Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

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

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for that intervention because I was about to make the link.

This brings me forward to modern days. I was setting the context for the importance of the trade union movement in this country in terms of protecting workers with safe working conditions and fighting for regulations that keep workers safe. Here we are, fast-forwarded to modern day.

I have an email that states:

I would love somebody from the government side to comment on the increased levels of injury that have been documented in every province since the Postal Transformation was initiated a year ago...the new delivery system which was referred to earlier in a somewhat derisive way requires that one arm balance two bundles of mail while the other is needed to sort the mail while going from point of delivery to point of delivery. This new method of carrying the bundles effectively removes the free that was needed in the past to navigate up and down slippery stairs. This has contributed to more injuries while the restructures associated with lessening the work force has led to forced overtime which has contributed to increased injury levels.

The email goes on to say:

...I can assure you that at least 10% of the work force, at any given time, is either sick, injured, or on some kind of modified duty or disability related to the onerous workplace conditions.

In 1887 we had miners dying because of unsafe work practices. In modern day we still have workers injured or being killed on the job because of unsafe work practices.

It comes back to the importance of the trade union movement and a collective bargaining process that protects the rights of workers and continues to fight for the rights of workers to ensure that those conditions stay in place. I hope the member can see the relevance of continuing to protect these rights.

Now, other workers in Canada continue to be abused by their employers, but many employers in this country provide safe working conditions. They respect the labour standards in their particular provincial jurisdiction. I do understand that. However, some employers are terrible employers.

I want to turn to an article entitled “Abuse of foreign workers must be stopped, says labour group: Alberta government action needed in light of new criminal charges, says AFL” .

This is an article about some of the working conditions for some of the most vulnerable workers. They often do not have protection. They do not have the protection of a trade union. They do not have the protection of a collective bargaining process. Fundamental to part of what we are talking about today is the collective bargaining process, which is so important to the rights of workers in this country from coast to coast to coast.

In this particular article, dated April 16, 2011, it states:

News of criminal charges being laid in relation to welders and machinists from Poland and Ukraine working in Alberta is more evidence of widespread violation of employment laws and the abuse of foreign workers, says the province's largest labour group.

It goes on to state:

Foreign workers are vulnerable because they fear deportation and are not always aware of their rights.

It further states:

Last year, the NDP revealed government documents that showed 74 per cent of Alberta businesses hiring temporary foreign workers that were subject to inspection had violated the labour code.

It goes on:

Workers are charged thousands of dollars in illegal fees, often live in homes owned by employers or agencies who charge outrageous rents, are told to work long hours while being denied fair rates of pay--but are afraid to complain because their employer can lay them off and have them deported.

Of course, in this country right now, because they are temporary foreign workers they are not eligible to be covered by a collective bargaining unit. It is shameful that these kind of conditions, with two-tiered labour practices, are allowed to continue in this country.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers almost feels like a test case for the government. If it gets away with this, what is it saying to workers across this country in terms of being able to be protected by their union, by their collective bargaining process, by the understanding that they will continue to have those rights protected in this country?

Another case again concerns people coming from outside the country: “Caregivers urge 'wage theft' victims to go public”. We have a program here called a live-in caregiver program, and in some cases it is tantamount to slave labour.

There were a couple of cases recently where people went public because of the conditions they were working under. In this case, the claimant said she cared for an elderly woman and her two adult children with developmental disabilities for 10 years. In the last four years of working for them, she alleges that she was living with them and putting in--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member for Kitchener—Conestoga is rising on a point of order.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Earlier in my colleague's comments she was challenged about not getting to the point of the debate. She immediately linked it well, but I think she has lost the link again. I would ask her to please get back to the issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair recognizes the fact that relevance is an issue and that at times members take detours or circuitous routes to the business at hand. I have every confidence that the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan can do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, part of this demonstrates that there continue to be working conditions in this country that need to be protected by the work the trade union movement does. It is important that New Democrats and others in the House continue to fight this back-to-work legislation, because it undermines the collective bargaining process.

We have heard from members opposite that this situation is undermining the economy and that we should support the legislation. I need to remind those members and others who are watching that what we have here is a situation where the workers were locked out. If there is that much concern for the economy, then these workers would be allowed to continue to work while the negotiation process went on.

I urge all members in the House to vote against Bill C-6.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have been made about the member deviating from the issue at hand, and that is because what we are seeing here is just a good old-fashioned filibuster.

The opposition party is not acting in the interests of Canadians. If they were serious about helping Canadians, serious about helping postal workers, serious about ensuring that Canada Post can function in the future, they would pass the bill as it now stands.

There has been eight months of negotiations. The government has watched the two parties. They have not been able to come to an agreement. The legislation provides an opportunity to bring the parties together so Canadians can get their mail.

Will the opposition stop this filibuster and allow Canadians to receive their mail immediately? Pass this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government were serious about getting the mail moving, they would unlock the doors.

Members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers had offered to remain at work while negotiations continued. Instead, Canada Post chose to lock them out, halting mail delivery from coast to coast to coast.

If the member is serious, his government would support the hoist motion put forward by the leader of the official opposition, take six months, unlock the doors, allow the workers to go back to work and get the mail moving.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my honourable colleague for her great speech.

Although hon. members on the other side of the House do not always see the link between the importance of the work that the unions have been doing over the last few decades, even a century, many of the benefits that we get now right across the country are thanks to unions. I want to thank the member for bringing that up.

The important thing to understand right now is that we are seeing unfair legislation. The government is trying to legislate lower wages. They need to take that out of the legislation. I would like to hear my honourable colleague's comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sudbury for that question. Of course the member's community is no stranger to what happens when workers are locked out or workers need to go on strike because of the conditions they work under.

I appreciate my colleague raising the question about the relevance in this day and age of what working conditions are like for some workers in this country and why we need to continue to support the rights of workers to collectively bargain fairly and not have government interfere in that process.

What we have In this back-to-work legislation is an effort by the government to impose wages on workers outside of the collective bargaining process. How is that a fair collective bargaining process?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my honourable friend from Nanaimo—Cowichan if she is aware that just recently, in the last hour, there was a news release from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations announcing their conclusion that this piece of legislation, Bill C-6, would do permanent damage to collective bargaining across Canada.

I would like to ask the hon. member if she has heard of this development and if she has any thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing that to my attention.

There are others who have written about how this kind of back-to-work legislation undermines the collective bargaining process in this country. Again, collective bargaining is part of our democratic process. It is part of the process where workers and employers get together and negotiate. This is not negotiation. This is imposition.

I would again urge all members to vote against Bill C-6.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from Quebec, who have taken a principled position against this terrible bill. I would like to thank them for defending the rights of workers on Quebec's national holiday.

They are here today in Ottawa—rather than in their ridings to celebrate the Quebec holiday—to represent Quebeckers. They are here to protect the workers of Quebec and Canada. In other words, they are here to do their work. I can assure the constituents who elected them on May 2 that they made a very good choice.

I am pleased to rise today to bring a northern Ontario perspective on this government's horrible piece of legislation. This legislation is truly scary, because it is an attack on the rights of workers in Canada. This Conservative government has always had a fundamental dislike for workers' rights because they have always placed corporate profits ahead of decent wages.

Bill C-6 is designed to cut short the collective bargaining process at Canada Post and offer postal workers less than they are currently being offered by the postal company.

Northern Ontario has a unique perspective on the issue of workers' rights. My generation has made their living as miners. They have been proud members of the United Steelworkers of America and the Canadian Auto Workers union. I am a proud member of USW local 6500, having worked at Inco for 34 years. I proudly held many positions in my union. Whether it was as a shop steward or a picket captain, I took my job and my responsibilities seriously. Health and safety were foremost in our thoughts because our work was so dangerous.

These standards came about because our workers organized and pushed the government to end reduced health and safety standards. The recent deaths of two miners at the Stobie Mine only serves to underscore why we must remain vigilant at all times. With respect to strikes, we have never taken a strike lightly or without a vote.

In 1978 and 1979 my union spent nine months on the picket line. I was married with two young children, and the strain on our family was severe, but at no point did my wife complain. At no point did I waiver in my determination to fight for our rights. And at no point did my brothers and sisters at local 6500 complain. Why? It was because management was unwilling to bargain in good faith. That's why. This is exactly where we are today.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers decided to put in place rotating strikes in part to reduce the impact of a total strike. They undertook these rotating strikes while continuing to negotiate. What happened next amounts to negotiating in bad faith and a concerted attack on workers' rights by this government. Canada Post locked out workers just as the Conservative government was bringing in legislation with lower wages than the postal company was offering. This legislation is contrary to the International Labour Organization conventions and contravenes the fundamental rights of all workers to organize and bargain collectively.

New Democrats believe that this legislation is a clear signal of where the Conservatives intend to take labour relations in this country. Denis Lemelin, national president of CUPW said, and I quote:

We never got a chance in this round of bargaining. Canada Post spent months just saying no and misleading the public about our proposals. Now, as we call for a meeting with Canada Post's President, the Harper government is going to rescue him from a responsibility to negotiate realistically with the workers.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been trying to bring postal proposals to the bargaining table that address health and safety issues around Canada Post's new sorting machines and delivery methods. Contrary to the myth being perpetrated by members of the Conservative government, CUPW has also offered proposals for innovations and expansion of the public postal service.

Canada Post's focus on concessions has made it impossible to negotiate. CUPW members are fighting to keep their collective agreement from being eroded and are also resisting wage rollbacks for new hires. The union has called on the government to require Canada Post to immediately lift its lockout of members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and reinstate the recently expired urban operations collective agreement. Once this is done, CUPW members have committed to returning to work. It is required that Canada Post give their negotiators a new mandate to arrive at a new collective agreement with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that enshrines the principles of respect, dignity, and the sharing of benefits of new technology.

These are responsible demands, Mr. Speaker. Back-to-work legislation is unjust and unnecessary.

In his letter to the labour minister, Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress wrote:

Minister, the proper role for the government in this instance is to tell its own Crown Corporation to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate a collective agreement. It is not to aid the Corporation to achieve, through back to work legislation, its collective bargaining objectives. There is no incentive here Minister, with your actions, for the employer to return to the bargaining table and negotiate.

Your role, as Minister, is to foster the process of collective bargaining and not get directly involved in any dispute. For collective bargaining to work, the parties themselves must willingly negotiate. Your actions have removed the employer's obligation to negotiate which will only serve to further poison already acrimonious labour relations.

I agree with Mr. Georgetti. It seems that the government lacks a true understanding of the impact of wage rollbacks on the economy as a whole. After all, these workers are not sending their wages and pension benefits to banks in the Bahamas or secret Swiss accounts. They are spending that money at businesses in their communities. Decent wages help the housing sector, the retail sector, the transportation sector and help create jobs and spur the economy. They also lead to increased tax revenues for the government. It is basic economics.

Recently, northern Ontarians experienced the longest strike in our history when members of the United Steelworkers were on strike for almost a year. They were fighting to protect their wages and pensions, as well as the pensions of future workers.

Pensions are under attack today and the government is signalling that it will support those attacks on pensions. How short-sighted. Why did the members of United Steelworkers have to go on strike for almost a year? It was because the Conservative government supported the foreign take-over of a successful Canadian company and then refused to defend the rights of workers when the new company laid them off by hundreds, in violation of their condition of purchase of Inco.

Northern Ontarians understand the value of good wages. They understand the value of defined benefit pensions. They understand because they experienced first-hand how good wages and good pensions benefit their communities.

Northern Ontario is essentially a collection of small communities dotted along the highway. Workers spend their wages in these very communities. They get married and have children. They buy their homes and even buy their cottages in northern Ontario. When the government attacks the workers' rights by bringing in legislation that lowers the wages of workers and circumvents the collective bargaining process, I can say that, as a northern Ontarian, I see this action as an attack on our way of life.

This legislation is a classic example of ideology trumping economics. Conservative members have used as an excuse the lack of progress in negotiation as a reason for this legislation. I ask the House why Canada Post would negotiate in good faith if it knows the government will bring in back to work legislation.

The government has actively undermined the collective bargaining process. This intervention will not be forgotten by workers across the country. It will not be forgotten by workers in my community. New Democrats will continue to fight to protect workers' rights in the face of such a concerted attack by the government.

I am proud of the efforts by my leader and his great New Democratic caucus in their determination to protect the rights of workers.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to comments continually coming from NDP members regarding the need to protect all workers and yet their actions today show me very much to the contrary that they have any desire to protect all the workers of Canada.

I give, for an example, the 58,000 workers employed in the print industry that, at the very beginning, was drastically affected through the rotating strikes. Companies were afraid to send out anything via direct mail in advertising forms, things that were date sensitive and time sensitive. It is having an impact on the printing companies already, which is affecting those workers. We have 58,000 workers across Canada affected, a large portion of whom are also union workers.

Are NDP members only here to defend CUPW or are they truly here to defend all the workers of Canada?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are here to protect workers, all workers, unionized and non-unionized workers. All Canadian workers can depend on us to protect them. What Canadian workers cannot depend on is the government to unlock the doors so they can go back to work and protect the very people the member was talking about.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

One of the most troubling aspects of this legislation is the fact that the government is trying to impose lower wages than had been proposed.

Can my colleague tell us anything about the possibility of deleting this part of the bill?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I would like to thank my colleague for having asked it.

Yes, the government is in the process of offering Canada Post employees lower wages. Having two salary scales for employees who do the same work is truly shameful. If the government were serious, it would eliminate this portion of the legislation.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I read a number of letters that demonstrate that the NDP is not standing up for workers. In fact, it is beholden to a small group of union boss thugs.

I will read a letter from a local postal worker. The letter reads, “I'm a postal worker. As you know, we didn't get the right to vote on the final offer. Why? The union knew we would have taken the offer. We're being held hostage by them. Plus, the strike vote was unfair and unjust.”

This worker is on sick leave and has lost all benefits and coverage because the union will not allow local members to vote. I want to stand up for my local postal workers and demand that CUPW hold a free vote for its membership. Why are members of the NDP standing in the way of that? Why will they not allow CUPW members to vote? How can they possibly contend that they are standing up for workers in this House?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister would use such a word as “thugs”. He is well aware that in the bargaining process for the collective agreement the membership voted for a negotiating committee and gave the committee all the powers to negotiate for them.

When Canada Post comes up with a reasonable offer, the committee will take that offer back to the membership for a vote. However, until that happens, the committee is not obligated to let the members vote because the committee has been given the power to make the proper decision.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a document written by a local postal worker in which he says, “This is for the real workers at Canada Post, not union thugs”. A Canada Post worker used the term.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous support?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, 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, Conservative, 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, NDP, 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, Conservative, 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.