I am finally home again, freed from what
could be called “House arrest.”
Originally, the Parliamentary calendar
looked favourable for a Wednesday adjournment for St. Jean Baptiste Day. Instead, we adjourned on Saturday night
around 8:30 pm, after a marathon session that began with a “hoist” motion from
Jack Layton on Thursday evening.
In the strange and magical world of Parliamentary tradition, the day
stretched on, as all the debates for the next 48 hours took place “officially”
on Thursday, June 23. We voted on
the Canada Post back-to-work legislation at around 60 o’clock on Thursday June
23rd.
From the routine
start of my day Thursday until Saturday night, I did not leave the
building. I didn’t want to miss a
vote. And (if at all possible) I
wanted to inject a plea for compromise from both the Harper Conservatives and
the NDP Official Opposition.
Compromise was the best way to get mail moving and avoid the draconian
back to work legislation tabled by the government. Sadly, the Harper government
was completely inflexible. While
the Harper conservatives were the clear architects of this debacle, the NDP was
not entirely blameless. Some of their tactics (escalating rhetoric in the House
and refusal to share NDP amendments until the filibuster was all but over) were
unhelpful.
Resisting jumping to hasty conclusions, I
have some observations to share, some prompted by questions to me on twitter
that defy short tweet-form answers.
Tweets are a great communication tool. Haiku-like, they require concise thinking. They are,
nonetheless, inadequate to explain complex political machinations.
Filibusters-
Why does Parliament insist on sleep deprivation?
The whole filibuster manoeuvre is unusual
in Canadian political tradition.
In 1999, the Reform Party under Stockwell Day filibustered to delay
passage of the Nisga’a Treaty. That remains the longest filibuster. One tweet asked why Parliament cannot
take breaks. The normal House of
Commons day is full of breaks. It
is only when the House is in a filibuster mode that there are no breaks. As long as there are MPs to rise and
speak to an issue, the filibuster can go on….and on.
The great Frank Kapra film, “Mr. Smith goes
to Washington,” has our hero Jimmy Stewart in a US-style filibuster. In the US Congress, a lone Senator can filibuster as long as
he or she can stand and speak without a break. Canadian filibusters allow for MPs to operate in
shifts. So the larger parties
organized themselves to share the load round the clock. Being in the Opposition Lobby where all
of us -- the NDP, Liberal, Bloc and the lone
Green MP -- have a space for
meetings, coffee, meals brought in, etc, starting Wednesday night I heard
snippets of conversations about the rotating shift work of each party. I realized I would have to be there all
the time or the Green Party voice would be lost. So I packed Thursday AM for a long haul. Essential “freshening up” toiletries,
re-charger cords for blackberry, and a few changes of clothing, and I planned
to be awake for the next 48 hours and see how it would go from there. Based on the marathon rounds in UN
climate meetings, I knew I could function through a 48 hour sleepless work shift. How I would manage if the filibuster
went on for weeks was something I was prepared to figure out as events
unfolded.
How did the filibuster happen?
The Harper government tabled the Canada
Post back to work legislation (Bill C-6.
“C” is for “Commons”; 6 because it was the 6th bill in the 41st
Parliament).
Then the government brought in an oddly
worded motion for on Tuesday.
Peter Van Loan (Conservative House leader) moved that the bill would
have all three readings without adjournment and that the bill would not go to
the labour committee, but would have a hearing of the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole is the whole
of the House of Commons meeting as a committee. If that motion had been worded differently, it would not
have left an opening for Layton’s “hoist” motion (to delay taking up the bill
for 6 months). A hoist motion can
only be made at second reading and with the process established by the
Government motion, lacking time limits, Layton had the opportunity to move the
bill be set aside for the next 6 months.
Ask yourself: what are the chances that the
Harper government made a mistake with the way the motion was worded and what
are the chances it was a deliberate move to set a trap for the NDP? What followed was high theatre,
dramatic and increasingly partisan over-the-top rhetoric from both of the main
parties. I wish we had done better
by the workers. Less rhetoric and
more flexibility might have helped.
Some on twitter have asked if there was
less civility as the filibuster wore on.
Unquestionably, the answer if “yes.” Government members heckled just as they did before the
election. The NDP pledge to refuse
to heckle also broke down (albeit not as severely). NDP attacks got personal. I
happen to like Labour Minister Lisa Raitt. I know I am naïve about people. And I may be unduly influenced knowing she is from Cape
Breton, and that her dad and brother died from cancer from the coke ovens and
steel mill I worked to clean up for so long. No question, the legislation was egregious. As Labour Minister,
she is responsible for a dreadful precedent, but I felt really uncomfortable as
the attacks in the House turned on Lisa in a very personal way.
What was wrong with Bill C-6?
I don’t think the Opposition Parties would
have objected to back to work legislation that told Canada Post to end the lock-out
and then moved the dispute to binding arbitration. This bill was opposed because it was so one-sided in
supporting management over the workers.
The dispute was largely not precipitated by
the union. The mail was still
moving, despite revolving strikes by CUPW, when management locked out the
workers and brought mail delivery to a standstill. This created the crisis to allow the government to bring in
back to work legislation. As has
been noted by many in the media, it appeared that the government was working in
collusion with Canada Post management.
Once Canada Post locked out the workers, it was the government’s turn to
bring in a bill that would get the mail moving, but would fix wage increases at
less than Canada Post had already offered. Salaries were not the main sticking
point in any event. Health and
safety and pensions ranked higher. The Bill tied the hands of the arbitrator by
instructing the arbitrator to set terms and working conditions to be consistent
with other “comparable postal industries.” Of course, there is no operation comparable to Canada
Post. No other operation delivers
mail everywhere -- to those places
where you can make money and those rural and remote locations where daily mail
delivery is a public service.
The legislation also instructed the
arbitrator to only rely on certain sections of the Canada Labour Code. Various flexible solutions that should
have been available to the arbitrator have been taken off the table. Also
unpalatable was the prescription of “final offer selection”—further tying the
arbitrator’s hands.
Every labour lawyer and academic who has
spoken out about this bill has opposed it as bad legislation.
What next?
Public sector workers have every reason to
be fearful. The government’s
approach on Air Canada (not public
sector) and on Canada Post suggests an interventionist, pro-management,
anti-labour agenda. We need to
protect collective bargaining and labour rights in general. The empirical evidence is over-whelming
that the healthiest economies have strong unions. On the other hand, demonizing all employers and ignoring the
fact that many Canadian workers are non-unionized creates unnecessary conflict.
Beyond labour unrest, this experience does
not auger well for the next four years.
Some commentators hoped that the Prime Minister would moderate his
behaviour knowing he has four years with a majority in the House and the
Senate. Some pundits thought we might see a kinder, gentler Stephen Harper. Maybe we still will. But the last few weeks suggest the
government will rely on “might makes right.” Somehow we need to create an atmosphere that encourages
consensus over surrender.
Governing over bullying.
And a commitment to Canada over excessive partisanship. The summer could be a cooling off
period for hot tempers.
What else happened this week?
A huge low point was Canada alone blocking
consensus in Geneva for the listing of asbestos as “hazardous” under the
Rotterdam convention. Traditional allies were enraged by Canada’s action. Adding insult to serious injury, the
Prime minister chose to visit the asbestos region of Quebec to celebrate his
success in keeping asbestos unlabeled as we ship it to the developing world.
The main and supplementary estimates were
passed. The mega-trials bill (with
no improvements) cleared its final hurdles. (I voted for it as it is, over all, good legislation, but it
may well run into trouble due to the refusal of the Conservatives and NDP to
allow amendments).
Parliament is now adjourned until September
19.