Erin Weir

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, so far in this portion of the committee of the whole, I have asked the minister whether, in viewing back-to-work legislation as a last resort, she made an effort to negotiate an essential service protocol with the employees of Canada Post to ensure the delivery of cheques and other services that she does not want to see disrupted. We really have not heard a clear answer to that question, and I think we need one to be able to evaluate whether this actually is the last resort.

I also asked the minister, in terms of financial sustainability, how the Canada Post pension plan is going to be evaluated. That is a critically important question in terms of whether we believe management's storyline that there is a crisis and a need for concessions or whether we recognize that if Canada Post employees were treated the same as other federal public servants, there really would not be such a problem, and we could negotiate with them on a much more positive basis.

I asked the minister whether there would be consideration of postal banking as a way of improving the financial sustainability of Canada Post and of providing a needed service to Canadian communities, some of the same communities the government has tried to invoke in justifying this legislation. All we have really heard is that the arbitrator cannot determine Canada Post's corporate model. Fair enough, but surely the government can, and it would be nice to have an answer to that question as well.

Finally, the last thing I asked was when the government would keep its promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery. The minister mentioned the fact that the government has put a moratorium on the further removal of door-to-door mail delivery, which is a welcome development. However, it is not enough, and it is certainly not what was talked about during the election campaign.

It seems to me that a number of questions have come before the House this evening, and we have not really received complete answers to them. I think that really underscores why we should be having a great deal more time to debate and have deliberations on this type of legislation. The government has certainly made the case that its back-to-work legislation will not violate constitutional rights to free association and collective bargaining. However, one of the best ways to make sure that the legislation complies with the Constitution and other requirements is to actually have a full, proper amount of debate in this House.

I really appreciate the opportunity to participate in such a significant way in the committee of the whole, and I am glad we are having this deliberation. However, I feel that the deliberation we have had so far has really only underscored and exposed the need for a much more fulsome debate on this proposed legislation before we have to have a vote at third reading.

I appeal to other members of this House to reconsider the rushed timeline that has been adopted and to consider the possibility of having a few days, at least, of debate on something that might impinge on the fundamental workplace rights of tens of thousands of Canadians and that might do serious damage to a movement that is so important to the development of the middle class and those working hard to join it.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, something the government promised during the past election campaign was to restore door-to-door mail delivery. Of course, keeping that promise would make a huge, positive difference for Canada Post and its employees. I would like to give the minister a chance to inform the House when the government is going to restore door-to-door mail delivery.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, in this debate, the minister has spoken a great deal about the needs of lower-income people and smaller businesses that might depend on service from Canada Post. Something that would help those lower-income individuals and smaller businesses, but would also contribute to Canada Post's financial sustainability, would be for it to move into the area of postal banking. This would provide much-needed financial services to communities and smaller enterprises, which are often underserved by the big banks, while at the same time providing a new source of revenue for Canada Post and a new way of using its offices all across the country in so many communities.

I would like to give the minister a chance to explain whether in this search for financial sustainability, she or the arbitrator will give serious consideration to implementing postal banking.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, the minister indicated to the House earlier today the criteria that would be presented to the arbitrator. One of the criteria the arbitrator is supposed to consider is the financial sustainability of Canada Post. The financial sustainability of Canada Post has often been questioned because the government has insisted that as a Crown corporation, it account for its pension plan on a solvency basis. This is a very unrealistic assumption that posits that Canada Post be wound up and have to pay out all of its pension benefits at once. Of course, this formula necessarily shows an unfunded liability and a problem with financial sustainability.

Some have proposed that it would make much more sense to treat Canada Post like the rest of the federal public service and account for its pension plan on a going concern basis. I would ask the labour minister whether she will be instructing the arbitrator to evaluate Canada Post's financial sustainability with a solvency valuation approach or with a going concern approach.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, now that I find myself seated on this side of the House, I feel a sudden compulsion to speak about the middle class and those working hard to join it. I would like to make the point that one of the building blocks for our middle class has been free collective bargaining. Things such as better wages, safer working conditions and paid time off have all come through free collective bargaining. Sometimes arbitration is used as a substitute, but when we talk about the new pioneering gains for middle-class people, they really can only come from free collective bargaining.

This is a goal that we should share on all sides of this House, and we should be very concerned when the government steps in to take away the ability for free collective bargaining, for a few reasons. One is that it sets a very negative precedent for other areas of the economy. Another is that it sets a negative precedent for Canada Post itself because if the employees and the management know that they should expect that the federal government is going to step in with back-to-work legislation, it really takes away any incentive or any impetus they have to try to negotiate an actual settlement. It actually gives them a bit of an incentive to wait around for the government to bring in this legislation.

The Minister of Labour actually recognizes that it is not desirable to have back-to-work legislation. She has described it as a last resort and has suggested that all available options were exhausted before bringing in back-to-work legislation. This seems a bit doubtful to me, given the fact that we do not even have a full-scale strike at Canada Post; we just have rotating strikes.

I would actually like to use some of my time to ask the Minister of Labour whether she attempted to negotiate an essential service protocol with the employees of Canada Post to ensure that they would continue to deliver the cheques to low-income people and to charities that she has spoken about and deems to be such an important service. Perhaps I could turn it over to the Minister of Labour to answer that question.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 23rd, 2018]

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

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

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

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

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.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we just had a government member stand up and ask the opposition to explain why this proposed back-to-work legislation might be unconstitutional. All we know for sure is that the last time the Government of Canada ordered postal workers back to work, it was ruled unconstitutional.

A way we might be able to figure out whether this proposed legislation is also unconstitutional is by having a full debate on it in the House and a rigorous study of it at committee. If even Liberal MPs are asking whether this legislation is unconstitutional, it really seems to make the case against the motion to accelerate the back-to-work legislation and in favour of doing our due diligence as parliamentarians.

Something else the government has said is a bit rich. We heard the Minister of Public Services and Procurement say that other countries have stopped delivering mail to Canada, as though this is some sort of international crisis. It is pretty important to put on the record that the reason other countries are not delivering mail to Canada is that Canada Post itself has asked them not to. There is a problem with the government taking an action from Canada Post management and using it as a justification for applying back-to-work legislation against its employees.

I wonder if the member for Elmwood—Transcona can think of any other instances of the government using that tactic in this debate.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, government members have been trying to justify back-to-work legislation by noting that management and the union did not avail themselves of arbitration.

I am wondering if the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge could clarify whether the government is contemplating back-to-work legislation that would require binding arbitration or whether the government is contemplating back-to-work legislation that would impose a settlement designed by the government itself.

[Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Jonquière and I both worked on the government operations committee study on the future of Canada Post, which clearly showed that cutbacks and concessions are not the way forward for Canada Post.

Today the government is introducing a motion that would sharply limit the amount of time to debate and consider back-to-work legislation for Canada Post employees. This is particularly concerning in light of the 2016 Ontario Superior Court ruling that the 2011 Conservative back-to-work legislation had been unconstitutional.

I would ask the member for Jonquière whether she believes that the Liberal back-to-work legislation is any more likely to be considered constitutional, or whether it would be yet another unconstitutional violation of fundamental workers' rights.