Questions to Ministers Qualtrough and Hajdu: Back-to-Work Legislation for Canada Post Workers

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, ministers and staff, for being here today. We have been talking quite a bit about evidence and anecdotes. I think both are important. Anecdotes lend to context.

I have here — I think all of us have — an e-mail from a letter carrier from Rimouski, Quebec. I’m just going to read you a little bit of what he has written. He has been a letter carrier for 10 to 15 years. The job has never been more difficult because of the parcels and the weight of parcels. He says the average route in kilometres has increased, as has the injury rate. As a result, they are being forced into overtime, working late when it is dark and never having time to recover from joint pain. He urges us and you to allow the union to negotiate a true agreement with the company, without giving them the feeling they never have to talk to us. He closes with:

Don’t let one week of online rebates destroy the right of expression of 50,000 workers.

Do you have a response for him?

Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you, senator. I would echo my colleague’s statement earlier, that we are not proceeding with this legislation lightly. We feel we waited to the point where the parties were at an impasse, where the economic impact was sufficiently significant to warrant this kind of intervention. We crafted the legislation in a way that focuses on a process and outcomes coming from that process through the efforts of the parties with, at first, mediated negotiation and then ultimately arbitration.

My response would be it makes me feel terrible that somebody is having that experience in their workplace. We’re doing everything we can to change the culture and ensure that isn’t the case.

There are operational challenges with this organization for sure. There is a balance to be struck between negotiating issues of workers’ rights and operational decision-making that then removes some flexibility from the organization to be viable. It’s a really tough balance to strike. We are not doing any of this lightly.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you. I’m glad you have empathy for what this letter carrier is experiencing. Let me switch tactics and go to a little bit of uncharted territory here, ground that has not been covered so far. This is about international treaties we may be party to. I am not sure about this, but let me ask you the question.

Does this legislation contravene any international treaties we are party to, in particular those we have signed with the International Labour Organization?

Ms. Hajdu: Thank you very much. I was a very proud minister the day I signed ILO Convention 98 in Geneva just a year and a bit ago. It reaffirmed our government’s perspective that workers have the right to freely organize and bargain.

From our perspective, this legislation has allowed for that process. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have done everything we can to support the parties to come to a negotiated agreement, although the labour disruption has been ongoing for the past five weeks. In fact, we have worked with these parties for well over a year, providing them a succeeding degree of intervention and support, starting off with conciliators, moving to mediators, providing special mediators and reappointing special mediators.

It became increasingly clear the gap between what the union perceived needed to be in the collective agreement and what the employer perceived was their capacity to provide in the collective agreement was quite large and that the parties were at an impasse. Further mediation, although we were hopeful in maintaining it, was not resulting in any meaningful commitment. That impasse was not going to be resolved quickly or easily. There would be significant harm to Canadians and the economy if we allowed for that impasse to stay in that way.

Really, the movement was extremely small. There was not significant movement. There was no dropping of demands, for example, in any significant way in that we could fairly assess this process was moving forward, albeit slowly, but towards a conclusion.

Here we find ourselves. I reiterate the fact it’s with incredible deep regret — I would say dismay — that I’m here today. I truly believe the best deal is a deal the two parties arrive at together.

It’s exactly why we have crafted this legislation in the way we have, because we know the parties need help to get to an agreement. We still want to give them an opportunity to mediate that agreement. Should that fail, we want the principles to be there that will take into account the concerns that we heard. As I said, four of them specifically address concerns that were raised through the process that we thought were very significant and needed to be there, as well as the concerns that the corporation has around long-term sustainability, which as you know, directly impacts workers. In fact, the workers want to make sure there are jobs into the future for their members.

Senator Omidvar: I too was very proud when you signed that convention last year.

I’m not sure I heard an answer to my question. Are we in contravention of the treaty that we signed onto or are we not?

Ms. Hajdu: It will be up to others to decide. We are confident in the approach we are taking that we are respecting the collective bargaining process. I can’t determine for others what they will decide.