Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2018

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

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

Madam Speaker, I was not here in 2011, and I would have voted against that legislation because it was unconstitutional.

It was unconstitutional for a number of different reasons. It did not allow the union to have any input with respect to the arbitrator. It set specific contractual terms and took things that were key bargaining issues completely off the table to resolve the impasse. There was a winner-takes-all approach for the arbitrator. The government was biased in its decision-making with respect to the arbitrator. The court found for good reason that the legislation was not minimally impairing. This legislation is very different.

We can disagree as to whether it will be five weeks or maybe three months down the road for a significant impact on the Canadian economy. Perhaps the member would agree that would be an appropriate time.

On the constitutional question, could she at least agree that this legislation is significantly different from the legislation in 2011, and it is minimally impairing?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I respect my colleague, but I do not agree with him. There is a difference between the two bills, I fully agree. However, it is still a negotiation process, and arbitration is part of it. However, when the arbitrator asks the employer what it is offering to employees, the employer will be fully aware that the government will support it and will send people back to work no matter what. As a result, regardless of the union's demands, the employer will not grant it anything.

The arbitrator is therefore caught between the two. If he sides with the employer, the same problem exists. The sword of Damocles hangs over the negotiation. Negotiation is not being done in good faith, and it is the union members, the men and women who break their backs to deliver the mail, who will once again be punished.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague pointed out several times, it seems that people on the other side of the House have difficulty understanding what the balance of power is.

I would like to come back to some comments I made when I asked the hon. member for Joliette a question earlier today. Pressure tactics must exert pressure. When teachers strike in the summer or SAQ employees strike on a Monday night, no pressure is exerted.

Perhaps my colleague can explain why it is important for employees to have this tool, especially since mail carriers are making additional effort to ensure that the public is not affected.

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

Madam Speaker, I negotiated collective agreements for 15 years. I know what I am talking about.

When we were on one side of the table and we told the employer what was important to the union members, they asked us what we would do if our demands were not met. If we did not have the employees behind us there was nothing we could do.

In this case, the government is taking these pressure tactics away from the union. The workers' hands are tied.

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

Madam Speaker, let me say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

As some of my colleagues have said a few times, on June 23, 2011, with roughly two weeks of parliamentary experience, since the House had just started sitting on June 1, we had the chance to bear witness to two things. We had a Conservative government that wanted to convince us that the fate of the entire country for the next 100 years depended on a quick end to the labour dispute, but let us not forget that Canada Post locked out its employees. At the time, the NDP formed the official opposition and stood up for the workers. I will come back to that shortly.

It is ironic that there was talk of the economy's dependence on Canada Post given that, just two years later, there would be a direct attack on this public service when community mailboxes were imposed without consulting the communities affected. It seems that the economy's reliance on this service is always a function of who is lobbying the government. We clearly see that the employer, Canada Post, most often has the government's ear to the detriment of workers.

I had the pleasure and honour of listening to a great speech, and tragically the last speech by Jack Layton, who was then the leader of the official opposition. It was given at the beginning of the debate, here in the House, at a very late hour. He was exhausted as a result of an extremely difficult campaign and the health problems he experienced in those years.

He said one thing in particular that stood out for me.

He said that it is about greed.

That is what we are seeing again today.

Some people have become a laughingstock on the Internet. There are websites that make fun of people nearly killing themselves just to get $100 off a television and smashing down the front doors of a store on a Friday looking for bargains. I do not want to focus on those people.

What I do want to focus on is the fact that this kind of phenomenon is being used to justify what the government is doing here today. This is not about lobbying by small and medium-sized businesses. As my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît just put it so well, they are not the ones knocking on our doors. Small and medium-sized businesses are not here telling us that they are suffocating and that, without this bill, they will not be able to do anything. It is Amazon, eBay and the big web giants that are complaining, when, let's face it, they are already benefiting from several advantages the federal government has thrown their way. Those businesses, like Canada Post, are the ones asking the federal government to act. As many of my colleagues put it so well, they are manufacturing a crisis out of thin air and lying to Canadians about the magnitude of the situation.

It is a rotating strike. Yes, we do keep saying that, but we are doing so in the hopes of being heard by the Liberals. When workers hold a rotating strike, it is because they realize that the public needs the service they provide. Mail carriers are very proud to offer this service to the public. We saw that today when dozens of workers joined our NDP caucus and our leader, Jagmeet Singh, to condemn what the government is doing. They spoke about their personal situations. They spoke about the pressure that their job puts on their shoulders and about how all they are asking is to be treated with dignity at work.

Before I talk more about all of the concerns we have, I want to say that we are debating a motion under the worst gag order that I have ever seen since becoming a member of Parliament. The reason I need to talk about both the gag order and the substance of the legislation is that the gag order will prevent me from rising to speak to the legislation.

Think about it. The government is not even going to allow members to ask questions or make comments to those who give speeches at third reading. That is appalling. The Liberals think it is acceptable to only let one or two members of the NDP speak.

Perhaps they think that is acceptable because they did very little when it came time to stand up to the Harper government back in the day. Let us be clear. Whether we are the official opposition or the second opposition party, we will not give up. There is no doubt about that.

There have been a number of questions over whether the bill is constitutional. Naively, and probably in vain, I continue to try to make the Liberals understand that in spite of their differences, the bill introduced by the Conservative government and the one introduced by the Liberal government have one thing in common, and that is that they both eliminate the balance of power between employees and the employer. This is the very essence of the ability to negotiate in good faith. What incentive, what reason, did Canada Post have to do anything to resolve the conflict? A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister himself said that all options were on the table. A few days ago, the minister announced that she planned to introduce return-to-work legislation. The Liberals may see this as a way to exert pressure to mitigate or resolve the conflict. All it does is tell Canada Post that it can do absolutely nothing, since there is no more balance of power. This is absurd and goes against all of the principles of good faith bargaining in a free and democratic society.

It is funny because one of my colleagues talked about the Supreme Court's Oakes ruling, which referenced section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the notion that the government can violate certain rights and freedoms when it is for the good of a free and democratic society. I would like to know how violating the rights of people who are losing their short-term disability benefits and the rights of people on parental leave who are not receiving their benefits respects one of the values laid out in that very definition of a free and democratic society: human dignity. A free and democratic society means everyone is equal, but for the past seven and a half years or more, in spite of a Supreme Court ruling, Canada Post has still not stepped up to resolve pay equity issues for its employees. Women who work incredibly hard at Canada Post still do not get paid as much as their male colleagues. To me, that is outrageous.

A free and democratic society respects our political institutions. Our political institutions are not only what we see in the House of Commons. It is not only traditional political institutions. I am also talking about respect for a union, an important actor in the political arena that has a role to play. Taking one side at the expense of the other violates all these rights and is contrary to all these principles, in my opinion. For me, this is something totally unacceptable.

I can say that we all, as federal MPs, had the opportunity to work with mail carriers, especially during the last election. This is particularly absurd. They criticized the introduction of community mailboxes because they wanted to meet people. They considered it important for seniors or people with disabilities to receive their mail at home. It was important for many small and medium-sized businesses to benefit from the marketing effect of sending information by mail. We think that everything is done through the Internet today. Certainly that is what Amazon and eBay think when they lobby the federal government, but the post office still has a role to play.

The Prime Minister solemnly swore he would restore home mail delivery, but the best he could do was put a moratorium on the installation of new community mail boxes while making no changes to what had already been done. That decision was contrary to what those same workers wanted. I have no doubt that many of them trusted the Liberal Party. Now the Liberal Party is telling them their trust meant nothing to the party because it has flip-flopped. Maybe it did not actually have to flip-flop. Maybe that has been the real Liberal Party all along.

We are going to stand up for workers and especially for the rights of all postal workers and the right to negotiate in good faith in a free and democratic society.

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

Madam Speaker, in 2011, the Conservatives introduced legislation. In 2016, a superior court found that it was unconstitutional.

My friend asked how this legislation would satisfy the Oakes test. It is very simple. In 2011, that legislation met a pressing and substantial objective, so it needs to be rationally connected, which it was. It needs to be minimally impairing, which it was not. It did not get to a proportionality analysis.

However, if we look at the factors, the court said that this was not minimally impairing, It said that it imposed terms that compromised the effectiveness and fairness of the process. This process does not impose specific terms. It allows for negotiation, mediation and fair arbitration. The union had no say in the selection of the arbitrator. In this case, it does.

The 2011 legislation imposed final offer. This allows the mediator-arbitrator to incorporate all concerns, including the concerns of the union. It actually goes further and sets out guiding principles to ensure that the mediator-arbitrator will ensure that they are guided by the need to ensure the health and safety of the employees is protected and to ensure the employees receive equal pay for work of equal value.

That would be the answer to the member's question.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I appreciate his optimism.

Ultimately, the very existence of special legislation that forces a return to work upsets the balance of power and eliminates any incentive that management might have to negotiate in good faith. Its very existence creates a power imbalance.

What is more, Canada Post would have us believe that this is an urgent situation. Once again, I disagree. When we speak to the union and when we consider our own personal experiences with getting our mail, we can clearly see that the emergency has been grossly exaggerated and that, as I said, Canada Post has lied to the public. It is not absolutely urgent that the government take action, particularly considering that this is a rotating strike.

Lastly, I really do not share the member's optimism on this issue, particularly with regard to pay equity. The Supreme Court already found that pay equity was a problem at Canada Post. Seven and half years ago, I rose here in the House at 5:30 a.m. on June 23, 2011, to talk about the lack of pay equity at Canada Post. Despite the court rulings, this issue still has not been resolved.

It is therefore difficult for me to understand how an arbitrator, who must be guided by these principles, would be able to resolve this situation when management no longer has any incentive to negotiate in good faith.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I note that on the the New Democrats official social media site, they have put out a comment that what the Liberal government is doing is much worse and much more draconian than anything the Conservatives did. I know they objected in the past to some of the measures we took, but they have identified the Liberals as being way out of line.

Could the member talk a little more about how egregious the Liberal government is and how it has gone further than anything Conservatives did in the past?

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

Madam Speaker, it would be wrong of me to defend what the Conservatives did when they were in power, purely as an election ploy. However, I will nonetheless address an important matter that my colleague raised. We have made an effort to post on social media about what is happening today. In 2011, we had the opportunity to hold a debate about a similar situation for several days. We had a 62-hour debate. All NDP members participated, and many, like me, gave their first and second speeches during the debate.

What is going to happen today? The vast majority of NDP members, and the vast majority of MPs, will not be able to participate in the debate and will not be able to ask questions at third reading. We will have spent more time debating the gag order than the bill itself. That tells us all we need to know.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that I will be opposing the government's motion, Motion No. 25.

Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have been bargaining for over a year, and are now at an impasse. CUPW has called for a legal strike under the laws of Canada.

When in collective bargaining, several things happen. People go in, trade proposals and continue to bargain in good faith, hoping for the best outcome. When that fails, they might have other choices to make. The corporation can give notice and ask for a lockout to the workers, or the union can give notice and withdraw services, saying there will be a strike. They will no longer work, but will continue to bargain until they find a resolution.

One of the problems I am having is why the government is interfering with the process. This is a legal strike. There is nothing wrong with what the union is doing, under the law, so why is the government interfering? That is what everyone wants to know.

I have spent my entire working life protecting the rights of workers. What the government is doing with this motion and its legislation to force an end to a constitutionally legal strike by the workers at Canada Post is disgusting. The Liberals should be completely ashamed of themselves. The right to collective bargaining is a constitutional right, a moral right and a right I will fight to protect as long as I am able.

My caucus colleagues, my leader and New Democrats across the country will also stand to protect the fundamental right of every worker to take part in the collective bargaining process.

What the government has decided to do today, and I hope every Canadian worker is paying attention, is to interfere with and deny 50,000 Canadian postal workers their right to collective bargaining. This is outrageous. Stripping those rights from any Canadian worker should simply be illegal.

Again, I hope people realize that it is the Liberal government denying those rights, not only to our postal workers today but also to every Canadian worker.

This undemocratic motion and related legislation are so disgusting it is hard to know where to start in sharing my contempt. I am hopeful Canadians from coast to coast to coast will see the government's back-to-work legislation for what it is, a cynical, hypocritical, politically-motivated betrayal of Canadian workers and their families. This betrayal is being forced on Canadian workers by a Liberal government that likes to claim it represents the interests of workers, the middle class and their families.

Back in 2011, the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, “We have the hard right...in the government jamming the union with legislation that it cannot possibly accept.”

Another Liberal member, the member for Humber River—Black Creek, with CUPW being forced back to work, said “How can the hon. member stand there and defend legislation that clearly has only one objective, which is to break the back of the union?”

Another Liberal member, the member for Vancouver Centre, said, “Liberals agree that the government bill is a bullying bill. It is absolutely unfair and would be decided on what the arbitration outcomes would be...”

The member forCape Breton—Canso, said, “I appreciate and agree with the vast majority of what my colleague from Hamilton Mountain has shared with the House, and certainly the fact that this legislation is not only heavy-handed, but wrong-minded.” He was referring to Chris Charlton who was a member of the House at that time.

That is what the Liberals had to say back in 2011. I do not know what happened. Perhaps they all got into the same playroom, banged heads and came out in 2018 with the outrageous proposal they have brought to the House today.

The government is only interested in the rights of working Canadians when it is politically convenient. However, when the chips are down, it turns its back on them. When it really matters most, the Liberals show very clearly whose side they are on.

There is a lot of truth to the notion that there is not much difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives and about how much Liberals act like Conservatives when they get into power. It reminds me of the story of Mouseland, told by Tommy Douglas, in which he said that there may be cats with spots and there may be cats with stripes, but at the end of the day, they were still cats.

What is even more disgusting about this whole episode of denying rights of workers is that it really is totally unnecessary. Both parties in this dispute at the post office are in the middle of a collective bargaining process that is working the way it is supposed to work. The government should not interfere, plain and simple. Let the process work the way it is supposed to. Let the parties negotiate and let the mediator do the job until there is an agreement.

We all know that the government interfered in the collective agreement process over the last few weeks by suggesting publicly that it would consider back-to-work legislation. What did it think would happen to negotiations? Did it not anticipate that the employer would stop negotiating in good faith, knowing that the government was going to bail it out? It is unbelievable, and it is incredibly reckless.

It is also incredibly disgusting that the government let itself get played by the management at the government post office. It is pretty clear to almost all Canadians that the rotating strikes have had very little effect on mail delivery. However, the government has chosen to believe, and to be guided by, the inflammatory rhetoric of groups like CFIB and the propaganda campaign of Canada Post.

We all know that Canada Post has been waging a public relations campaign of misinformation designed to get public opinion on its side and create a fake crisis about mail delivery prior to Christmas. Photographs showing trailers full of undelivered packages have been proven false. Stories about mail not being delivered have been greatly exaggerated.

I had some proof of this yesterday, from very close to home. It came in response to a question about pre-Christmas delivery by my wife Sherry, who was looking to make an online order from a company in B.C. This is what the company replied, “We are currently only seeing delivery delays of 1-4 days with Canada Post in most circumstances. We are finding that tracking information is not always updating properly, but otherwise we haven't had any issues thus far.” So much for the delivery crisis.

In 2015, the Prime Minister, then leader of the second opposition party, said:

While the middle class is struggling to make ends meet, Stephen Harper’s plan has failed to help hard-working Canadians get ahead. Instead, the Harper Conservatives have rolled back many fundamental labour rights that affect workers’ ability to organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in a safe environment.

My question for the government is this. Why are you imposing back-to-work legislation when one of the major issues is about a health and safety problem? You are asking the people to go and work, unsafe—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address the questions and comments to the Chair and not to the government.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government is asking the workers to go back into a workforce that has unsafe conditions. The Liberals know this is a huge problem, but they are telling workers not to worry about it, that they are going to arbitrate and mediate it, that they are going to do everything they can. They say that this might take 90 or 120 days, but they want workers to get back to work because businesses have said they are suffering, of which the government has no proof.

Clearly, the government and the Prime Minister no longer believe in the rights of workers to bargain collectively. No government that believes in protecting the rights of Canadian workers could bring forward such a disgusting piece of back-to-work legislation and force it on Parliament and Canadians in such a shameful, undemocratic manner.

The NDP believes in free bargaining to achieve good collective agreements. The New Democrats will continue to defend the interests of workers and their right to collective bargaining. I will always be there to fight for the rights and interests of workers.

I urge the government to withdraw this motion and its back-to-work legislation. Let the collective bargaining process work like it should and let the parties get back to the negotiation table. I ask it to please not ask the workers to go back to work under unsafe conditions until this is resolved.

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

Madam Speaker, during the first bit of his speech, the member said that the NDP across the country would always stand up for the rights of workers. However, the evidence that we have been putting out there today does not really lend itself to that statement.

In Saskatchewan, an NDP government sent dairy workers back to work. In B.C., an NDP government sent elevator operators back to work. In Ontario, in the early nineties, while two current NDP MPs were MPPs in the provincial legislature, one of whom was a cabinet minister at the time, the NDP forced school boards to send their teachers back to work.

Would the member at least like to adjust his statement to say that “some” NDP members across the country stand up for workers?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what happened back in those days. I do not.

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

I just told you.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

You can tell me anything. You can say—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address his questions and comments to the Chair, and I would ask members on the government side not to talk back and forth. If they wish to ask another question, they should wait for that opportunity.

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that I do not know what happened then, but I know that I am an NDP member, and I am sticking to the issue we are dealing with today. I will continue to fight, not only today but also in the future, for anybody who is forced to go back to work.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is a bit hypothetical, but I think the answer would be instructive.

How long would the hon. member allow a strike to go on? Would he allow it to go on indefinitely? Does he not agree that there could come a time when the negative impacts of a strike are too great on very small businesses, perhaps even one-person operations? How long would he let it go? At what point would he say it is hurting too much and how would he know it is hurting too much? Where would he get his information from? The NDP is saying this strike is not hurting the small business sector, but who told him it is not hurting the small business sector?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, to answer the question of how long it should go on, a strike can last a long time. I have been involved in four of them. I am surprised the member is asking how long it should last when there is one in Hamilton that has been going on for five years. I do not see any interest by the Liberals in trying to fix that one.

Why this one? After five weeks, all of a sudden something has happened. Is it because the Liberals are under pressure? I am getting my mail. I do not see anybody being hurt. I do not know how long the member wants me to say it should go on for. It should continue until there is a settlement. Right now, small businesses are looking for alternatives. They were warned and are using them, so I do not see how they are being hurt by it.

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

Madam Speaker, there has been a great deal said about the cost to the economy. We have heard that mantra over and over again.

I would like the member to speak about the cost to the economy of injuries. We know that injuries cost the Canadian economy $26.8 billion and that CUPW members are saying that on-the-job injuries are a key reason for this strike. I would ask the member to please comment on that.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is causing a great deal of pain not only to the workers but also to their families, because the workers get a lower rate of pay if they have to be off work. This seems to be a major issue and the workers have asked their union to represent them on it and to make sure this problem is resolved. Asking Canada Post workers to go back to work and resolve their problems later is pretty sad when we would not ask ourselves to do the same thing.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Drummond.

Before I get into the substance of the bill to be debated later tonight, I would first like to thank the postal workers for their work. I remember how excited I was as a young kid when I went to the mailbox and saw mail. I was particularly excited whenever I found mail with my name on it. I will never forget that or how important the postal workers are in the service they provide to all of us.

Because I travel a lot in my job, I am away from my children a lot. From time to time, especially when my kids were little, I would pop a letter, a card, or something into the mail for them. At two years old and three years old, they would get mail delivered to them. Sometimes the mail would arrive when I was already back home, but the delight in their eyes when they received that package, letter or card was something else. I think about the postal workers all the time, the work they do and how hard it is. I do not think any of us can really know how hard their job is until we have walked in their shoes.

I complain about carrying my bag when it is loaded with stuff, as shoulder hurts and my back aches. I think about the postal workers who every day, no matter what the weather is like, carry their mail carrier bags full of stuff and deliver it to our homes. They are kind of like Santa Claus to me. It is what they do every day.

As the member of Parliament for Vancouver East, I absolutely rely on them to deliver my letters to constituents, our ten percenters as we call them. I rely on them to deliver information to our constituents to let them know what we are doing, and for the information our constituents send back to us with their comments. They play a critical role in assisting me in doing my job. That is who we are talking about today. I want to thank them and tell them how much I appreciate them.

With that appreciation, as a parliamentarian, it is my role to ensure that their rights are not being trampled on. Yesterday and today, I sat in the House listening to speech after speech by the Liberals, who were crying crocodile tears about how they do did want to wield the big hammer with their draconian back-to-work legislation for Canada's postal workers.

It was funny how each speech was a template of the same talking points, devoid of reflection on what the real issues are for postal workers and what they are fighting for. It is funny how all of the Liberal members are somehow oblivious to the fact that when the government signalled two weeks ago that it would bring in back-to-work legislation, it would be actively undermining the essence of the collective bargaining process. It is funny how even yesterday, when the minister of labour was confronted about her stacking the deck against the workers and their right for better working conditions, she said with a straight face that she and her government were on the side of workers.

There is no question that when the Liberals set the stage for their back-to-work legislation on Thursday with their motion, they were speaking loudly and clearly to Canada Post's management that there was no need to even show up at the bargaining table, to bargain in good faith, to listen to workers' concerns about working conditions. The Liberals were saying that they had management's back. That is the message the Liberals gave to management, and all management needs to do is to run out the clock. That is the message none of the Liberals will acknowledge has been given.

For all the Liberals' talk about supporting workers and unions in Canada, what is clear with this bill, which will be before the House in just a couple of hours, is that they do not care one wit about the rights of working people. They do not give a toss about the working conditions of workers.

As the Liberals stuck it to the workers yesterday and today, their claim that they hope and dream optimistically that an agreement can be reached before they enact the legislation is nothing more than a joke or a slap in the faces of Canada Post workers, although the government members standing in the House repeatedly say that over and again. They should feel their ears burning now while reflecting on their actions and their meaning and ramifications for these workers.

I do wonder how the Liberals will look at their letter postal carrier in the eyes the next time they receive their mail or package at home or in their office. To be here in the House today to listen to this phony optimism about supporting collective bargaining is insulting at best. One might ask what is at stake. Why has this situation reached the point it has today?

It started with the unconstitutional legislation brought against Canada Post workers by the Harper government in 2011 to force them back to work. That is right. The law and order Conservatives violated Canadians' charter rights. That is what they did back in 2011. To quote Justice Firestone, the effect of Harper's back-to-work legislation for postal workers in 2011 was to “substantially interfere with—and to disrupt the balance of—a meaningful process of collective bargaining between CUPW and Canada Post.”

Under the Liberals, this legislation that will be before the House shortly will do exactly what Harper did in 2011. It would substantially interfere with and disrupt the balance of a meaningful process of collective bargaining. The Liberal government likes to claim that it is doing something different today, but everyone sees it for what it is. Their gig is putting their hand over their heart while wiping away their big crocodile tears. The gig is up. Everyone knows that the Liberals are stomping on the rights of workers.

In case the Liberals have forgotten, the right to collective bargaining is an essential component of the right of association, a protected right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With their charter rights having been trampled by the Harper government, Canada Post workers have been bargaining in good faith to improve their working conditions for today and tomorrow, believing that the Liberal government would respect their right to do so. What are they bargaining for?

This is what I learned from a letter from a postal worker. If Canada post workers want to take a vacation, or if they get sick or are injured, they have to find someone to sort and deliver their own route. That is correct. If an employee becomes sick or injured, it is his or her responsibility to find their own replacement worker. I want to know from the Liberal members if any of them think it is reasonable to expect a postal worker to find another worker to do their work if they are sick or injured.

Similarly, outside workers for Canada Post are forced to do overtime. This means that unless a postal worker has medical documentation stating that he or she cannot do the overtime for health reasons, they will be forced to do the overtime or face disciplinary action. It does not matter that the worker might have a doctor's appointment or that their child might be sick. It does not matter that the worker might have to pick up their child from day care. Postal workers have no choice but to do the overtime, or face disciplinary action. I want to know from the Liberal members if that sounds reasonable.

Yes, postal workers are injured at a rate four times the national average. How awful it is that postal workers want better working conditions. How dare they put pressure on their employer with these demands and their rotational strike?

By the way, postal workers want to improve services and standards for the public by expanding Canada Post retail services, delivery hours, and offer banking services and access via the Internet. In some communities, they do not even have access to banking services. Canada Post could fill that need. That is what they are bargaining for. Why is the government not allowing that to happen? Why is the government allowing working conditions to continue to deteriorate and not ensuring that every single worker can go home healthy because they work in a safe working environment? That is my question for the government today.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously, it is a difficult decision for any government to enter into back-to-work legislation. That is the position we have been placed in, and it certainly is not an action that we take lightly.

The website for the Canadian Foundation for Labour Rights lists back-to-work legislation. It has been mentioned a number of times today, that there have been instances where governments have moved to enact back-to-work legislation. In NDP provinces, seven different NDP premiers have enacted back-to-work legislation 15 different times.

I would like to know what the difference was when the member was part of the NDP government in B.C. when it enacted the Public Education Support Staff Collective Bargaining Assistance Act in April 2000? That act ended a strike by support workers and cleaning staff of public schools and imposed a collective agreement. What was the difference and why did she vote for that then?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the government is really proud to say that NDP governments in the past have also brought forward back-to-work legislation, but I have never ever heard of a situation such as the one we heard today. Postal workers were standing outside of this chamber and told us what happened. Postal workers had bundled together letters with government cheques for people with disabilities. They told management they needed to get them delivered, but guess what? It was management that decided to delay the delivery of those letters.

Then lo and behold, the labour minister made her speech and asked how members felt about those people not getting their cheques. Whose set-up was that? Was it management which did that, or was it government members who put them up to it? I actually do not know, but the postal workers tried their hardest and damnedest to do what is right for the workers. The government members are paying them back by legislating them back to deplorable working conditions. Shame on the government.