House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was post.

Topics

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 1:55 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair earlier when people thanked the Speakers in this place for the duty you are performing for this House. I want to thank you for the many hours you are putting in.

I am rising once again to address the Conservative government's back-to-work legislation. From what I have been hearing from Canadians from coast to coast, they are waking up to what they consider the absolute abuse of power to be found in Bill C-6. The good people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek know me well, and they will tell members that I have a fundamental and profound belief in the rights of all Canadians, rights that are guaranteed by our charter.

Because of my career in the labour movement, in which every post I held for 28 years with the labour movement was unpaid, the rights of workers to be represented by a union of their choice and for free collective bargaining is especially important to me. That is the one and only way Canadian workers can improve their collective well-being.

Before I go further, we have heard all the talk about big labour bosses and whatever. We have never heard Thomas d'Aquino called a big labour employer representative. Why the language thrown at people all the time?

Another fair question to ask would be, just what has Canadians' membership in a union done for them?

Canadian workers have seen advances in health and safety protection. They have seen improvement to their hours of work. They have had their deferred wages invested in workplace pensions, and of course increases to their pay. We had one member talking a moment ago about how there are few pensions in Canada, as if it is a good thing. It is a terrible thing.

One of Canadians' charter rights is to collectively bargain with their employer. In this House, during this debate, the members of the Conservative Party love to throw around what they consider slights: “big labour”, or “big labour bosses”, or “friends of big labour”. They do so with a disdain that can only come from lack of knowledge. I will give you one example. I am sure most of today's non-progressive Conservatives have not only forgotten this but perhaps even their new members may not even know it. It will probably be a surprise to the younger members that one of their own groups of base supporters were the very same people who started the modern-day labour movement.

It happened in 1946 in cities like Hamilton and Windsor. It took the returning veterans from the Second World War who took to the streets of those communities, demanding fair wages and better and safer working conditions. In Hamilton, workers and veterans fought side by side in the streets, even on the waters of Hamilton harbour, for collective bargaining rights and the right to form a union. These were the very same veterans who had fought the Axis powers to a standstill. Then they had to come home and fight corporate Canada, with the same view of protecting their rights and improving the lives of all Canadians, as they had just done overseas. These brave souls were the same people who lived by such creeds as “an injury to one is an injury to all”. These veterans now turned trade unionists lived by the philosophy as well that what they asked for themselves they wished for all.

That philosophical view of how to better their lives and the lives of working Canadians 50 years ago led to a grassroots prairie political party, made up of farmers, clerks, church ministers, and workers of all stripes in the CCF, to come together with those veterans turned trade unionists and other labour activists to form the NDP, a party I have been a proud member of for 35 years. So this government should have little doubt as to why our party, the NDP, will always come down on the side of the working people of Canada.

I mentioned in my opening speech in the hoist motion my history in the Hamilton labour movement and the position my local membership of Bell Canada workers at the CWC chose to vote me into, that took me into the broader Canadian labour movement via the Hamilton and District Labour Council. It was at the Hamilton and District Labour Council in the late 1970s and early 1980s, along with the member for Hamilton Centre, that I learned of the struggle of the 1946 strikers in Hamilton and Windsor.

I heard directly from those old timers of their sense of shame and humiliation upon returning to Canada from defending their country. They could not get decent-paying jobs, nor the respect of employers, until they finally stood up to them in 1946.

My own father worked as a section man on the Canadian National Railway. He was a low-paid labourer, and in New Brunswick in the late 1940s or 1950s, it was a secure position that he valued. I remember well the buttons he used to wear on his cap that showed he had paid up his union dues. He was a member of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers, CBRTGW. It was that union that struck CN in the 1950s to get their workers, and ultimately all Canadians, the 40-hour work week.

One of the phrases that came out of the late 1970s that epitomizes much of the way I look at the world is “Question authority”. In fact, I first noticed that on a bumper sticker on a car of a delegate at the labour council.

Questioning authority has never been more important than it was in the 1970s in northern Ontario. Miners went on strike because of the extremely poor working conditions in their mine. That strike led to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 70. That gave workers the right to do what should be obvious: the right to refuse unsafe work.

Questioning authority is exactly what the NDP has been doing in these long hours of debate. We are questioning the authority of this labour minister and this Prime Minister, because, to be clear, in our view they have overstepped their authority with Bill C-6.

I seriously doubt this will come as much of a surprise to most Canadians, who have seen this “my way or the highway” approach regularly from this government. Particularly, the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservatives already know this government has taken positions on foreign affairs and in other areas that not only surprises them but greatly concerns them. They know the shifts of policy that have taken place have led to a loss of respect for Canada in Europe and much of the rest of the world. Now, in our own country, once heralded around the world as protector of human rights and people's rights, we have the spectacle of the Canadian government prepared to shut down the collective bargaining rights of the workers at Canada Post.

I would suggest that this would lead Canadians to ponder the obvious question: who is next?

For the record, I would like to make an observation. On a recent vote on the NDP hoist motion, our good friends in the Liberal Party of Canada switched sides on that vote and cast their lot with the Conservatives. I am sure there will be a cheer that comes from the other side of the House. The workers of Canada in the last election finally came to understand the fairweather friend the Liberal Party of Canada truly is, and the result was that Canadians significantly reduced the Liberal Party caucus. Older Canadians had known for a long time that the Liberals could not be counted on to go the distance in protecting their rights, because sooner or later they would have to choose between Canadian workers and their Bay Street friends. The history of that choice is very clear.

The NDP, on behalf of Canadian workers from coast to coast, calls on the Conservative government to simply pause to reflect on the fact that they have overstepped in this case. The posties are not your enemy. Canadian workers are not your enemies, so do not treat them as such. Use your position as the Government of Canada to further improve the lives of Canadian workers. Do not trample on their rights. Assume the responsibility of your role as protectors of the Constitution of Canada. Work with the NDP. Amend this bill. Restore the balance to labour relations for Canadian workers and end the lockout. Let us put the workers back to work.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

Cambridge Ontario

Conservative

Gary Goodyear ConservativeMinister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)

Mr. Speaker, I know a nice lady who worked at Bundy of Canada in Cambridge, my riding. The workers went on strike and they did get some increased benefits. A couple of years later they went on strike and got increased benefits, and a couple of years later they repeated the same scenario. The company went bankrupt. The lady lost her job. To my knowledge, she has never worked since. She was a single mother of three, and I know this in such detail because I married the best looking of the three kids. No offence to Alan and Glen, but Val was the best looking.

This is what the Government of Canada is concerned about, the fragility of the public interest in this current economic climate and protecting the financial security of Canadians overall.

Why does this member continue to risk literally playing Russian roulette with the Canadian economy by filibustering?

Let us vote for this legislation and get the economy back on track.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that it was the government in consultation with Canada Post that caused the lockout. You stopped the mail. The mail was moving. There were rotating strikes. You stopped the mail.

I want to make another--

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order, please.

The member for Essex is rising on a point of order.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member is very enthusiastic, but he should not be criticizing you. He should direct his comments through the Speaker to the members on this side.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank the member for his intervention. Indeed we do try to refer to members in the third person.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have had for years in the labour movement is a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. I want to read out what fair pay is for some people.

For Mike Lazaridis at Research in Motion, it is $51 million. For Gordon Nixon at the Royal Bank, it is $44 million. For Robert Milton at Air Canada, it is $42 million.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

How much does a union leader get?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

The average union leader is probably making in the area of $150,000 a year.

Now Jim Balsillie--

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Why not release that information? Circulate it. Make it public.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Excuse me, but the figures are released, by the way. Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

In the province of Ontario, the salaries of labour leaders are published.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has done notable work on human rights and in standing up for pensioners. Right now I am thinking of what happened to the workers at Nortel. I am thinking of those who were on long-term disability. I am thinking of those who had a pension. I am thinking of those who were abandoned by the government.

What can my colleague tell us about his experience working for those who are left out, and how does it relate to this debate today?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, a huge tragedy took place. Four hundred workers lost their long-term disability--

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Thank you, Bob Rae.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

There is no respect for workers in this place if somebody can talk like that at a time when we are discussing 400 workers who lost their livelihoods. They got zero, thanks to the government's inaction.

Government members sit here and make jest of that. That is a shame. That is an outrage. The reality is that at a time when the corporation had billions of dollars in cash and billions of dollars in assets, the rest of the Nortel workers lost 37% of their pensions because nobody would stand up for them.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's presentation today is yet another regurgitation of the NDP speech that we have heard some 140 times over these last hours here in the House. We completely understand, as do all Canadians, that NDP members feel obliged, given the news from their national convention that they are not true to their union roots, to use this grandstanding process as an opportunity to prove to their base that they are true socialists.

When are the members of the official opposition going to realize that Canadians across this country overwhelmingly want the postal service back? They want their mail. Seniors, families, small businesses and businesses all think it is time to vote this legislation in.

Members of the official opposition must stop this charade. They are not convincing anybody.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:10 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, the regurgitation the member talks about was a speech I wrote at 2:30 this morning. I did not check with anybody else's notes, so if it sounds familiar, it is because people in our party come from the same place. They come from a place where workers are respected for their contributions to this country.

The reality is very simple. If there had not been a lockout by Canada Post, we would not be here today. It is as simple as that. If you end the lockout, you will end the problem.

We have offered to work with the government. Our leaders have talked to the government, and we are prepared to end this debate the moment the government makes the right decisions on the offers made.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I realize, of course, that members are probably going on little rest, but we encourage hon. members to use the best language they can in respect of their colleagues.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:10 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on the bill, I will take a brief moment to bring to the attention of the House the recent death of Hay Mu Tha Kyu, a 15-year old resident of Ottawa who tragically drowned in a lake not far from Ottawa.

There will be a memorial service for him today. I think those who knew this young man and knew the family would certainly want us to pay our respects to him. He was a Burmese refugee. I know he was well known by people in this community and by members of this House. I wanted to take a moment to pay my respects to him and his family. It is quite a tragedy.

The bill we are continuing to debate today is fundamentally about how we are going to operate as a democracy.

I think this situation touches on things like responsible government. Yesterday I quoted two former Reform Party Conservative members who were very adamant about the use of closure. We have seen this government not only bring in closure but bring in closure before a bill was even presented, which is perhaps unprecedented.

If we go back to the 1840s and look at what responsible government meant, it meant that we would have representatives in the legislature who could speak on behalf of their constituents to be able to oversee law and legislation. When closure comes in before a bill, it undermines responsible government.

I will quote again two well-known Reform Party Conservatives. On May 12, 1998, Chuck Strahl said the following:

Brian Mulroney's government on closure was a pillar of virtue compared to what the Liberal government has done since it came to power. It continually uses this hammer. It is not a matter of negotiation. It is just too bad: “It is my way or the highway”.

It is unfortunate the government has decided to go this way. It is a trend. It does not bode well for this institution that the government has decided this is the way to force through legislation, controversial or not. The government is just doing it.

That was Chuck Strahl on May 12, 1998.

On November 22, 1999, the leader of the then official opposition said the following:

Mr. Speaker, the government's idea of democratic government makes a mockery of the very concept.

It uses closure and time allocation to choke off debate in the House. It stacks committees and committee hearings.... How can such a government possibly be pretending to exercise democratic leadership in government when it behaves in that way?

That was Preston Manning. It was Preston Manning who wanted to actually clean up politics and have more accountability.

I am going to go right from what Mr. Manning said to what this government had promised in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, because what is also missing in this debate is the idea of accountability.

Right now the head of Canada Post is appointed by the Prime Minister. Mr. Chopra was appointed by the Prime Minister.

What was in Bill C-2? There was an amendment that the NDP got in, which was accepted by the government and passed. It was called the Public Appointments Commission. The Public Appointments Commission would finally bring in merit-based appointments. Appointments would no longer be based on who one knew. We would have merit-based appointments and oversight by Parliament. That goes back to responsible government.

The government never brought it into force.

We had no parliamentary oversight in terms of the appointment of the person who heads Canada Post. Who is he beholden to in the end?

It is just like the Senate. When someone is appointed solely by the Prime Minister, appointed with no oversight by Parliament at all, who will that person be responsible to? It will be the person who put him there. There is no mistake about it.

I have heard the other side talk about democracy from time to time. I leave them with the former leader of the Reform Party, the former opposition leader, who talked about closure. I asked him if this is what the Conservative Party has become.

On Senate reform we have seen half a loaf. We have seen that all their friends go into the Senate. In terms of who is appointed to agencies, boards and commissions, we have seen that accountability is really to who one knows.

What happened to those members of Parliament who were going to clean up politics and have accountability? Right now they would pass a bill that would not only bring in closure, but would bring in terms as well.

I am hearing the members on the other side saying that they will.

Let us look at what is in the legislation. The government would bring in not only closure, but wage demands that are lower than the offer that was on the table, an offer that been freely negotiated. I wonder what happened to the ideas of accountability and reforming democracy.

We believe it is not too late. We believe there is an opportunity, if the government wants it, to amend this legislation so that we can have a fair deal for people and make sure that for once Parliament will give Canadians what they want, which is to see people work together for the betterment of the country.

We are not seeing that today. Sadly, we are not seeing reform, but government using tactics and power.

Finally, the government was elected by 40%. Conservatives say they got a majority, but they did not get a blank cheque.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this theme of 60% not voting Conservative in the last election. I would point out to my friend that 70% did not vote NDP, 81% did not vote Liberal, 94% did not vote Bloc and 96% did not vote Green, all of which rates a big so what.

Since we have had more than two parties in Canada, there have been 28 elections, 16 of which have been majorities. In only five of those cases did the winning party have 50% of the vote. It did not happen during any of the three Jean Chrétien majorities or the three Trudeau majorities, so to suggest or imply that somehow our majority is not legitimate is, I think, a little rich.

I would also make a comment on the Public Appointments Commission that my colleague brought up. We had proposed a man, Gwyn Morgan, who was incredibly well qualified and would do the job for a dollar a year. However, that side trashed him unmercifully. It was a disgraceful display of vigilantism and it robbed Canada of one of the finest people that would ever have graced that position.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:15 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the facts are the following. We still do not have a public appointments commissioner. For the government to throw the whole thing out because it could not have its way is unfortunate.

What Preston Manning came to Ottawa to do is gone. It evaporated as if the corpse of Preston Manning is lying there, and there is nothing left.

In fact, the Conservatives decided to use all the tools. I just heard the member compare the Conservatives to the Liberal Party, which used to be an example of what government should not be doing. The Conservatives say they are not quite as bad as the Liberals were.

What happened to real reform, real change and real accountability? All we see now is closure, using the big boot and, unfortunately, the undermining of Canadians. When most Canadians see what the government has done, they will wonder what happened.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:20 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wear on my lapel a pin depicting two shovels in memory of the union workers who passed away recently from workplace injuries and accidents.

I would ask my hon. colleague to talk about the importance of workplace health and safety. How did we arrive at the point that we now have workplaces that respect workers and their need for health and safety in the workplace?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:20 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question, and while I am on feet I would remember Peter Kennedy, a worker here on the Hill, who passed away while working to keep us safe here. That was a tragedy, and we are still not sure exactly what happened.

The new members may not know this, but a couple of years ago there was legislation brought forward to make sure that we had health and safety laws brought into force here on Parliament Hill. However, the law was never promulgated. This means that workers here on the Hill do not have the same rights of health and safety that every other worker in Canada has. That is up to the government to do.

We fought hard to make sure health and safety would be there for all Canadians. Sadly, on the Hill it is not.

We have to make sure we are vigilant on this issue, because health and safety are paramount. Unions fought for it, ordinary Canadians fought for it, and that is why we have it today.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Mr. Speaker, I have to confess to my hon. friend across the way that I am not sure where he is going with this and what this has to do with the business before the House today. Every chance I get between now and when this closes I am going to keep asking these questions until I get an answer.

Delivery in Canada by Canada Post is declining. It has fallen by 17% since 2006. Its workers are well treated by the corporation yet what the members opposite are suggesting is to spend more on benefits than can be afforded over the medium or long term. Already members at the top end are entitled to seven weeks of vacation. Their pay is 17% higher than what is found in a private sector equivalent. The unfunded pension liability is $3.2 billion. How on earth does he propose that Canada Post make up for this let alone provide additional benefits down the road when the market appears to be falling. I agree Canada Post is an essential service, albeit a declining one.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:20 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

It is very simple. You actually negotiate fairly. If you follow the logic here, it is bring in younger workers at a different level of pay, and, guess what, their contributions will be less. It is not going to help them with the unfunded liability. What you can do is actually sit down with the workers and say, let us figure out this problem. You do not legislate them back to work and legislate terms. That is not how you solve a problem. That is the problem with this government, and that is the problem with this legislation.