Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am assuming further to the comments that have been made.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We have at least another 48 hours before Monday comes. I ask the member for Peterborough to withdraw his comment, which he just made when he sat down, where he called people “union thugs”. I am sure the people who work in Peterborough are not union thugs. I would like him to withdraw that comment.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

On the same point of order, earlier I asked for unanimous consent to table a document from a local postal worker in Peterborough who I support, who actually referred to the union management as “union thugs”. I asked for unanimous consent to table it. Can I have it now?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

There is no unanimous consent.

Order, please.

I was unable to hear the comments from either the parliamentary secretary or the hon. member because of the shouting and the heckling, so I would ask everybody to calm down and listen to each other so that we can have a more respectful debate.

Is there a question now? I have lost track.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou has the floor for a question.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly going to please members opposite by pointing out that the current lockout does indeed have a significant economic impact. That impact is not just related to the shutting down of postal services, but also to the imposition of certain working conditions on postal workers.

Mr. Stephen Jarislowsky, who manages a $46 billion investment fund, said he was worried about the current economic situation, where the natural resources sector is dominant. He compared this situation to the housing bubble in the United States.

Does the hon. member think that a good negotiated settlement would be a better solution to ensure good working conditions and retirement benefits for our workers, while also ensuring our economic viability?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Of course, Madam Speaker, but first we must act in good faith. We must start off on the right foot and resume negotiations.

How can it be done when the government imposes salary increases that are less than those offered by the employer? It is impossible. The first thing to do is to ensure that workers' interests are protected, so that we can then sit at the table and resume negotiations in a respectful fashion.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, five months ago the Prime Minister of the Conservative government appointed the president and CEO of Canada Post. He gave the president and CEO a half a million dollar salary and a 33% bonus. That means he earns more than three-quarters of a million dollars a year.

Five months later, on June 3, this CEO cut off the drug coverage and other benefits of all employees, which includes those on sick leave and disability insurance. Ten days after that he locked out 48,000 workers. While they are locked out, he continues to get his salary and bonus every day, and that is more than $2,000 per day. Meanwhile, of course, the workers do not get their salary.

Why does a CEO kick out the workers and prevent them from working, you might want to ask, especially given that the company has made, in the last 15 years, $1.7 billion. They are not losing money. It has been profitable. In fact, their profit has come back to the taxpayers of Canada. Remember, the first mandate of Canada Post is to deliver services, to deliver mail universally to everyone in Canada. That is their mandate, not just to make money for us. But they do make money.

Let me contrast that with a letter carrier. The hourly rate for new workers is $19 per hour. That is what is being offered. The current starting rate for workers before this was $23.11, and the maximum dollar amount per hour is $24.15. The offer on the table, given by the CEO of the post office, appointed by the Prime Minister, is 1.9%.

Now remember, the CEO, on average, over the last few years, has received a 4% salary increase. He gets a 4% increase. The annual average rate of inflation is 3.3%. This worker is given 1.9%. The Conservative Party, with the Prime Minister, is rubbing salt on the wound and saying, no, 1.9% is too high; let us lower it to 1.5%. That is what this legislation is all about, lowering the wages that were offered by Canada Post from 1.9% to 1.5%. I do not know how these members of Parliament can justify that.

A letter carrier carries up to 35 pounds. I would challenge any member of Parliament on the opposite side to carry 35 pounds of mail in all kinds of weather--snow, sleet, rain. Do it, and do it for 35 years and see what happens to you.

Let me tell you what happens to the post office workers, the sorters and the mail delivery people. One out of ten of them are injured on the job--one out of 10. That is three times more severe, on average, in terms of injury than any worker in Ontario. This kind of injury is three times more serious.

In all of last year, 6,335 incidents of injury were reported, with close to 3,000 workers being disabled because of injuries. What kinds of injuries? There were 27 concussions, one amputation, one electric shock, 91 fractures, three frostbites, 325 bruises, and 978 sprains. Over 1,000 workers in pain, all in the last year.

These are our public servants that we are talking about. They are not thugs. They are our workers. They deliver service to our public.

Where were they hurt? There have been 405 who have hurt their ankles and 579 who have injured their lower backs. Can anyone imagine carrying that weight? There were 302 of them who have injured their knees, hundreds have injured their hands and wrists, and 10 have injured their lungs and other internal organs.

How were they hurt? They slip. They trip. They fall. They are hit by trucks, cars and carts. They are assaulted. And there were 87 workers who were bitten, stung and scratched by animals and insects. It is not an easy job. It is a dangerous job.

There are many ways for a post office to make money. With regard to postal banking, for example, New Zealand and Italy introduced it. Now, a few years later, 30% of the revenue comes from postal banking, representing 70% of their profits.

There are many ways to make sure that Canada Post is financially viable and that it continues to make a profit. They have to think creatively and try something new rather than targeting the workers. The job of a postal worker is really difficult.

I want to read a letter from a constituent of mine. He is a concerned Canadian, not a postal worker.

He said, “If Canada's economic action plan is delivering results to Canadians and supporting job creation, it does not make sense to support a contract by Canada Post that would hurt Canadians and risk the elimination of thousands of jobs. This is a time when we should be strengthening Canadian jobs and the Canadian economy, especially those jobs that provide a vital service across our nation. As the economy improves, concessionary demands by management should be dropped. Demands for cuts in benefits for new hires, lower rates for current temporary employees, and the replacement of sick leave with personal days and a weak short-term disability plan sharply undermine the hard work of CUPW members and the maintenance of a quality public postal service. Canada Post's behaviour has been unethical and very discouraging. Please ask Canada Post to stop the cuts and accept CUPW's offer. The parties should negotiate a fair contract. It should not be forced by legislation.”

Another note said, “Canada Post should not be allowed to stop mail delivery. The Corporation is responsible for an essential service.”

They want to remind me, and all members of Parliament, that the union was willing to continue to deliver mail on a rotating basis while the negotiations continued. The postal workers are willing to work if the doors are opened.

Given how dangerous their jobs are, and given how little they are paid compared to the CEO who earns 14 times more than they make, what we should do today is to show some respect to the hard-working, beloved postal workers. Let us open the doors. Let them work.

Stop the lockout now and bring them back to their jobs so they can continue to deliver an essential service to all Canadians.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Trinity—Spadina for her lecture on why, in her opinion, the class war continues in Canada.

Before that, we had the member for Pontiac, who has unfortunately departed, giving us a speech—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that anyone should talk about whether a person is absent or present in this House. I could start naming all the people who are absent, but I do not think that is allowed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member. That is accurate.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

I apologize for that.

Madam Speaker, the member for Pontiac also gave us his version of an address to the 15th plenum of the communist party of some country. I have never heard an attack so absolutely outrageous and bombastic against capitalism. He called our system of market economy “savage capitalism”. It takes me back to my days in Moscow.

What we really need to know from the hon. member is if she will extend the same concern for injuries of non-unionized workers to the injuries of business people who are not receiving their mail because of the blockage her party has brought about in this Parliament. Will she express the same concern for the injuries of the Canadian Forces, fighting for our country in Afghanistan? Or is she going to simply focus on continuing to block--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I am concerned about the injuries of all workers.

I want to read a note. This is from a postal worker from Peterborough:

I am not sending this e-mail to my member of Parliament...as it is clear by his behaviour in Parliament that he is against unions and it would only hit his trash bin as fast as back-to-work legislation hit the floor. My MP only adds to our burden by sending us 20-plus meaningless unaddressed ad mails per year. Please do not let this current Bill C-6 pass.

I think that the very insulting lowering of wages being offered from 1.9% to 1.5% should be withdrawn. That is what is in front of us.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

On a point of order, the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has just referred to a document. I would request that the member table that document.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the member wish to ask for unanimous consent to table the document?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have this in front of me. I could send it in, but I think I require unanimous consent.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Just to be clear, there was no unanimous consent on that, and I have asked the hon. member for Churchill to speak.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, if a member refers to a document, as the member did, and it is asked that it be tabled, with all due respect, I do not believe that unanimous consent is required, because the person who read the document has simply to say no and no documents would be tabled.

Therefore, there is no requirement for unanimous consent when a member asks that a document referred to be tabled. I suggest, with respect, that the member has no choice but to table it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Indeed, except for ministers, any member who wishes to table a document must seek and obtain the unanimous consent of the House to do so.

I think we will move on from this point of order.

The hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned by some of the questioning in the House that has this light humourous tone. After about 24 hours of debating this issue, we should all recognize how serious it is and give the respect that is owed to the people on the picket lines fighting for rights that we all ought to have as Canadian workers.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to elaborate on the point she raised about the draconian nature of this legislation. The government has taken a position that it will go farther than Canada Post, farther than management, and give workers who are doing nothing more than asking for a fair wage less than what management has put on the table. What does she think about this measure?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the inflation rate is 3.3%. The union is asking to catch up with the cost of living. This is not unreasonable. The CEO of Canada Post, who was appointed by the Prime Minister, offered 1.9%. However, this legislation would give them 1.5%, lowering that by 0.4%. That is a complete insult.

This means that if a party goes to negotiate, they need not worry, the Conservative government would not only legislate them back to work, it would actually lower the wage increase. This approach would create even more labour conflict.