Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Olivia Chow Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a letter that is written by a postal worker from that member's riding that was sent to me because that worker is unhappy with his member of Parliament. Am I allowed to table such a letter?

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

That is not a point of order.

The member from Timmins—James Bay. I trust this is a legitimate point of order.

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your ruling this morning really set the tone for this debate. Some of the members might not have been there but we need to reflect on the role that we are playing in this as people are watching.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you ask members to settle down. We need to have a civilized debate. I was very impressed with your ruling this morning.

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

I would agree that we all ought to give all our colleagues the respect to which they are due.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the citizens of Jeanne-Le Ber who elected me to represent them in this House. I am very proud to be in Ottawa now and to work on their behalf in connection with this important bill.

We hear much talk from the government about the economy, about how important the economy is to this country and about working for the average Canadian.

I do not think the so-called strong, stable majority government, which, incidentally was supported by a minority of 40% of Canadians, is feeling particularly warm toward the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for it.

In fact, I would venture to say that even the 40% who did vote for them were not voting to have stripped away from them their established right to grow and build their own self-worth and value through the accepted and democratic process of collective bargaining.

It is quite frankly beyond me how the current government does not see the conflict of interest in this process of shutting down a well-organized and responsible expression of job action to only then introduce back-to-work legislation.

Let me break this down. The government owns Canada Post. The government is in negotiations with its employees, as Canada Post. The employees, after much negotiation, take job action that sees at least partial delivery through rotating strikes. The government, as Canada Post, locks out the workers. The government, as itself, tables back-to-work legislation. In addition to eroding the process of collective bargaining, it further intrudes in that process by imposing its own views on what these workers should be paid, totally disregarding the agreements already made.

Now, excusing the possibility that the government may at this time be suffering from an identity crisis, what with playing both sides of the fence, does this government truly not feel any responsibility to the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for them?

The government speaks about democracy, but then proceeds to deny the democratic process of contract negotiations, because it does not like how it goes. The government says that it is looking out for the greater interest of Canadians, but then attacks those Canadians it says it is protecting. In case it is unclear, postal workers are Canadians too.

Postal workers are also consumers. In this one-dimensional, myopic vision of the economy the current government practises, I suppose it makes sense to cut out the buying power of a significant number of Canadian consumers to satisfy some ideological belief in the absolute numbers. “We are focused on the economy”. That is a familiar mantra that all members of the Conservative government are well versed in.

I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems that there are many facets to economic growth, including standard of living and morale in the workplace, to name two.

I wonder what kind of Canada can be built when workers' rights are disrespected. In fact, history shows us what that disrespect can yield. It was that type of disrespect that sparked the beginning of the labour movement in the first place.

Is this lockout an inconvenience? Yes, it is, and please, let us remember that it is a lockout and not a strike. Then again, I can see why the government might be confused.

Dare I say that there are many Canadians who would accept some inconvenience to protect the rights that so many Canadians fought and died for. Here are some of the thoughts these Canadians are sharing.

I have been a postal worker for the past 21 years....most people don't know that we have to be casuals without paying pensionable benefits for approximately 6 years. With an average income of $49,000 a year, I will be able to retire in 2024 with a rate of $1,391 a month! Now, in 2024, that won't even pay for an apartment....why would I want to lose more from the new collective agreement? Chopra started this year and will be getting a pay of $650,000 a year with a major retirement off of my back!

When we put in our right to strike notice on May 31st, the corporation retaliated by cutting off all of our benefits including medical. I have a brother-in-law who has progressive MS and couldn't get his meds while he is in severe pain from the waist down. He is paralyzed.

We responded only then after they cut off our benefits within 3 hours of our notice to strike submission, with rotating strikes without intention of harming the mail flow. Only with the understanding that it would delay mail for one day in that city!

It is wrong what the [Prime Minister's] government is doing! They collaborated with the management of Canada Post and took away our right of collective bargaining.

I want to work and I did volunteer, as did many other workers across Canada, only because we do not want to affect Canadians in a harmful manner. I love serving the public, but not at the expense of our pensions! I don't want to be on some government assistance when I reach 65. There is no need with a Canadian Crown Corp that is making major profits off of the backs of us, the backbone of Canada Post.

This is a Halifax postal worker.

I was always taught that one should be careful of the seeds one sews. The seeds this government is sewing are seeds of discontent, mistrust, indifference, and absolute contempt. It is contempt for the workers in this country, workers who, when the need is there, are willing to work with management towards the greater good. We saw this at the beginning of the economic crisis over and over again.

What we do not see, however, is the CEOs and the upper echelon colleagues willing to practise what they are forceably trying to extract from the people who make them rich.

If this government is so interested in participating in the collective bargaining process and feels perfectly justified in imposing lower wages than were fairly negotiated, why not be of true help to Canadians by forcing those same CEOs to convert their pension plans, give up their bonuses, and reduce their salaries. I suppose that this is too socialist for this government.

Human beings by nature are social animals. We need to work together to survive. Although there may be a pecking order, there should always be respect. This is something this government seems to feel does not apply to it.

The economy of this country is, and always has been, its people. They drive the country, both as workers and as consumers. If this government truly wants to help Canadians, then treat workers and consumers, as they are one and the same, as they should be treated.

The government needs to take responsibility for its actions. The government needs to unlock the doors. The government needs to put the workers back to work, not by legislating them but by legislating the government to unlock the doors and the lockout.

David Tilson Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Mr. Speaker, this debate has lowered itself to simply reading e-mails and letters from constituents. I'd like to join in.

I have an e-mail. I am reading this to the member who just spoke. He and his NDP colleagues should realize the havoc they are creating in this country and in the economy of this country. This is just an example.

This is from one Lori:

I'm in the small business community. We can't pay our vendors and we might miss payroll for the first time in 18 years. Lots of our printing suppliers have now laid off their staff.

You have to do whatever it takes to end this useless NDP tactic and get a vote in. Have to get them back to work. Let an arbitrator decide....We have no alternatives here. We are being held hostage. We have thousands and thousands of dollars trapped in the sorting station with respect to cheques that were mailed before this strike. Please, please.

The point of reading this is that the people of this country are getting desperate. Why not stop the nonsense that is going on in this House? Allow the votes to take place.

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

I am sorry that the hon. member feels that this is a useless exercise. The fact is that while the government wishes to break this down to a simplistic “Deliver the mail”, this is about more than just mail delivery. This is an attack on workers' rights.

I am sure that the person who sent the e-mail would be quite distraught about the fact that he and members of his family might have their rights eroded through this.

If the member really wants work to resume and to have these cheques go out, it is in the government's hands. The government acknowledged this lockout. The government is responsible for this lockout. Thus, the government is the one that can end this lockout. If the government wants the mail to go out, end the lockout.

Jamie Nicholls Vaudreuil-Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us how unfair and how unjust it is to lower the wages and how this needs to be removed from the current legislation?

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty apparent. The negotiations have been dragging on for so long and they finally actually got to the amount of money they would be paid, the salaries, which is usually the largest and heaviest sticking point.

As a union leader myself, I have been involved in many negotiations. It is always the largest sticking point, but they managed to get to that.

Why does the government not respect that and move forward from there? Why does it have to bring back-to-work legislation that includes lowering their wages? Answer that question.

Tyrone Benskin Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what that question has to do with the issue on the table.

We did not vote against those things because we do not believe in them. We voted against those things because they are not enough. The $1.36 a day, or whatever it is, is not enough to lift a grandmother out of poverty. It is not enough.

If the government really cared about seniors, it would give them the money they need to lift themselves into some sort of dignity. Please, do not twist words.

Sadia Groguhé Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing a happy Quebec national holiday to all Quebeckers, and in particular to my constituents in the riding of Saint-Lambert. I am not with them today, but they understand that the current circumstances are keeping me in Ottawa and that I will be with them very soon.

They will also no doubt be aware that defending the rights of workers is the basic reason why we are here in this forum this afternoon. Bill C-6 is just one more example of the attitude of an authoritarian government that cares about nothing but its own decisions.

As we know, Canada Post workers are simply fighting, as you or I would, to protect their jobs and their wages. They simply do not want their basic rights to be sacrificed and abused. They are refusing to allow their families to suffer the consequences of the Conservatives’ unjust policy.

In this matter, the unions assumed their responsibilities perfectly. The postal workers’ approach demonstrated respect for the public by holding rotating strikes. Canada Post acted in bad faith by declaring a lockout. Canada Post decided to unjustly penalize people and businesses by depriving them of their daily mail service.

In any company, employees are entitled, through their union if there is one, to negotiate their working conditions with their employer and to arrive at a favourable outcome, which is not the case for Canada Post employees, on whom the government wishes to impose a contract that runs counter to their interests.

This is not normal, all the more so as it is not part of the government's role nor within its jurisdiction to interfere in labour relations between employers and employees, and thus take away the employees' right to negotiate a collective agreement.

The government’s interference in this matter does not give the two parties the opportunity to achieve a negotiated agreement that is in their mutual interest. This is all the more unacceptable given that the government is proposing an agreement in which the wages are lower than those Canada Post had offered.

This is a dangerous precedent for all workers in Canada, who could find unfair contracts, wage cuts and misunderstandings with their employer imposed upon them. No, the government absolutely must stop interfering in this matter, as it is doing, and to give a negotiated settlement a chance, because it is not yet too late.

This matter not only inconveniences individuals and businesses, but also and above all attacks the basic rights of all workers and all unions to negotiate a collective agreement with the employer.

Passing this unfair act would be a major step backward, because Canadians have fought for a long time, too long, for a fair and equitable working environment, and for acceptable wages and benefits.

The Conservative government cannot ignore this and impose a contract that runs counter to the interests of Canada Post employees.

Canada Post is a dynamic corporation that serves all Canadians. Citizens have always relied on this public corporation, which is one of the best postal services in the world. And these merits, it must be recognized, are due to the employees of Canada Post.

Our duty as the official opposition is to defend these workers, who operate this essential service for our citizens: our constituents need to get their mail every day, our senior citizens need to receive their pension cheques on time, small businesses must be able to send out their invoices on time. The Conservative government wants to do away with all of that. It wants to privatize this country’s postal services and ask citizens to pay more for it, even though Canada Post is doing its work well at a competitive price.

The government is now, for purely ideological reasons, against providing our fellow citizens with an essential public service. The reason is clear: to maximize corporate profits at the expense of workers. If there must be austerity measures, the government should look to the CEO of Canada Post and not the ordinary wage earners.

A collective agreement allows workers to enjoy benefits such as working in a safe environment, preparing for a well-deserved, dignified retirement, and having a sufficient wage to be able to support their families and pay their bills.

The purpose of government is to protect workers and their families, not to place them in a difficult position.

This legislation runs counter to the model of social progress that is championed by the NDP, and we cannot allow the Conservatives to do whatever they want because, after Canada Post, who will be next?

This power grab against workers by the Prime Minister and his Conservative government shows Canadians where they really stand.

The NDP cannot allow this to happen and we will fight to protect the rights that are fundamental and essential in a true democracy.

Stephen Woodworth Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, when I sit in the House and listen to members opposite, I wonder if they are even reading the same bill that I am reading. It seems that they talk about everything else except what is in the bill.

It is important for Canadians to know what is in the bill. In particular, I would like to refer the member opposite to subclause 11(2) and ask her what it is she finds so objectionable in the guidance that this bill gives the arbitrator. It gives the arbitrator four principles on which to base a contract between these parties: first, that the terms and conditions should be consistent with those in comparable postal industries; second, that the terms provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure short- and long-term economic viability; third, that the terms maintain the health and safety of the workers; and, fourth, that the terms of the contract ensure the sustainability of the pension plan.

I would like to know which one of those four guiding principles that this bill sets out is the opposition so vehemently opposed to.