Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso and the House for allowing me to share his time.
First of all, I acknowledge that, from time to time, there may be circumstances when the government and Parliament must intervene to put an end to a strike and force a return to work.
In my time as an MP, I have participated in such debates on a few occasions and have had to vote on the issues. There was mention of 1997, the last time there was a postal strike. That is one case. There was also the strike affecting grain producers in western Canada who were unable to deliver their products.
However, this is not the only means the government can use to help. I will give another example of parliamentary intervention. After the 2008 election, the government was faced with a situation that I will talk about later. The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. A few days later, OC Transpo, Ottawa's public transit company, went on strike. The strike lasted 53 days during the winter. It was very difficult for the people of our city. When Parliament resumed in January 2009, I asked for an emergency debate at the earliest opportunity. The Speaker at the time scheduled a debate for the next day because Parliamentary staff had to be able to make arrangements to return home in the evening.
In the meantime, knowing that there would be a debate in the House the next day, the two parties, which were at serious odds and very far apart in their respective positions, agreed to go to arbitration. The strike was settled.
The government can also intervene by using its moral authority, by debating, as we are doing at present, but not by making threats.
Let me set up the backdrop to this situation. I want to go back to the 2008 election. Those who were here and everyone in Canada will remember that, following the election, the government was supposed to provide a fiscal update. When the government provided the House with the update, it added certain elements that had never been discussed during the election. One of those elements was to suspend the right of public servants to strike. Parliament had recognized that right to strike in the 1960s under the leadership of Lester Pearson. The right to strike has never really been misused in Canada, but it did strike a balance between management and the union's need to assert its rights. Without notice, the government was proposing to suspend public servants' right to strike.
The three opposition parties at the time agreed to say no, and that lead to the prorogation I talked about earlier. The government did not change its mind, at least not at the time.
Here is another factor: a few days ago, an Air Canada union went on strike after an agreement could not be reached. Everyone agreed that Canadians who use Air Canada had not suffered very much because of that strike—as there are other ways to fly other than Air Canada. In less than 24 hours, less than a day after the strike began, the government still tabled back-to-work legislation. The legislation did not have to be considered because an agreement was concluded. That being said, like anyone with a background in labour, I am sure that negotiations are attempted once it becomes known that back-to-work legislation is planned.
The third factor in this backdrop is the current Canada Post situation. Following unsuccessful negotiations and its members' overwhelming vote, the Canada Post union decided to launch a rotating strike that affected local mail delivery. However, the union members and representatives agreed to deliver cheques to those who needed them at all times. They still showed some flexibility.
On June 9, they proposed going back to work if Canada Post agreed to restore the clauses that were in the old collective agreement. But Canada Post did much more than just refuse; it put the locks on the doors and imposed a lockout, while negotiations were still under way. That is unheard of. While the negotiations were still under way, the government showed up with a bill to force workers back to work after a lockout. That makes no sense.
This backdrop is very worrisome for anyone who believes in the legitimacy and legality of the right to strike. We are in a situation where a right has been recognized in this country for decades, a right that has its place, a right that creates problems for the employer whose workers are on strike or for the people who use and need the services in question. There are other considerations, however. There is the essential nature of the service affected, but that is not what we are talking about. I think it is understood that this situation is disruptive to business owners and perhaps charitable organizations. But by its very nature, a strike must cause disruption in order to bring pressure to bear at the bargaining table. That is what the union was trying to do and what Canada Post never wanted. We are all aware that Canada Post has just one shareholder and that is the Crown, in this instance, the majority Conservative government, which acts for the Crown.
This backdrop is very worrisome for anyone who believes in upholding rights that have existed in a nation decade after decade, Parliament after Parliament. That is why—as the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso mentioned—we are going to propose certain amendments; this is a draconian piece of legislation and needs to be less rigid.
As I said, we accept that there may be times when the government can and must take action, but this is not one of them. As the leader of my party noted, the government is wielding a club or a hammer, and is coming at every problem as if it were a nail. This is not the way to resolve problems, this is not how society evolves, and this is not how one shows respect.
I hope that in its desire to take action, the government will take people's rights into consideration. Our record on that score is an honourable one. There have been significant advances in the field of labour rights in this country. The circumstances here are unique, as is the backdrop against which these events are unfolding. We have a government that, when it was in a minority position, talked about suspending the right to strike. We have a union that decided to strike and that was ordered back to work by the government less than 24 hours after walking out. Now, we have a government that tabled back-to-work legislation even while the parties were still at the bargaining table, because the employer locked out all of its employees. I hope that everyone who is listening to these proceedings recognizes that this situation is extremely disturbing.
And, here, I think the government needs to show some flexibility and make some concessions to find a solution, preferably a negotiated settlement. Let us get back to the bargaining table—the union has said it is ready—and ensure that mail gets delivered in the meantime.
To conclude, only once all of the truly genuine, frank and honest attempts have been made and failed, only at that time can we fathom the government returning to Parliament. Nothing is keeping the government from bringing Parliament back this summer. Right now we are being called on to sit for 48 or 72 hours. Instead of doing that, they could ask the union and Canada Post managers to reach a settlement through negotiations and, when that happens, everyone could work with the best deal and in a better environment. But if that is not the case, things could be quite challenging at Canada Post for some time to come.
