Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean by the divisive nature of politics. The people do not appreciate it. What they want to see are results arising from this debate. For example, the government has in the legislation the amount they can pay, and it is actually less than the corporation was proposing just a few weeks ago.

If the government wants to contribute positively to the debate, why do they not make that amendment? Then they would be sending a message to both Canada Post and the employees. The employees are the people who are out there every day ensuring that we get our mail. They would be giving them something tangible, something that would make a difference and show that we are not just wasting our time.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North a question.

Can he explain to us the impact that such a bill would have on upholding and preserving workers' rights and what impact he thinks it will have on our democratic system?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Any back-to-work legislation has to allow for free collective bargaining in some form or another. That is the most important principle we have to recognize when we have back-to- work legislation. We have to be realistic. Political parties of all stripes have seen the value of back-to-work legislation. It is a question of making sure that it is fair to both sides. If it is done properly, everyone wins.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is a quite a bit of noise in the chamber. I realize that members have other conversations to take on, but I would like all hon. members be able to hear the questions, comments, and speeches.

Questions and comments: the hon. member for Markham--Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague not only for his excellent speech but also for his recent re-election in a riding that for many years was regarded as an NDP stronghold. Given the orange wave of the last election, it was quite an achievement on the part of my colleague.

My question has to do with who should bear the major responsibility for the lock-out. As a former minister responsible for Canada Post, I can tell you that there is no way Canada Post would ever order this lock-out without the agreement of the government. At the other extreme, it is perfectly possible that the minister responsible for Canada Post called up Canada Post and ordered the lock-out. So it is somewhere between acquiescence and order.

My question to my colleague is this: even though technically it was Canada Post that ordered the lock-out, would it not be more realistic to say it was a government-ordered lock-out?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I truly appreciate the question, because it gets to the core of the division that the government has caused. We need to be clear on that point. There is no way Canada Post would have done the lock-out without the blessing of the Prime Minister and the minister responsible. That is one of the points that is being lost in this whole debate.

Who is the government trying to kid? Canada Post would not have locked out their employees without the blessing of the government. I truly believe that. When we focus on the division that has been caused, all we need to do is look at that point.

I appreciate the question and the compliment.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today, not because I do not want to represent the workers, but because I believe this repressive bill should never have been tabled. As I said earlier in the debate, with this move the government has shifted the race to the bottom into high gear.

I want to take a moment to thank my wife, and I will try not to be emotional. Yesterday was our 11th wedding anniversary and I was unable to be with her, but she understands the importance of my taking part in this debate and said, “Dear, I will see you in a week or so”.

I am so proud of our Quebec caucus for making the significant sacrifice of giving up their important holiday and their chance to meet and enjoy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day with their constituents. I am sure that Quebeckers who chose the NDP in the election are also proud of their choice. They see each member from that caucus in action in the House defending workers in the province of Quebec and in Canada. I want to thank them.

I spent 28 years in the labour movement and this is very emotional for me. In 1988, I spent over 17 weeks on strike. I decided to script myself, because if I do not, who knows what I might say?

With Bill C-6 the government has broken a tradition in this place, a tradition of balance. With this bill the government has chosen to thumb its nose at the rights of the workers of Canada Post. These are workers who simply want to achieve a fair and balanced collective agreement.

I suggest that the remainder of Canada's workforce serving Canadians under the jurisdiction of the federal government should be very concerned. Those same workers who ensure that Canadians receive the services they need and deserve are now facing the most ideologically-driven government in the country's history.

There is a labour relations chill emanating from the government as result of Bill C-6 that will be felt across this great country. It will be felt most in the homes and lives of good hard-working Canadians. These Canadians thought they could count on their federal government, a Conservative government, for a fair and even-handed approach in the times of significant labour disputes. Sadly, things have changed with Bill C-6 and today Canadian workers will begin to realize how wrong they have been about the Conservative government.

Throughout this debate I found out just how terribly uninformed the Conservative members of Parliament are in regarding the union's role, its legal role, in collective bargaining. I want to take a few moments to offer a Coles Notes version. Since workers as well as employers are represented, it might be worth the Conservatives' while to understand this.

Prior to setting a national strategy for negotiations, all locals post bargaining proposal sheets on their union bulletin boards. These forms are used to seek union membership proposals for changes to the collective agreement. Members will note that I said “proposals”, not “demands”.

The employees work under and within the terms of their collective agreement and where they find shortcomings they make proposals to their local union officers. An elected bargaining rep from the rank and file of the union compiles these proposals, as do all other locals across the bargaining unit. The union then holds a local meeting where all members can support or reject their co-workers' proposals.

The proposals that are passed at these meetings are forwarded to the central bargaining caucus. The local union bargaining representatives, who are elected by their local, attend this caucus where all the proposals from the local meetings are presented, prioritized, and voted on by the full caucus.

After the bargaining caucus has sent their packaged proposals to be presented to the employer, they elect a bargaining team in whom they place their trust. The bargaining team then meets with the company and they exchange proposals.

Again, it is “proposals” and not “demands” or “offers”. Of course, the media, the spin doctors, call these proposals “workers demands”, while what the other side brings to the table is described as a “company offer”. Do members see the difference?

Now that I have set out the process for union member participation in the bargaining process, I would like to remind members that one thing that comes up repeatedly is the question of how the union gets a strike mandate.

Unions hold secret ballot votes for their members, most in advance of presenting proposals to the company. Some do so after a final offer. Either way, it is a secret ballot vote.

The wording on the ballot usually says that a member who votes “yes” authorizes the bargaining committee to meet with the company and to take action up to and including a strike if they fail to reach an agreement. The point is that this process is open and democratic from beginning to end. More important, it clearly indicates the trust that the workers put in their bargaining committee. For workers, the strike is the last vote, the last tool in the box.

I would suggest in this debate that the uninformed government members have shown more of what they do not know about collective bargaining than what they do know. This stands out when we hear the old clichés about old union bosses. Well, I guess I am an old union boss.

I proudly served my membership in Local 42 of the communication workers, and later CEP, for 28 years. I am also proud to say I was the longest-serving president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, where we had 105 different local unions. In all of that time, the workers trusted me and I never lost a single motion, because we were always honest with one another. They never called me “boss”; they called me “brother”. I trusted my members' judgment when they took positions at our meetings, and they trusted me. As they said, they were the only boss in the room.

This has been a lengthy way to begin my intervention on Bill C-6 and on the damage it does to all labour relations with this government. This bill is first and foremost about the future of the workers at Canada Post, the posties, the good, hard-working people that Canadians have for generations entrusted to ensure the delivery of our letters, cards, and packages.

As will often be heard from the NDP in this place, these good, loyal workers have followed the rules. In good faith, they have proposed changes to their collective agreement and submitted them to their employer. Throughout the bargaining process their representatives have worked hard to resolve these matters.

In the bargaining process, there are few options for employees to ensure that their proposals are given proper consideration by the employer. If workers decide that the company is not taking their bargaining committee seriously, they can choose to work to rule, for instance.

In this case, in a most responsible manner, instead of an all-out strike, CUPW decided to use rotating strikes to draw the attention of the public and the government to their situation. They were trying not to overly inconvenience the public. Since they were not shutting down the whole system, they proved that point. During the impasse, the union agreed to deliver essential mail such as pension cheques so as not to inconvenience Canadians.

Let us be clear: it was Canada Post, the employer, who locked out the posties. Even when the posties had agreed to stop the rotating strikes and work under the old contract, Canada Post and this government said no.

To be clear, one has to ask what is happening. Why is the Conservative government so quick to trample on the rights of Canadian workers? At least in my opinion, the ideology of the government has overtaken them. Why else would they turn upside down the historical practices of this House?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

It is truly an honour to rise on this debate and speak to this topic.

However, first I would like to bring to the attention of the House some important news happening in Manitoba. I want to announce that the NHL franchise will be called the Winnipeg Jets. I am very happy about that.

I am also going to talk about this important debate. I listened to the member's speech. My question is mostly focused on entrepreneurs and the people who run small businesses. These people drive our economy. When I was an entrepreneur, I relied on the mail quite often. Every day one would expect information on incoming sales, and marketing information was going out.

My primary question for the member is this: does the hon. member not see that what we are going to accomplish through this bill will have a net benefit to our country and to our economy?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only way it could be better is if the team came to Hamilton.

Going directly to the question, it is not the fact the government decided to force workers back to work, it is how fast it did. There appears to be, and I use the words “appears to be” a complicity between Canada Post and the government for the lockout in the first place. It may or may not be the case.

It is how quickly Conservatives moved and the fact that they are legislating a worse offer than what the group had. It is breaking the traditions of this place.

Why not trust the staff arbitrators that the Minister of Labour has at her disposal to settle this dispute?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to think of what the link is between the labour stoppage at the post office and hockey. All I can think of offhand is my shot is a bit more like regular mail than email. That is the best I could come up with. It is not all that fast.

I would agree it would be nice to see Hamilton have a hockey team. It is great that Winnipeg is going to have an NHL team again. Next, of course, Toronto will want one, as the joke goes.

Considering the fact that, in my view, this legislation sends an unbalanced system of arbitration, recognizing that when there is a lockout or a strike, even a rotating strike, there are impacts that are negative for the employer and the employees.

Does the member think it is possible to have an arbitration that is imposed where a fair result could actually be achieved?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the collective bargaining process there are provisions for an arbitrator to make a ruling on the final disposition of collective bargaining. In this country it is important the government allows that to proceed without a heavyhanded approach.

By the way, when the letter carriers are on strike, they are not like the people who are not getting the letters. The letter carriers are not getting a paycheque. No one wants to be on strike. The reality is it is not good for anybody.

Why does the government side not listen to the proposals that have come from our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, and help us come together so that we can resolve this situation?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek very ably outlined some of the processes in collective bargaining.

An email says that: “CUPW took a vote to ratify our demands pre-negotiation. We then debated these demands at two levels, locally and regionally, and voted on each one. Our members then got a strike vote, 94.5%, the highest vote ever, highest turnout ever, and we gave our national executive board the authority to vote on our behalf and it gave us the opportunity to vote on an offer and when they vote on that the contract is adequate enough for us to vote on”.

It talks about the fact the postal workers themselves are not in favour of this lockout. They offered to stay at work and continue to negotiate.

I wonder if the member could comment on that process within a collective bargaining unit.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I have a bit of experience I would like to talk about. In 1988, I was on the bargaining committee for the communication workers with Bell Canada. We negotiated every day for nine months and then we had a 17 and a half week strike. I understand very clearly the seriousness of this situation. But it is a democratic process. It is an open process, contrary to what is said.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a great national holiday to my constituents. I hope they are seizing this opportunity to celebrate the Quebec nation with their family or friends. I can say that, in electing an NDP member, they voted for a Canadian who respects and shares their language and culture.

On June 3, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes. However, even though workers were fighting for the right to a decent salary, they continued to provide a service that remains important to Canadians. On June 15, Canada Post decided to impose a lockout, thus depriving Canadians of postal services. Five days later, the government introduced back-to-work legislation that provides for a salary increase lower than the one offered by Canada Post during the negotiations, and also sets strict limits on the arbitrator's mandate in settling the dispute.

Through this action, the government has shown its contempt for collective bargaining and for the rights of Canadians who are waging a legitimate battle for their rights as public service employees. If the bill is passed, the Conservatives will have changed the rules significantly.

During the negotiations, Canada Post tried to impose certain working conditions on its employees, thus adversely affecting their quality of life and that of their families. For its current employees, it wanted to end the Workers Compensation Board's contribution for injured employees, to replace the benefits paid by the employer with an expense account for health care, to abolish the seventh week of annual leave, to eliminate sick leave and to impose a short term disability plan. For new employees, it wanted to reduce job security and social benefits, and to lower pensions and salaries.

Even though Canada Post gave up on certain reductions during the negotiations, it never took into consideration the union's demands relating to staffing, health and safety and working conditions. The fact that the government refuses to admit that this is a lockout, and not a strike by employees, confirms that there is no will to bring concrete solutions to these issues. Let us make one thing clear: it is the government that locked the doors at Canada Post.

Canada Post belongs to all Canadians, and its mandate is to guarantee postal service to all Canadians. The government is headed toward privatization, despite the fact that there is no alternative for fulfilling the mandate of Canada Post. While we in Canada pay 59¢ to mail a standard letter, the same service may cost up to 88¢ in countries with privatized services. In addition, it should be noted that Canada Post is profitable. Last year, its total revenues were $281 million.

Why should we punish postal workers and reward Canada Post, which imposed a lockout and was basically responsible for the shutdown of postal services? In addition, the back-to-work legislation calls for lower wage increases than those proposed by Canada Post in its latest offer: 1.9% in 2011 and 2012-2013 and 2% in 2014. The Conservatives' legislation proposes lower increases of 1.7% in 2011, 1.5% in 2012 and 2% in 2013 and 2014. I want to point out that both offers are well below the 3.3% inflation rate.

According to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, that legislation would cost a typical full-time employee $875.50 over the four years of the agreement. Is the government here to reduce wages? Is it here to create a precedent that will enable it to interfere every time to cut wages?

I am very proud to represent the beautiful Quebec riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Many families who live in this riding are already heavily in debt, and they are having a great deal of trouble maintaining their modest lifestyle. Many of my constituents are worried at this moment. In fact, they are telling me that if the Conservatives are prepared to impose an act like this one on postal workers, then they would definitely be prepared to show an equal lack of respect for workers across the country. They elected me because they wanted to build a country in which workers had better working conditions, in which the elderly could live in dignity and in which young people could be confident about their future.

Today, we can see clearly that the Conservatives have a very different view of things. They supported a two-tier pension system that was initially put forward by Canada Post management, a system that would allow existing employees a defined benefit pension plan whereas newly-hired employees would have a defined contribution pension plan. Since then, Canada Post management has revised its position, but it is still asking for a five year increase in the retirement age.

If this bill is adopted, it will be a major setback for all workers, including those who live in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. If the bill is passed, it will be sending a clear message to my generation: we are going to receive less stable pensions than previous generations. The manner in which the government intervened in this matter is blatant evidence of its lack of any political will to defend the next generations.

The Conservatives imposed the lockout on the pretext that the dispute at Canada Post threatened to cause serious harm to the Canadian economy. If that is true, why did they lock the doors to prevent employees from going to work? The Conservatives measure the strength of the economy in terms of the profits made by their friends, but my NDP colleagues and I believe that the strength of our economy is measured in the ability of ordinary families to make ends meet.

If we take away from workers the right to use legitimate means to defend their rights, we will continue to increase inequities. The government has attacked the defined benefit pension plan and has shown itself open to reducing wages and benefits. If this trend continues, Canada will become a country in which people of my generation will no longer be able to rely on dependable pensions when they retire, and in which the quality of life for workers will deteriorate.

The trend can already be seen. The wages of workers today are already proportionality lower than they were 20 years ago. According to Statistics Canada, between 1980 and 2005, full-time wages for this group dropped by 20.6%. Last evening in the House, the leader of the official opposition pointed out that the gains made by workers in recent decades needed protection. It is these gains that must be built upon.

It must not be forgotten that in 1981, CUPW was the first union to obtain paid maternity leave. It succeeded in obtaining this benefit after a 42-day strike, and once this was achieved, it set additional standards for all other employees. We cannot ignore the fact that this bill comes on the heels of other bills introduced south of the border in Wisconsin, Texas, Michigan, Idaho and Arizona. This is our Wisconsin, and we must stand up on behalf of workers everywhere in Canada.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the new member to the House of Commons. It is wonderful to see her here today.

A constituent from my riding wrote to say that results of medical tests she had been expecting were hung up in the mail. Some of the tests involved mammograms. Tests that go between hospitals and different clinics are sent via the mail and they are in a holding pattern right now.

I know this is the first bill for the member. I know she is very mindful of the health of Canadians and wants the best for Canadians. I ask the member to encourage members of her caucus to get Bill C-6 passed right now so we could get the mail delivery moving.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that this is a lockout and not a strike. I would like the member's caucus to make it clear to Canadians that this is a lockout, that the government has put the locks on the doors of Canada Post, and that the government can take them off anytime it wants to.

I would like to remind my hon. colleagues of those facts. I would like to remind Canadians that it is a Conservative government that is preventing Canada Post employees from going back to work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, prior to my question, I just want to join with the member for Winnipeg South in recognizing the Winnipeg Jets as the formal name of our NHL hockey franchise, something that many Manitobans wanted to see.

The question I have for the member is in regard to whether or not the NDP would maybe support the amendment that would take out the clause dealing with the amount of money being suggested for Canada Post employees. I assume that they would support it given the fact that at one point a number of weeks back there was an agreement with Canada Post that would have seen a better pay increase.

Would the member support an amendment of that nature?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague knows that Canada Post employees are ready to go back to work right now. I think my hon. colleague is also aware that we cannot discuss this matter right now.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has just spoken about wages, and the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles also spoke about working conditions. I spoke to the union representative in my riding yesterday, who said that there had been a 1,000% increase in work-related injuries after their assignments had changed recently, requiring them to simultaneously deliver many things other than envelopes.

These work-related injuries are likely to increase, under the new conditions Canada Post would like to impose. Employees, therefore, have good reason to want to negotiate their working conditions.

I would like to ask my colleague whether, as the members on the other side of the House claim, we are opposed to the resumption of services or whether we are fighting against the manner in which this is being done and the fact that it is becoming impossible for workers to bargain for their working conditions.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is obvious that workers took legitimate means to claim their right to reasonable wages. It is really up to the government to put an end to this lockout and to allow workers to return to work.

I would like to add that when I speak to young people in my riding, they tell me that they are worried about their future because the bill in question is creating a very dangerous precedent. They have the impression that we are witnessing a downward slide.

I am worried for the young people in my riding as well as for future workers.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to my hon. colleague across the way. I have numerous letters from my constituency as well. Postal workers are complaining that their union is not giving them an opportunity to vote on the offer that is on the table.

However, most importantly, I wonder if the opposition member actually understands that the longer this goes on, the more that businesses and Canadians will find alternate ways to deal with this work stoppage. That can only undermine the ability of Canada Post Corporation to go forward, which would undermine the ability of the CUPW workers to have a job.

I wonder if the member understands that the longer this drags on, the worse it is for everyone involved.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague when the government will be ready to put an end to this lockout and when the government will be ready to allow these workers to go back to work and keep serving Canadians the way they have been doing.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, I am rising to speak on Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. It is important for us to continue to emphasize the importance of a healthy environment for fair and collective bargaining. This back-to-work legislation undermines that process.

Why do workers need to continue to have faith that they have the right to a fair collective bargaining process? It is about working conditions. It is about protecting those hard-won rights that workers for many years have fought for. It is about trust in the democratic process.

This country has a long history of needing to work toward protecting workers' rights, of needing to protect worker's health and safety. I want to provide a bit of history about why this is so important and why workers need to continue to have their rights protected.

I am from the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. Tomorrow there is a miners heritage picnic put on by the South End Community Association. In part, this miners picnic is about remembering our history in Nanaimo—Cowichan and honouring the proud history of miners in contributing to the development of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, and other parts of the riding. I want to go back a bit in history and talk about the protection of workers' rights.

I have an article dated Friday, April 1, 2011, titled “Nanaimo is no stranger to deadly fires and disasters”. The article talks about what happened to workers when their rights were not protected and when they did not have the safe working conditions that are so important to them and to their families.

The article states:

A massive explosion had torn through Nanaimo's No.1 Esplanade mine, instantly killing dozens of men while leaving those trapped to die from carbon monoxide poisoning over the next few days. When rescuers finally made it inside, they found final messages to loved ones scrawled on shovels in coal dust; the miners had known they would never escape those dark caverns alive.

This tragedy on May 3, 1887 marked one of the worst mining disasters in Canadian history. In total, 153 men died....Local historians say it's important to never forget about these tragedies. They often highlight the need for better working conditions or improved regulations....The 1887 tragedy, caused when a spark ignited methane gas, had the highest death toll but several other mining disasters also resulted in numerous fatalities.

Seventy-seven miners died on Jan. 24, 1888 at the No.5 Wellington mine at Diver Lake when a miner-fired shot ignited gas or dust. Just over a decade later, 32 more miners were killed in an explosion at the No.2 West Mine at Extension; in 1918, 18 miners died when a mine collapsed near Protection Island.

We know that mining conditions in Canada have substantially improved since that time. We also know that in recent memory we had the Westray disaster, which resulted in the Westray mine bill in the House being brought forward over a number of years by Alexa McDonough until the House adopted it.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am trying to be very attentive, as I have been all day, listening to the speeches from across the way. I am wondering about the relevance. I did not know the debate was about mining. I thought it was about postal services.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member. Obviously there is a standing order that urges us to keep our remarks in the context of the question before us, and I am sure the hon. member is getting near that point.

Carry on.