Mr. Speaker, forced back-to-work legislation is an insult, but adopting forced back-to-work legislation on a closure motion is adding insult to injury.
In my speech, I will touch on four things about the Liberal government. The government claims to be feminist, pro-middle class, progressive and in favour of worker health and safety.
I will start with the government's claim that it is feminist. Systemic discrimination is a form of discrimination that is embedded in a system, in an established order arising from practices voluntary or otherwise that result in wage gaps between jobs traditionally held by men and those traditionally held by women.
In this particular case, the Canada Post case, there is systemic discrimination in relation to practices that I expect are involuntary. Letter carriers, whether they work in rural or suburban areas, do not have the same working conditions as their colleagues in urban areas.
If we scratch below the surface, we see that this is an important issue because it is a matter of systemic discrimination. Two-thirds of mail carriers working in rural and suburban areas are women and they earn approximately 25% less than their counterparts who work in urban areas, 70% of whom are men.
Just three weeks ago, the government introduced a pay equity bill that requires employers and unionized employees to work together to develop a plan to achieve pay equity, a bill that implements a proactive regime to guarantee equal pay for equal or equivalent work. Now, three weeks later, at the very first opportunity, the government is proving that its bill is pretty much worthless—just good intentions and nothing more. Three weeks later, at the very first opportunity, the government is passing special legislation so that it does not have to pay women mail carriers properly. It is muzzling the women who are fighting to obtain the salary conditions that the government claims to want to give them. It is muzzling elected members of the House so that it can take away women mail carriers' bargaining rights even more quickly. Three weeks later, the government is muzzling labour organizations as they try to assert their most basic right, that of having a properly negotiated collective agreement.
When the topic of workers' rights comes up, the Liberal government's fake feminism becomes quite evident. This is the same government that thinks it is acceptable for pregnant women to be ineligible for preventive withdrawal without penalty when their and their unborn baby's health is at risk. This is the same government that has refused to listen to me for three years when I saw that a new mother who loses her job at the end of her parental leave is not eligible for a penny from employment insurance.
Indeed, this is the same government that has shown us today that it thinks it is acceptable for women to be paid less than men for equal work and for women to have to take on a heavy workload that is harmful to their physical and psychological health.
Feminism is more than just a word. Feminism requires action, and I am sad to say that this government's action proves that we have a long way to go before our rights will ever be equal to those of men in Ottawa.
My second point has to do with the middle class. Just this week, the government presented an economic statement with, yet again, the term “middle class” in its title. Despite this government's claims, it is not a government for women, nor is is a government for the middle class.
The middle class is made up of ordinary people. Do the Liberals know who these ordinary people are? Would they be able to define the middle class, outside of their empty slogans?
One thing is certain: middle-class Canadians are highly courted by the Liberal Party. This was the case during the last federal election campaign, and I cannot even count the number of times that this government, all members included, has used this term since the 2015 election. This term comes up in every single budget, economic statement, speech, and almost every answer to opposition questions.
The Liberal members speak with trembling voices to defend the middle class, as though it were an endangered species. Yes, the middle class has become a target for political marketing, and that has been going on for decades, but I would say the Liberals have perfected the formula. Now it is all about the middle class and those working hard to join it. How many times have we heard that? It is nice, is it not? Who does not like apple pie?
What the Liberals are forgetting, after having recited these meaningless phrases so many times in the House, is that the middle class was built on great union victories, primarily in the public service. The middle class did not magically appear, and it was not the federal government that created it.
The middle class was built bit by bit, by workers who had the courage to stand up and assert their rights so they could live in dignity.
The middle class was built one gain at a time, gains that were hard won from the government and the most powerful players in the world.
The middle class was never handed anything. It fought hard, made demands and got what it needed.
The middle class is made up of teachers, nurses, bus drivers, public servants, middle managers in the public sector and, yes, postal workers. Today they are resorting to rotating strikes to assert their status as members of the middle class, and the government is taking away their right to put pressure on their employer to improve their situation.
The middle class is made up of ordinary people who work hard and serve our society. They are also people who want to live with dignity; people who want to see their family from time to time; people who want to work in environments where they feel good and safe; people for whom working conditions and the human qualities of their team are just as important as money; people who want work schedules that allow them to look ahead a bit and plan their personal life; because, indeed, these are people who have a life outside the office; people who think that men and women should earn equal pay for equal work; and yes, people who think that their work deserves adequate pay.
What does the government mean by middle class? It seems that the government has no understanding of the value of collective rights. It seems that when the Liberals talk about the middle class, they are talking about certain individuals only. When we take a closer look at the Liberals' language on the middle class, it looks a lot like a systematic attempt to curry votes rather than a statement in support of our families, our friends, our neighbours, our colleagues, people who surround us in real life, a life that the Prime Minister seems to have no notion of.
My third point has to do with health and safety. I knew a man who, unlike the Prime Minister, knew and loved everyday people. I knew a man who inspired me greatly. He was a man of his word. We had good conversations and that man always stood up for those whose work could make them sick or injured.
About health and safety he said that it was at the workplace that it was clear that contempt for men and women was far from over and that it is impossible to say that we are for the people while also accepting that they get hurt at work.
This man was Michel Chartrand, quoted by Fernand Foisy in the book Les dires d'un homme de parole.
Occupational health and safety is also a purpose of these negotiations. Why are there health and safety measures? The workplace injury rate in the postal sector is one of the highest of all sectors under federal jurisdiction. The number of accidents has increased by 43% in the past two years. It seems to me that the demands are justified in the circumstances.
The rate of disabling injuries is 5.4 times higher than in the rest of the federal sector. It is totally unacceptable, and the union's demands are not exorbitant. It is asking for 80% of the salary to be paid in the event of a workplace accident because no one chooses to have an accident at work. It is also calling for improvements to the short-term disability insurance program, including the appeal process. It is asking for an unlimited carry-over of personal leave days and for salary protection increased from 70% to 75%. Again, it is a matter of dignity.
It is also asking that mail carriers obtain a time value for the combination of manually sorted mail and sequentially sorted mail in the sorting bin. Again, the idea is to avoid an overload. It is requested that a provision on domestic violence be included in the collective agreement. This is a plus for families and for women in particular.
I want to read a quote from the Government of Canada website:
No one knows a workplace better than the people who work in it, so Part II of the Canada Labour Code gives the workplace parties—the employees and employers—a strong role in identifying and resolving health and safety concerns.
The provisions of the Code are designed to strengthen employers' and employees' self-reliance in dealing with occupational health and safety issues [and not through special legislation] and thereby making workplaces safer.
I could not even make this stuff up. Much like with pay equity, on paper, the government seems to recognize the role of a union. However, when a union wants to exercise its rights, the government infringes on these rights, forces special legislation down their throats and prevents elected officials from debating this legislation.
Contrary to Canada Post management, the union never stopped advocating negotiating to reach a new work agreement. The president of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec stated, and I quote:
Obviously, Canada Post dug in its heels and negotiated in bad faith while simply waiting for the government to introduce special legislation that would force mail carriers back to work. That is appalling but not surprising, since that is the kind of strategy we have come to expect from Canada Post. During the last collective bargaining process in 2011, management did the same thing. Some housecleaning is in order at Canada Post.
He concluded by saying, and I quote:
That is all the more appalling given that the right to strike has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. This special legislation violates a right that is recognized and protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. The health and safety of Canadians was never in any way threatened by the union's legitimate decision to use pressure tactics to help wind up the bargaining process. By introducing this special legislation, the [Liberal] government is complicit in Canada Post's bargaining strategy, which is not to negotiate.
The government chose a side, and it did not side with women, the middle class, employee safety, progressivism, or respect for labour organizations. It chose Canada Post's side.
I will address one last point. The government claims to be progressive. Management's government is not a progressive government. The government calls itself progressive. The Prime Minister boasts about that a lot. Every time he signs a trade agreement, he insists on calling it a progressive agreement. He says that because, in his mind, these agreements guarantee workers' freedom of association and their right to collective bargaining. These are fundamental rights recognized by the UN in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They are recognized by the International Labour Organization in its fundamental conventions and by the Canadian Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted by English Canada, which the Prime Minister is extremely proud of, defines them as fundamental rights in section 2(d).
When the Prime Minister talks about his progressive trade agreements, he says that being progressive means defending the right to collective bargaining. That is what being progressive means. The right to negotiate and the right to strike are linked. The right to strike is inherent in the right to negotiate because without the threat of a strike, there is no power to negotiate. I am not the one saying this. It comes from the International Labour Organization of which Canada is a member. The Supreme Court said this in 2015. Therefore, today's special legislation is not progressive.
Since the beginning of this debate, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis has repeated that having an arbitrator is a good thing, it is fair, he or she will consider both sides and will make compromises. In a hockey game, the referee is not there to listen to both sides and make compromises. An arbitrator is someone who has the authority to impose his or her decisions. In this case, the arbitrator will impose working conditions. That is the role of an arbitrator. It is the opposite of negotiating. It is the opposite of what the Prime Minister considers to be progressive.
Special legislation is referred to as back-to-work legislation, not negotiation legislation. Generally, it puts an end to work stoppage. In this case, there was no work stoppage, and that is the worst part. As the fiercely Liberal Denis Coderre said in the debate on the Harper government's back-to-work legislation, “A rotating strike is not a strike, it is a pressure tactic used to force a negotiated settlement.” That was a true Liberal who said that.
Through this bill, the government is taking away the employees' right to use pressure tactics. It is taking away the employer's incentive to negotiate. It is attacking the right to collective bargaining, a fundamental right if ever there was one.
When I hear the Conservatives and the Liberals speak disrespectfully about the right to strike, I get the impression that they think workers like to strike. They do not. It is not some game that we can take away from them whenever we feel like it. It is a right. As François Mitterrand said in his book The Wheat and the Chaff, “Strike action is not enjoyable for anyone, and it primarily affects those who have no other means to defend their right to live.”
These only means are what this special legislation is taking away from postal workers, and it is the exact opposite of progressivism.