconian management methods were endangering her family life and her health. Because of the mandatory overtime she has to do and pressure from management, Joanne sometimes works until 10:30 at night. Working conditions like that and management's performance demands are unrealistic and harmful to workers' health.

We have been hearing some rather surprising facts, and not the nice kind of surprise. It is quite shocking. In the past two years, the rate of accident and injury among Canadian postal workers has gone up by 43%. Any other business whose illness and injury rate went up by 43% would wake up and do something.

This is proof that the government must take the situation seriously and let postal workers negotiate with the tools they have right now and in a way that is fair and does not harm Canadians.

The 42,000 urban mail carriers and 8,000 rural and suburban mail carriers care about their work. I remember very well that in 2011, no one wanted to stop working. It was a lockout. The employees wanted to get back to work, but they also wanted to negotiate their working conditions legally.

I want to talk about another thing. Pay equity, which the Liberal government likes to brag about, is extremely important. It is primarily women mail carriers who work in our rural areas. Those women mail carriers are suffering injustices and are being treated unfairly in terms of working conditions and salary. This needs to be fixed. That is why we should let the union negotiate with Canada Post. We need to let the workers negotiate in good faith. It is extremely important.

That is why I am calling on the government to back down before this injustice.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a little cold in here. We are not moving very much. I have a question for my hon. colleague. Today is November 23, so Christmas is a month away. E-commerce, which is made up primarily of small businesses, and retail shops use Canada Post to deliver parcels, and everything we need, to our homes. Some 70% of e-commerce in Canada is delivered by Canada Post.

This strike, which has been going on for five weeks, is having a very negative impact on our economy, especially on SMEs. Canadians need to get their mail. Negotiations have been ongoing for a year, and no deal has been reached, despite all the efforts. This bill is being introduced to get people back to the bargaining table and to make sure arbitration takes place.

I wonder if my hon. colleague can explain the fact that NDP governments in Ontario and other provinces have used this kind of back-to-work legislation in the past.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the rotating strike has not been going on for a year. It has only been a few weeks, and it is normal that there be some delay in the delivery of parcels. My constituents in Drummond are not going to come to see me and say the world is ending because of a one- or two-day delay.

The citizens of Drummond and Canada know that it is not normal to have a 43% increase in injuries and illnesses in the last two years. That is not normal.

It is true that there is currently a transformation at Canada Post, and this transformation requires a transformation of working conditions. That is what the mail carriers are asking for. Let them negotiate in peace.

When it was time to deal with the cuts made by Canada Post to sickness and other benefits, the government was not there to support workers. Now, when big companies like Amazon have deliveries to make that may not arrive on time, they are rushing to take care of Canadians first.

Parcels are reaching their destination. They are getting where they are going. This is not a general strike; these are rotating strikes. We are not talking here about the lockout in 2011, which was very poorly managed. I remember it very well. On June 23, 2011, I was on my feet at 3:30 a.m. to speak to it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously my colleague and I will disagree on the necessity of the back-to-work legislation.

Even in 2011, we understood the seriousness of the issue. This is not something that any government should take lightly. Understanding how important it was to ensure that every member of Parliament had an opportunity to speak for their constituents, we never put forward time allocation on the back-to-work legislation. We ensured that every member of Parliament had an opportunity to participate in the debate.

What is my colleague hearing from his constituents on the fact that the Liberal government is once again trying to ram through legislation that impacts not only employees of Canada Post and CUPW members, but also small business owners across the country who are very concerned about this issue?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although it is true that what the Conservatives did in 2011 was wrong, they did not use time allocation as the Liberals are doing today. It is such an undemocratic measure and just unbelievable.

We, in the NDP, are ready to fight to have the opportunity to speak at third reading and to speak to why workers must have the option of rotating strikes.

Earlier, someone said that this is horrible, that this is the holiday season. The workers said that there would be a truce during the holidays. These are all just pretences and a false crisis fabricated by the Liberal government and Canada Post management to bring in this completely illegitimate legislative measure.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure to split my time with my good friend from Saskatoon West this evening.

It is a remarkable debate for me to attend and listen to the arguments being put forward by the Liberals and hearing my Conservative colleagues talk about the past experience over the same issue. It is Groundhog Day again. Mr. Speaker, I believe you were with us here in the chamber as well the last time this happened, when Canada Post workers were forced back to work by the Parliament of Canada. It is a pretty heavy force. If one is a worker or a union, it is the Parliament of Canada that can intervene, with all these powerful people and the Prime Minister invoking a contract or invoking a path forward.

In the last government, let us face it, the Conservatives and Mr. Harper were not elected primarily on their strong defence of union rights in Canada or the notion of collective bargaining. They did not campaign on it, they did not promise it and they did not really do much about supporting collective rights in Canada for working people. After the 2015 election, we could understand why working people and the labour movement were quite encouraged, because they had so much encouragement from the then candidate, now Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, that if the Liberals got in things would be dramatically different. On the surface, Harper versus the Liberal leader sure looked and sounded different. However, what is important to understand is how it affects people's lives.

Let us go back to what happened to Canada Post workers before. They were in the midst of negotiations and the government of the day, the Harper government, let it be known to management that it was prepared to move back-to-work legislation forward through the House of Commons to essentially impose a contract. As has been said a few times in this chamber, the then government allowed Parliament to talk about it without invoking closure on the debate itself, which unfortunately the Liberals have done. Moving forward, Canada Post workers and workers in general would have thought that the Liberals were not going to do the same thing. However, they did exactly the same thing just a few weeks ago. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour got up publicly and said they were prepared to do whatever it takes, including all options on the table, including what we see here tonight, which is to force a position on the working people, removing all incentive from the employer to bargain.

Let us look at that for a moment. When that incentive is removed, when the employer knows that the government is going to invoke back-to-work legislation, the possibility of what we call free and fair collective bargaining is gone. There is no incentive anymore for the employer to work out the things that it needs to work out with its employees.

When we go back to what happened in 2011, a contract was imposed. It turned out that the contract, and the process that was used, was unconstitutional and thrown out of court. That took four years. Therefore, Canada Post workers were very much looking forward to this round of negotiations, because the last round went so sideways, to work out some of the significant problems they had with their contract, the one that had been imposed on them.

One of the significant pieces we have been hearing from postal workers in our riding, and I hope the Liberal members have been listening to this, is around health and safety. Canada Post workers, carriers in particular, are experiencing five times the injury rate of other federally regulated workers. Everybody wants a good postal service for our small businesses, for families sending letters back and forth and with Christmas coming. One of the ways to have a good postal service is to make sure your workers are not being injured at a rate five times higher than the equivalent. Would that not be a good thing to negotiate at the table, to fix after it has not been fixed for the last seven years?

The Liberals indicated to the management at Canada Post, “Don't worry, guys, we've got your back. You don't have to figure out how to make working conditions better. You don't have to figure out how to make sure that people aren't forced into mandatory overtime and late-night deliveries in the middle of winter that they simply can't say no to without being suspended or potentially fired.” We should collectively as a Parliament care about all those things. What is amazing is this. It must have been in the Liberals' notes, because each one rose to give their speech and said, “I regret this”, “I feel regret.” It was repeated over and over again. Maybe they all spontaneously had the exact same motion. I am going to suspect they were told that they had to say these two things, that they have great regret and that they support collective bargaining. It is a strange thing to say, “I support collective bargaining”, in the middle of a debate in which collective bargaining is being removed.

It is a bit ironic, maybe contradictory. The process we are under right now is the nuclear option for Parliament, that once the bill itself comes forward, there is no room for debate anymore.

The clock starts and the clock is over. This evening, this House will introduce a law, and two and a half, three hours later will have passed the law at first, second and third reading, and will have passed it out of this place.

It is incredibly rare that that ever happens, and the only time I have ever seen it happen properly is when the entire House agrees. In this case, that is clearly not true. What the Liberals are doing is imposing the nuclear option of shutting down every stage of debate, ordering the House to go through the stages without any discussion. That prohibits us from doing our central job, which is to hear from each other, debate the issues and maybe, shockingly, have our minds changed by what we hear.

However, the process that the Liberals have laid out makes Parliament's job impossible. It is impossible for us to do what we are supposed to do on behalf of the people who sent us here, which is to, consciously and with the best available intelligence we have, understand the issues facing the country, debate them, listen to the other side and come to some form of resolution.

This is the opposite of what is happening here tonight. The Liberals have said, “We will impose the will of a majority government. We will impose our will upon this place, and thereby impose our will upon the 40,000 or 50,000 workers at Canada Post.”

Unions have been taking a beating, in terms of reputation over the last several years, maybe even further back. It is important to recognize what has been accomplished, that some of the fights that unions and working people have engaged in have not benefited just unions but have benefited all working Canadians.

The idea of a proper length of working week, the idea of maternity leave, the idea of employment insurance and the idea of some sort of social safety net for when people fall on hard times, much of that was fought for with blood, sweat and tears by the labour movement. It is not just opportunities that only people associated with the labour community enjoy, but all working Canadians can now enjoy.

Rights are not one of these things that we get to win once; we have keep winning them over and over again. One of the rights that was fought for and constitutionally protected is the right to negotiate, the right to engage with employers over working conditions, salary, overtime, the safety that happens at work, the ability to not be fired because of a complaint or the raising of a concern, to not be fired because a boss sexually harasses someone and they resisted. All of those rights are fought for and won at the table where there is negotiation, where a little is given and a little is taken.

The union attempted to do that here, and it was undermined. I use that word very specifically. If we listen to the Liberals, they talk about this sudden crisis that is just crushing the Canadian economy and about how this rotating strike was threatening Canada's reputation as a trading nation, about how it is all crumbling down with a five-week partially rotating strike on communities, where the backlog that has been reported will take two days to clear up.

My goodness, what an economic crisis that the government must be seized with. It must shut down debate in Parliament and force the union back into a position where it has virtually no power. That is the crisis.

I heard the Minister of Labour say yesterday that people's welfare cheques and employment insurance cheques were being held up because of this crisis. Then we find out that the union had actually gone to management and said, “Let us make sure that these important cheques get to people who need them.” Management said, “No. Oh no, no, let us hold those back.” It did this because it needed to manufacture that sense of crisis that working and poor Canadians would not get critical money they needed to stay alive.

That was manufactured, and the Liberals bought into it. They cannot have their eyes closed to this. They are not stupid. They know this is going on right now.

What is frustrating for me is that in the state of politics in the world today, cynicism grows quickly. One of the things that working people felt they had with the government was an ally. The government did some things on some legislation that revoked what the Harper administration had done. Let us give credit where credit is due.

However, when push came to shove, rather than saying to the management at Canada Post, “Sit down. Negotiate a fair wage and safe working conditions, so we have the best postal service for all Canadians to enjoy”, rather than do that, the Liberals gave them the wink and the nod and said, “Do not worry. You do not have to negotiate, you do not have to move forward. Just like in the past, we have a bill ready that will simply invoke a process upon the union, and management will not have to negotiate.”

This is a constitutionally protected right. This legislation that the Liberals are moving through will be challenged, and I believed successfully challenged, in court. It is a shame that it has come to this under the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy when my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley shares his words with this House, except when one is on the receiving end of them, and then it is not that much fun. However, I know him to be a fair and reasonable member of Parliament.

He was here in 2011, as was I, when the Conservatives brought forward their back-to-work legislation. In comparison, in 2011, the Conservatives appointed an arbitrator. In this legislation, we would agree, both sides, to a mediator-arbitrator, but appointed by both sides. There would have to be agreement. If there was no agreement, the minister would consult with the CIRB to appoint one.

Mediation was not part of the Conservatives' process. Mediation would be central to this process.

The Conservatives had a final offer, and their offer was instilled in the legislation, with terms and conditions set out in the legislation. The wages in that legislation were actually less than what Canada Post had agreed upon with the union. In comparison, no terms would be identified in this legislation. It would just be the process.

If I could close on the guiding principle, and he mentioned health and safety—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Sorry, I think the member will probably have other opportunities to raise his guiding principle. I know everyone enjoys hearing him, but the time is up.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

As someone also from our east coast, Mr. Speaker, I thought you would have had more sympathy for my friend that getting to the point sometimes is more of a process than it is a product.

First of all, the process the Liberals are using in terms of forcing this legislation is actually worse than what Harper did, because there was no limit on debate in the 2011 vote. The debate allowed participation by all members. The Liberals are not allowing that. That is beyond dispute. That is a fact.

In terms of the actual conditions of the bill, my concern is that there already was a mediator appointed to this process. That failed. I thought it was twice, but maybe it was three different times. If the sides are not equal, and one side feels like the government is putting its finger on the scale and prefers one side over the other, the incentive to negotiate and make those difficult concessions from both sides is greatly diminished. That has been our concern.

When the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour went out two and a half weeks ago and said she was prepared to do what we are doing here today, that tipped the scales. That dramatically reduced the incentive for the employer in this case to give up anything. That is how negotiations work. If I know there is an outcome I prefer that is already prepared, why would I bother going through the difficult process of making concessions ahead of time? That has been our struggle with this. As soon as that indication was made, the chances of that negotiating table working out were greatly diminished to the point of nothing.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's speeches during debate. I appreciate their passion. I am hoping that this is an example of the passion and commitment they will have in fighting for Alberta's oil and gas workers and for B.C.'s forestry workers. I hope they are next in line.

I want to touch on some of the things he spoke about in his speech. Certainly as Conservatives and New Democrats, we have our differences in philosophy, but I think this comes down to a matter of trust.

During the election, the Prime Minister and the Liberals promised to never take veterans back to court. They promised to restore door-to-door mail delivery. They promised modest deficits. They have broken all those promises. Is there any reason, when they say they are going to be appointing these mediators, that there should be any trust from us and the other parties and the members of CUPW? I think they have eroded any trust that would be there.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can tolerate quite a bit. Canadians are actually generally becoming more and more open to different political philosophies. We are seeing families no longer wedded to single partes forevermore. They move around and consider different things. However, the thing that drives them crazy is when someone stands up and says, “vote for me, I'm going to be different”, which is what the Prime Minister, I would say, very effectively argued in the last election, both in form and substance, about those things my friend pointed out.

He said, “Trust me, I'll get a pipeline to the coast.” No, he bought one. He did not promise that, but he bought an old one.

It was, “Trust me, I'm going to stand up for labour rights no matter what.” We see that the way this came to pass fundamentally eroded that promise made to working people. He said we needed the bargaining tables to work out. For that to be true and to actually be executed, the bargaining tables have to be allowed to do what they need to do without the interference we see here today by the government.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly disappointed to have to rise today to speak to a motion that will ram through back-to-work legislation. Indeed, today is the day we leave behind sunny ways and see the dark days ahead for workers' rights in Canada.

I want to remind the government that Canadian workers have a constitutional right to free and fair collective bargaining and a constitutional right to strike. However, here we are, back to the future, in 2011. We have had a change in government since then, but the new boss sounds like the old boss, it seems, when it comes to legislating workers back to work at the behest of commercial interests, and in violation of workers' rights.

It is disappointing that this government came into office promising to be different, and as we have heard, promising to respect workers' rights, but when it really matters, at the very first opportunity to really stand up and be counted to answer the question from that famous labour song, Which Side Are You On?, this government chooses the side of its Bay Street friends.

It is unconscionable for any government, let alone a government that says it respects workers' rights, to undermine the collective bargaining process with the threat of back-to-work legislation. How can postal workers expect their employer to bargain in good faith when the government has already signalled that it sides with the employer? With back-to-work legislation hanging over the bargaining table, why would Canada Post bother to bargain? It knows that the government has its back. Just wait it out, and the workers will be ordered back to work.

What about the workers? We really have not heard as much about them and their rights from members opposite. Here are some facts to bear in mind. Over the past two years, the accident and injury rate for Canada Post workers has increased by 43%. In 2017, 25% of postal workers were injured in the course of their duties. Workplace accidents among Canada Post employees are five times higher than the average in other federally regulated sectors. In rural areas, women make up 75% of Canada Post workers. Rural postal workers work under unfavourable conditions compared to their urban colleagues. Since the postal transformation, the workforce has been cut in half and the workload and volume of parcels has increased by almost 100%.

Postal workers are experiencing extreme stress and anxiety due to working conditions that currently exist at Canada Post. All they want is to have their health and safety concerns addressed at the bargaining table. I think most Canadians can understand and support that.

I am ashamed that the government has seen fit to table this bill and ram it through Parliament. This bill would reinstate the working conditions of the CUPW and Canada Post expired contract. By CUPW's calculation, that means that in the four and a half weeks between now and Christmas, at least 315 disabling injuries will happen to postal workers; rural and suburban mail carriers, mostly women, will work roughly 250,000 hours for free; urban postal workers will work thousands of hours of forced overtime, missing evenings with their families without a choice; temporary workers will continue to be stuck at that first rung of the pay scale while delivering the holidays to us; and RSMCs will continue to be treated, as Canada Post says, with pay equity but not equality. This will be the direct result of the Liberal government's proposed legislation rammed through Parliament through an undemocratic process that stifles debate.

Postal workers are our friends, neighbours, customers and part of our community. We do not want them being hurt on the job, being paid unfairly, or being expected to work excessive amounts of overtime. They have a right to negotiate with their employer for fairer conditions. I do not think Canadians would begrudge any worker this right, and neither should this government.

I want to share a letter that was sent to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and copied to me. It is from Brian Jamieson, a postal worker from Victoria and a member of CUPW, Local 850. He says:

Canadian postal workers are trying to negotiate for safer work conditions and equality for all workers regardless of gender. I strongly believe that legislating them back to work will irreparably damage their ability to accomplish these goals.

One of the most important challenges postal workers are facing is inequality. Currently there are two faces to this inequality: gender inequality faced by [rural and suburban mail carriers] as addressed by Arbitrator Maureen Flynn in her recent decision; and the two tiered wage system new hires are faced with for doing the same work as their more senior counterparts.

In an article from The Globe and Mail...interim Canada Post CEO Jessica McDonald stated, “Pay equity is a basic human right and therefore pay disparity on the basis of gender is wholly unacceptable for Canada Post.” Unfortunately to date, none of the offers presented by Canada Post address pay equity for RSMCs (mostly women) in any meaningful way going forward. This seems to suggest that Canada Post's position on pay equity is somewhat insincere....

Would you consider it to be reasonable, or fair, for Members of Parliament in rural areas to make less money than MP's from urban areas simply because they are in more isolated or less population dense regions? Or worse, because they were women? I hope not. They do exactly the same work and have the same responsibilities as their urban counterparts. But this is what is happening at Canada Post, both with [rural and suburban mail carriers], and with a two-tiered wage system that holds employees hired after February 2013 to less pay than coworkers hired before....

Canada Post and CUPW have been negotiating for almost a year now, and to date, Canada Post has made virtually no movement on the issues I have outlined herein. Now that rotating strike action is underway, and as the Christmas season approaches, Canada Post is finally feeling the pressure, and beginning to talk on these key issues. It is my fear that back to work legislation will remove that pressure and provide absolutely no incentive whatsoever for Canada Post to come to an agreement around the many equality and health & safety issues that need to be addressed.

By tabling this bill, the government has decided to tip the balance in favour of the employer. Fifty thousand Canada Post employees have been thrown under the proverbial bus.

On January 30, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada released a landmark labour law decision, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan. It concluded that the right to strike is a constitutional right.

In a democracy, free and fair collective bargaining must be allowed to happen. The power dynamic has always been and continues to be with the employer. Strikes are a last resort for workers when their employers cannot and will not negotiate, and it is not a step they take lightly, but that step is a right workers have in Canada, and it is protected under the Constitution.

It is offensive in the extreme that the government has decided to take sides in this process, and it is adding insult to injury that this legislation is going to be rammed through without proper debate. It makes one wonder who the Liberals really represent in this place.

In closing, as my colleague, the member for London-Fanshawe, has said, it is a black Friday indeed in Canada, for democracy and for Canadian workers.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member argues that there is a constitutional right. There is a constitutional right, which the Supreme Court recognized in 2015, but in 2016, the Ontario Superior Court, in looking at the 2011 legislation related to Canada Post, clearly stated that there could indeed be limitations on that right and that what was wrong was the way the 2011 legislation implemented it. I have read this legislation, and I believe that it meets all the tests of the 2016 Ontario Superior Court decision.

One of the things the hon. member mentioned was the health and safety issue. The first thing the mediator or arbitrator would be required to decide, if there was arbitration, would be to ensure that the health and safety of employees was protected. I would ask my hon. colleague this. If that is the guiding principle, why would we be concerned that the employer, in the course of negotiations, would not respect the health and safety needs of the employees?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague would have more experience with reading decisions than I do.

I will put it back to him and ask what the employer's incentive would be to follow what the member said. Those are all good words and I understand that. Everyone goes to the bargaining table with good intentions, but ultimately, both sides bargain for what they want. The actual process of free collective bargaining is that both sides need to be able to negotiate and they need to be together at the table forcing themselves to work.

Back-to-work legislation is like an awning hanging over the collective bargaining table. What is the incentive for an employer to bargain? The employer can simply sit back and wait for workers to be ordered back to work through legislation. Back-to-work legislation takes away all the power of workers to work toward things like improving health and safety. I am not suggesting that employers are not interested in health and safety but what I am saying is that to get the best health and safety in a workplace it needs to be bargained collectively free and with the ability to strike.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. I appreciate that on an issue where there is so much passion, she delivered her speech with a lot of respect and constraint.

I listened closely to her talking about choosing a side in the interest of looking at Canada Post workers specifically and something that would be in their interests. As I perused the Canada Post pension holdings, the holdings of the pensioners of Canada Post, I noted that among those holdings the sixth highest holding is Canadian Natural Resources Limited, $100 million; Enbridge, the seventh highest holding, $98 million; Suncor, $92 million; and Trans Canada, $68 million. Those four companies alone represent $358 million.

As the member talks about choosing in the interests of Canada Post workers, I would ask that she consider working with her party to come to a position in the interests of those workers and support Canada's energy sector. I wonder if she would take that to heart in upcoming conversations in support of Canadian postal workers.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I also listened to my hon. colleague's words about investments and pensions and I am more than willing to have a conversation outside of this debate.

However, what I am here today to talk about is the workers' constitutional rights being violated by a federal government. I think that is abhorrent. Government should be here to protect people's constitutional rights and not be part of legislation that will violate those rights.

I would invite a conversation with my hon. colleague to talk about the constitutional rights of workers. Perhaps we could share his comments on the natural resources sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, some people have started their speeches by saying they are pleased to join in the debate. Make no mistake that it is difficult. The NDP likes to characterize it as something less than that, but members should be assured that this is an action this government has not undertaken lightly. This has been quite some time in the making.

Since coming to government after the October 2015 election, Canadians have seen, and certainly organized labour has seen, that we go about our business quite differently than the previous Conservative government did. We take a different approach to how we work with organized labour. Having been here during that 10-year period, it was nothing short of an attack on organized labour. From the outset, it was obvious that Stephen Harper had organized labour in his crosshairs and was willing to do what he had to do in order to throw a wrench into organized labour in this country.

We saw egregious bills like Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, bills which were purposeful in trying to handcuff unions in this country from being successful and from giving them any opportunity to grow and represent Canadian workers. It is unfortunate, because when we look at organized labour, we can certainly say that nobody has helped grow the middle class more than union leadership in this country, which fights for fair wages, fair benefit packages, overtime benefits and health and safety issues. It has been organized labour that has led those fights over the years. We, as Canadians, enjoy many of the benefits of those efforts.

When we became government, one of our first pieces of legislation was Bill C-4, which was legislation that led to overturning the egregious bills I just referenced, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We were trying to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations. We were trying to restore a tripartite approach to developing labour laws in this country, where we have workers, employers and the government sitting down and crafting labour laws that protect us all and benefit us all.

We saw that thrown out of balance. We saw the attempt to change the Canada Labour Code through backdoor initiatives. Rather than using a tripartite approach, we saw it being changed by private members' legislation. We saw how much benefit it brought the Conservatives in the last election. Any organized labour, any rank and file member, in this country knew two numbers. They knew the number 377 and they knew the number 525, because both those bills were earmarked for organized labour.

We strengthened occupational health and safety standards in this country, because we believe every worker in this country has the right to arrive home safe to be with their families. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment and violence. I try to give credit where credit is due, and I must say that both the Conservatives and the NDP were very helpful and supportive of this legislation. We have good legislation, one which has been a long time in the making and a long time coming, but certainly both opposition parties were supportive of it.

We ratified ILO Convention 98 to ensure the rights to organize and to enter into collective bargaining. That convention had been advocated for for over 40 years, and it was our minister who was able to get that ratified at the ILO, something which we are very proud of as a government.

In budget implementation act No. 2, we brought forward legislation that will modernize labour standards to reflect today's workplaces. This is something from which many in organized labour will not benefit as it is for the many unorganized workspaces where shop floors are not unionized. It is for people in precarious work who are trying to knit together two or three part-time jobs in order to make a living and pay the bills. These are the most vulnerable workers in this country.

The modernization of labour standards in this country is going to be of help to all of these workers. This helps make sure that contracts are not flipped and that benefits are not lost when contracts are changed so that if there is a seniority list and certain people have worked for the company for seven years, they are able to maintain the benefits they worked for and earned over seven years and not lose those benefits in any way. We are very pleased to be able to move forward on that.

We have introduced pay equity legislation to ensure fairness. This makes sure that people and women in this country get equal pay for fair and equal work. We have also doubled the benefits in the wage earner protection program.

These are all positive initiatives we have embarked on and undertaken in this government.

The banning of the domestic use and the import and export of asbestos is very important. This is something that the CLC, Unifor, Canada's Building Trades Unions and many others in organized labour have been fighting to get for years. We are working with organized labour and employers as well, taking a tripartite approach to making sure we get right the banning and abolition of asbestos.

We as a government are committed to free, collective bargaining, and we believe that a negotiated agreement is always the best solution in any industrial dispute. That is why we refrained for so long before we got involved in this particular dispute.

This dispute has gone on for a year. We were engaged right from the start, appointing a mediator to let both sides share their grievances and find a way to come to some kind of agreement. A mediator was involved for a year. As the strike vote was taken and as the rotating strike began five weeks ago, we even appointed a second mediator and then a special mediator.

These mediators were selected from a list. We provided a list, and both sides were able to weigh in on who the mediator should be so as to build trust in the mediation process and in the mediator himself. The mediator was agreed upon.

The minister was very clear yesterday. She has worked tirelessly, as has her staff and the department. They have done everything possible to assist the parties to reach an end to this dispute. Despite their efforts, CUPW and Canada Post just have not been able to get to an agreement. Therefore, 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 functioning at full capacity.

It is important to understand that we knew as the process evolved that it was probably going to land here because both sides were very entrenched on a couple of different aspects of the negotiation. It is important that Canadians and Canadian businesses who rely on Canada Post and its crucial infrastructure are able to do their business. We know that 70% of online purchases are delivered by Canada Post. We know that Canadians rely on it as a service and that it is critical to many Canadian businesses.

In my own riding I have a small company called Galloping Cows, an exceptional company owned by Ron and Joanne Schmidt. They make pepper jellies and chutneys. They are very busy at this time of the year. We have many people from my riding and Atlantic Canada whose children have moved away and are living elsewhere, some in Fort McMurray. Thus, the packages to Fort McMurray from Port Hood are always a big part of the business that Galloping Cows does each year, which, certainly from Remembrance Day to Christmas, could make or break this young business. They have really felt the impact. It is not just that orders have not been sent, but also the fear of those who have sent parcels already. That is a big part of it, the threat of not getting the parcels to people in time for Christmas.

Throughout these negotiations, the Government of Canada has been proactive and tireless in its attempts to have the parties reach an agreement. The minister has discussed this at length. Federal conciliation officers and mediators have been assisting the parties throughout their negotiations. We know that there have been a lot of side conversations with people. Beyond the actual negotiators, many people have wanted this to be resolved and have offered their input to try to find resolution to this. We appreciate their efforts.

However, when bargaining reached an impasse, we appointed a special mediator to bring a fresh set of eyes to the table. It is always of benefit when we can take some issues and look at them with a little bit of a different perspective.

The negotiations stalled again, so we offered voluntary arbitration. That was our suggestion. However, our government's offer of voluntary arbitration was declined. Thus, we have tried pretty much every club in the bag.

We also appointed a special mediator this week, in the hope 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.

No member of our government wants to be dealing with back-to-work legislation, but there is no end in sight and that is why we find ourselves in this situation. Canadians are feeling the effects of this dispute and it would be irresponsible for us not to act in the interests of all Canadians.

As I said initially, I can contrast our government's approach to organized labour to that of past Conservative governments. We can also look at the back-to-work legislation by the Conservatives in 2011. We know that after two weeks of rotating strikes, former prime minister Harper imposed back-to-work legislation on Canada Post and the postal workers of CUPW. It was interesting because we know that the minister at the time appointed an arbitrator herself, which is a little different from what we have done. We have appointed a mediator-arbitrator where mediation will be first and foremost.

That mediation I know was mentioned by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He wanted me to remind him of the guiding principles, because he had talked about the health and safety issues.

I will quote subclause 11(3) of the legislation, which states:

In rendering a decision or selecting a final offer under paragraph (1)(b), the mediator-arbitrator is to be guided by the need

(a) to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected;

(b) to ensure that the employees receive equal pay for work of equal value;

Those are the guiding principles, which are vastly different from the guiding principles of the legislation put forward by the Conservatives back in 2011. We know they worked against unions. We know that its legislation was very heavily weighted against unions.

That is certainly not the case with this legislation. We have proven to be a party that supports unions and workers, and that believes in the collective bargaining process. This is a last resort and not something that our government takes lightly.

When a strike or lockout impacts only the two parties involved, the government will help when asked and will not intervene. However, when it affects Canadians and Canadian businesses and all available avenues have been exhausted, the government has a responsibility to intervene. That is why we are bringing forward this legislation to require Canada Post workers to return to work.

In closing, Canadians need to know that the government has done and continues to do everything in its power to help the parties. In any industrial dispute, we are willing to help the parties resolve their differences without a work stoppage. A work stoppage helps no one, neither the workers and their lost wages, nor the communities and others impacted by the postal services that businesses use.

This legislation is no Harper-era legislation. We are not forcing specific conditions on the union. We just need to get to an agreement. If we had any hope at this point that the differences between CUPW and Canada Post were close to a resolution, we would not be tabling this legislation. However, after five weeks of rotating strikes, we are forced to say that it is time to act. The government has been working with CUPW and Canada Post for the last year and has done everything possible to prevent this dispute. Let us get back to work, get the postal service functioning at maximum efficiency and get the parties to a deal.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute for a moment to the Canada Post workers across the length and breadth of this country. The workers work hard, in very intense conditions and the harshest climate on earth for mail delivery. The outside workers deliver mail every day through snow, sleet, blizzards and rain. They deserve our respect and confidence.

Canada Post has one of the most dysfunctional management practices in this country. We have seen Canada Post management cut off benefit payments to workers on short-term and long-term disability and maternity leave. Its sweatshop mentality has led to one of the highest accident rates of any workplace in Canada.

The Liberals have intervened and poisoned the well with this sledgehammer. They are supporting these management practices. My question is very simple. Why are the Liberals condoning these types of management practices and poisoning the well?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member may have come in late, because, as I had indicated—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. Members are not to draw attention to the presence or absence of members.

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

Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the member. Obviously, he did not have the benefit of hearing the guiding principles of this legislation and the fact that—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that those are the kind of inappropriate comments we have been hearing from Liberals all evening. He should just retract them, apologize, and try to put his case forward without the kind of insults we have seen—