Malcolm Allen

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2011]

With regard to the operating budget freeze at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food: (a) what measures were taken to limit spending in the last fiscal year; (b) how many full-time and part-time employees were lost to attrition; (c) how many full-time or part-time employees were laid off as of April 1, 2011; (d) how many full-time and part-time employees have been hired since April 1, 2011; and (e) what programs received funding cuts as of April 1, 2011?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2011]

With regard to the next phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) how much funding will be allocated from April 1, 2011, until April 1, 2015; (b) what departments and agencies will be responsible for the Plan's implementation; and (c) how much money will be allocated to each department and agency to implement the next phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park back to this House. It was a great thrill to see her come back to this Parliament. I know she was here in the 39th Parliament, then skipped the 40th because she had other things she needed to do and then came back to see us again in the 41st.

The member is absolutely right. When we talk to other workers who are non-unionized in communities around the country, they want the unionized workers to get as much as they can when they bargain because the higher their wages the more competitive it is in a wage-structure sense for those who are unorganized. In other words, employers out there who have non-unionized places will need to compete with the unionized places for labour, which actually pulls up wages for non-unionized workers.

When it runs the opposite way and unionized workers are suppressed. put down and lose benefits and wages, the non-unionized workforce heads in the same direction, the only backstop being minimum wage. Once employees are at minimum wage, it is the law and they are not allowed to be suppressed below that. Some employers take advantage of that in different ways by making folks contractors and doing other things, but that is a debate of another kind.

Clearly, this is a fight not just for the unionized members of the postal service but for all workers across this country who are actually trying to get ahead when it comes to labour relations aspects.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think I have a small voice either.

However, in response to the minister's question, and I will not use the 94.5%, the democratic structure of the union is somewhat like this Parliament. People run for office. The membership, just like a riding, elects them and empowers them to make decisions on their behalf because they were democratically elected, just like this side of the House does as the government. Elected by the people in their constituency, whatever number that happens to be, members are then empowered by them to make decisions on their behalf without having to go back to them every time with a plebiscite and asking if they are okay with it. That is what they asked them to do. That is the reality of how a democratic structure works.

This one works the same way. The unions actually looked at Parliament and structured themselves the same way as Parliament and said that they can go ahead and do that, and that is exactly what they do. When they have an offer to present to their members, they will and their members will vote on it yes or no.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to guess why, I will tell the member. It is called free trade and it is propagated by the member's particular government. If the member would like to ask John Deere why it left, he can go ahead and ask it.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. I have heard both sides talk about different issues and go back and forth on a number of different things. I think what we all agree upon is a sense of fairness. I think members on both sides would agree that we want a sense of fairness. Let me try to use what happened years ago as an illustration of how we would like that fairness to happen.

In my previous life as a union elected official, I used to keep agreements. Some called me a union boss, but my members never called me that. They used to call me by my first name. I used to go to co-op classes in schools and do a bit of a history of how collective bargaining started and show them what collective bargaining books looked like.

One of the very first books I showed them was all of about 12 pages. That was it. I used to bring in the most recent agreements, which were about eight books that had all kinds of measures and clauses in them. The one that had 12 pages had a very unfair clause in it, and I think all of us would agree with the unfairness of the clause. Let me explain what it was about.

It was about the three classes of workers, which were men, women and boys. For those three classes there were three very different wage rates, regardless of what they did. Regardless of how severe or dangerous the job might have been, men made more, women made less, and boys made even less. This was at a time when companies could actually hire boys, which meant they were under the age of 16.

I met a man, who has fortunately retired and has a decent pension courtesy of what was then the United Auto Workers ans is now the CAW, who was a boy when he started working. He actually had that classification. He was the last boy ever hired in the GM plant in St. Catharines. He told me about what used to happen at the time.

There were three classifications of workers all making different wages regardless of the work they did. How were folks laid off when things got slow? I am sure people are wondering that. Men were the first to stay.

One would expect, because the wage classification was men, women and boys, they would have been laid off exactly the same way. They were not. Women were laid off first and employers kept the boys. The boys would then be made to do the jobs that the women used to do for the same wages they made doing what was termed a “boy's job”, which for the most part in those days was bringing water to the assembly line because there were no fountains. They used to bring water to the men working on the line.

I heard my colleagues on the other side talk about a sense of fairness. Is it okay that new workers start with less pay in the postal service because other workers do? The illustrations that they used were about workers who would eventually move to the top rate of pay.

They talked about teachers. It is true that new teachers do not start at the same rate of pay as senior teachers. That is absolutely true in most provinces of this country. That is not what Canada Post is talking about. It is not talking about a wage rate for new employees that is lower than that of those who are already there but that over time, with experience, they will eventually get to the same rate. It is talking about the wage rate being lower for the rest of a person's working life. A person would continue to work with someone who got hired the day before the new contract came into being.

Let us say two people of the same age, 22, get hired. One gets hired the day before this new agreement and the other gets hired the day after the new agreement. Those two workers work the same number of years, because they are the same age. One will work for 18% more, and the other will work for 18% less and the one who works for less will never catch up. That is the intent. Surely, that is as unfair as the three classifications of workers.

By the way, that was in the 1930s. It was a unionized workplace with a recognized collective agreement. It was around the Second World War, not that long ago. It seems like a long time ago, but there are members in the House who would have been alive albeit very young at the time this agreement was in place.

People understood that that was patently unfair and changed it over time. Surely we can see the unfairness of two workers, one hired the day before, one hired the day after a collective agreement, one working for more than the other and doing exactly the same job. Whether it be a letter carrier, a sorter, a clerk, whatever the job they happen to have within the postal service, the rest of their working days they would work for less than the other, doing exactly the same work.

Surely we see that is unfair. I think we all would see the unfairness in that. So why would we want to propagate that on those workers? If we want to have some sense of fairness we would want to actually have them all work for the same wage. I hope they would not ask me whether they should all just not take a reduction. If it is a profitable corporation, I do not see why wages should roll back.

I will give an example of what would happen. In my riding of Welland, we have lost major manufacturing like John Deere, Atlas Steel and Union Carbide. This has been going on since before the recession of two years ago. It has been going on for the last 15 years. What we see are workers, who used to make $28, $29, $30 an hour, now working for $12 and $14 trying to raise the same family, pay the same mortgage, pay the same debts for their cars and trying to get their kids into post-secondary education but having to live on less than half the wage. What we see in Welland is folks in poverty.

The rate of poverty in my riding has gone up exponentially over the last 15 years. Families are relocating. We have seen an erosion of the middle class because the good paying jobs have been replaced by those that pay less. We see defaults on property taxes going up. When I talk to the five mayors of the communities I represent they all say the same thing. They say that they have difficulty with folks who are getting into property tax arrears.

When those folks come into my constituency office, they ask if there is any way I can help them with that. All of us know there is not. We ask them how that happened to them and they tell us that they lost their job at the Deere where they were making $28 an hour. They tell us that they were lucky enough to get a new job but that they are only making $14.50 an hour. Many of them have kids at home and mortgages to pay. Some have tried to sell their house but it did not move because of the mortgage.

We are having some struggling times in Welland. Yes, there are some good things happening in Welland. For the folks who are listening, I want to say that Welland is a great place to invest. Things are happening in Welland but it will be a slower recovery because it has happened over a long period of time and we have literally lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. It will take time and it will have to take that change to get there.

Ultimately, when we talk about that fairness issue, if we continue to drive wages backward , as some of my colleagues talked about a little earlier, we indeed will have an erosion in the middle class.

My father, as a young man with a young family in the U.K., was a shipbuilder who came to this country at the request of the Canadian immigration board because he had the skills but he did not have any work. He brought myself, my two sisters and my brother to Collingwood to start work at the shipyards in St. Catharines. He came to this place because he wanted to be part of the middle class. He wanted an opportunity for his four kids. It turned out to be five kids because my brother was born here. Nonetheless, he gave us the opportunity to be part of that middle class. He got a post-secondary education.

I thank my late father and my mother, who is still alive today, for the opportunity because they say that this is truly the greatest country in the world. There is no question in my mind about that. What other country in this world would allow a young kid like me who was not born here, who came with a funny accent, although I now speak Canadian, to be here. I once told my mother I would lose that accent, so I did so and now I do not have that funny voice. Nonetheless, this is the greatest place in the world that allows me to be in my place and stand up for all of us who are out there.

A member on the other side said that small businesses were saying that the lockout must end. They are right, end the lockout. The people on that side have the power to do that. They have the key to turn in the lock to open the gates of the postal sorting stations, the padlocks on those super mailboxes, and allow the postal workers, who have voluntarily put their hands up and said that if the locks are taken off they will be back to work tomorrow.

The government has the power and we ask that it please exercise that power. We will be happy on this side if they exercise that power. We will not fight if the government decides to take that key, unlock the postal sorting stations, unlock the super mailboxes and unlock the postal workers who want to go back to work. If they are allowed to go back to work they will start delivering the mail on Monday.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. My colleague from down Windsor way will understand this, because he and I were both in the same union at one point in time. If there is not a good industrial relationship between the union and management, the shop floor is poison and productivity goes down, and the company suffers and so do workers. That is clearly what has happened at Canada Post.

As has been pointed out in the debate today, 1997 was the last time that we saw workers being forced back to work. There has been a period of time when we've had basic peace. It is important—

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the power rests with the CEO and with the government, which actually has oversight over the crown corporation. The government simply has to give the CEO the key, tell him to put in the lock, turn it to the left, and open it.

The government could have done this yesterday before it introduced the legislation. This would be over with, the workers would be back at work, and the small business owner the member is talking about would be mailing his invoices and getting his remittances, and he would not have had to lay off his employees. That could have been done.

In fact, the government could have done it last week. As soon as Canada Post indicated to the minister that it intended to lock out workers, the minister could have said no, not to go there, not to threaten to lock them out. The minister could have said that if they were going to go back to work not to lock them out, to let them get back to work, and they would try to figure this out. That did not happen and there was a lockout.

The bottom line is that the CEO should be given the key to open the locks and unlock the doors. The workers will show up tomorrow morning to get back to work and we will indeed go forward. It is just that simple.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about a collective agreement, I am talking about the proposed collective agreement with Canada Post. I thank my colleague for the non-point of order and for at least giving me the opportunity to clarify the terminology we talked about earlier.

The proposal from Canada Post would lessen the amount of money, so the proposal then becomes a proposal for two types of workers, but not workers who are doing different jobs. The letter carrier who gets less money doesn't get to carry less mail. He or she gets to carry the same amount of mail. These people get to do the same amount of work. They have to work the same number of hours. They have to do all of the things that the others do; they just do it for less. It seems to me that there is an injustice in telling folks to do the job for less.

I have heard Canada Post argue that it is not going to be as profitable in the future as it has been in the past. I wish I had that crystal ball. I think all of us wish we had that crystal ball. It would be wonderful for elections; we would know if we were going to win the next one. It would be wonderful for our RRSPs or investments because we would know how much we could make or lose in the future; we would know what to do with our investments. That would be a wonderful crystal ball.

So what did the union say to the company? The union said it had some ideas about how the company might indeed make itself more profitable. The company is not really saying no, but it is not really jumping at the bit to do it.

Here's one thing the union is suggesting. I would like the government side to get this, because that side has portrayed the TD bank and others as being highly profitable enterprises with low taxes. The union is suggesting that Canada Post ought to do what it did before and go back into financial services. It is fully capable of doing that. It can do it, and if it did, it could make money.

In fact, as a youngster growing up in Glasgow in the U.K., I remember buying savings stamps at the post office. If I bought a savings stamp, it would be put in a book that I actually had in my hand. If I went back at the end of the month, I got whatever the interest was for that month, and I received another little stamp, a real stamp, not one of those ink stamps. If I wanted my money back, I would take out the stamps and hand them back to the post office, which gave me money.

That was quite some time ago, of course. We can do things much differently now. With all the wonderful electronics we have, we can do all those wonderful things. We can do interbanking and all the things in that wonderful world.

Here is a golden opportunity for Canada Post, a crown corporation that benefits Canadians when it makes money. Here is a golden opportunity to make money, to return it to Canadians as a dividend and to reward its employees equally and fairly. Yet it is not saying that it wants to rush in to do this. I find it astounding that a business would not want to make money. I find it astounding that my colleagues on the government side are not pushing Canada Post to make more money. The profit motive is not a bad thing. I am willing to say that in the House. One would think that Canada Post would want to do that.

Let me just say that this is an opportunity for the government to say, “Yes, we want Canada Post and the postal workers to get back to work.” It is as simple as ordering the CEO to take the locks off the boxes and saying, “Let the workers go back to work and we will figure out a negotiated settlement, because that is what we have done in the past, and we can do that in the future.”

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate. I have been extremely excited to listen to my colleagues over the last number of hours that I have been here.

Let me take a different tack in this debate and talk about the terminology that we interchange among ourselves. Sometimes we need a hand in understanding what it is. We do not use it in a wilful way. We simply repeat it over and over again. We think we are actually using it in an appropriate way or are helping to clarify.

In her remarks last evening, the Minister continually talked about a strike, when actually that strike ended when the lockout started. I think she came to recognize that.

We on this side recognize that indeed there was a rotational strike. There is no doubt about that. There was a rotational strike. That is a fact. No one denies that. We have to use the proper language and recognize that this has ended and we now have a lockout.

A lockout is a totally different thing altogether in labour relations. It is a different thing altogether. We now have to recognize that it is no longer a rotational strike that went from place to place, some small places and some large, and then moved on. We are in a full-scale lockout. The entire system is shut down.

In the Canadian labour act, only one side can do a lockout. That is the employer. Workers can never lock out themselves. They can withdraw their labour, but they can never actually go and put a padlock on the gate. They cannot do that.

The other piece that has gone back and forth over the morning is this term “union boss”. Let us explore who is a union boss and what a union boss really looks like. The terminology of “union boss” suggests that somehow that person is the boss of the workers represented by this particular individual.

Actually, the pyramid needs to be inverted. It is those workers who hire the union boss. They democratically elect the union boss. Every three or four years, or in some cases five years depending on the organization, the workers can get rid of their so-called union boss if he or she did not do what they asked him or her to do.

The same thing happens to us. Some of us are back from the 40th Parliament to the 41st Parliament and some of us are not. Clearly their bosses, their constituents, said, “Thank you for your time. I no longer wish to have you here. Please move away. I'm choosing someone else.” In the labour movement, that is indeed what we do in many circumstances.

Let me put a face to the union boss. The members who are sitting here today and looking at me are looking at an ex-union boss. I do not have two heads. I did not grow horns. I represented workers who elected me to do a specific task on their behalf, which was to bargain collective agreements, and that is what I did.

When we were finished bargaining collective agreements, I brought it back to them and said, “Here is the best that we have done. We think this is good. Would you like to vote on it? Tell me yes or no.”

Sometimes they said yes and occasionally they said no. What did it mean when they said no? It meant the union boss went back to work. He or she works for the workers. The workers do not work for the union boss.

The terminology we use can sometimes start to impinge upon people's reputations and give a connotation that is not necessarily true. I would ask the members, when we talk about and use interchangeable terms, to actually use the terms in an appropriate way.

There is a boss at Canada Post, and that is the CEO. Workers do not elect the CEO. The CEO comes to them. The workers do not get an opportunity to say, “You have done a rotten job. It is time to move on.” They do not have that democratic right. However, inside their union they have a democratic right to get rid of their “boss” simply through the electoral process.

I would simply say that sometimes we all use improper terminology. I am not suggesting that we all are not guilty of it. From time to time on this side of the House we are guilty of using terminology that maybe we should think about when we are actually doing those sorts of things.

Let us get past the terminology and talk about the fact that these new workers are about to receive less than the present-day workers under this agreement and the offer that comes from management. Who are they? In my community, they are actually not young people. Many of my colleagues here are younger, and have expressed the sense of what it would be like to be young workers who end up making less than those they work beside.

In my community, a lot of these workers are over at John Deere. They are at Atlas. They are workers who are in the midpoint or sometimes late point of their careers who have to find other work because the places they work for have closed.

Those places are gone. John Deere packed up a little over 18 months ago and is gone. Atlas closed down a number of years ago. We have seen the literal gutting of the manufacturing sector in my riding, just as we have seen across this country.

Here is what happens. When people get a job at Canada Post, they do not start as full-time employees. They start as casual employees. They are told to stay home, that they will be called if somebody calls in sick. Stay by the phone, they are told. So there they are, workers hoping to finally get a job at Canada Post, and they stick by their phones in case a fellow worker calls in sick and they are needed for the day. They get a call and are told, “Come on in today.” Then, if they stay there long enough, they might become part-timers.

Meanwhile, they still have all the responsibilities they had before. Young people have responsibilities, but I am talking about folks who look more like me and less like the young folks we know out there, like my children, who are in their mid-twenties. These folks still have mortgages to pay and children to raise, and yet they find that they are still casual employees or maybe, finally, part-timers. Then, when they are about to take that final step and become full-time employees, they are told, under this collective agreement, to just take less. They will work beside others who are doing exactly the same job, but they are told to take less.

So if they are taking less, why would we allow folks to work side by side doing the same thing? Is the corporation saying that it values one employee more than another as far as rewards are concerned? Whether that will be through the pay scale, because the pay scale is going to be reduced for new hires, talking about the sense that somehow--