Wayne Marston

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

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

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

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

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

I want to make another--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the question the member just asked, I walked the picket line in the first rotating strike at the Hamilton sorting centre. I would not know the president of CUPW if he walked into the room. One thing I do know is we share solidarity in wanting to take care of the workers of Canada, and in this case particularly the workers at Canada Post. That is what we share.

Personally, I have not seen one piece of paper in this lobby from CUPW. I do not know that there are any there. The reality is that we understand the issues and we share CUPW's perspective of the issues. That is very clear.

The member says he met workers on the street. Was that on a picket line?

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

Mr. Speaker, to the member, I appreciate the great speech but the members on the other side have forgotten something. They have locked out the CUPW workers. Their legislation prevents them from voting on the contract, so what are they talking about? The legislation prevents the workers from voting on the contract.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the labour movement as president of my local union and president of our local labour council for close to 30 years, and I have never seen a piece of back-to-work legislation so draconian as this. I have a word for it. It seems the Conservatives have just caused the race to the bottom to shift into high gear.

I am really concerned, and I will ask the member from the Bloc, why would the minister not trust her experienced arbitrators to settle the actual parts of the dispute, as opposed to legislating it and destroying people's faith in the system?