Paulina Ayala

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

Madam Speaker, the lockout should be stopped, so that the union leaders can negotiate with Canada Post. It is up to them to resolve the situation.

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

Yes, that is correct, Madam Speaker.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member has understood correctly. I am talking about the salaries paid to Canada Post executives. I think that he has simply got the wrong person.

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

Madam Speaker, where are we now? That is the question on everyone's mind this morning. What facts have been established thus far? What facts do we agree on?

The first thing we agree on is that Canada Post management decided it did not want to negotiate the renewal of its employees' collective agreement because it felt that the workers' demands would compromise the growth of Canada Post, keep it from reaching targets, harm its competitiveness and derail attempts at streamlining. In the face of this refusal to negotiate, the workers decided to put pressure on their employer, Canada Post. In addition, these pressure tactics, rotating strikes, were not intended to disrupt services offered to customers but simply to disturb Canada Post management's peace of mind.

As in all collective bargaining, pressure tactics are intended to force a compromise, to highlight the importance of employee co-operation to ensure that the company is operating well. And it has been established that the employees' union had more than 9,000 workers on standby to ensure the continuation of essential services. These employees, conscious of the needs of the customers who are dependent on Canada Post's services, did not want to harm the public, neighbours, friends, business owners, family members, etc.

It has been established that the impact felt by Canadians since the start of this dispute was not caused by Canada Post's employees, but by the actions of its management. We have said it often enough that no one can deny it any longer: things started to deteriorate for the public when Canada Post management declared a lockout.

This measure, which is hardly novel, is different because it affects a sector of the public that is dependent on postal services, which have a near-monopoly. It has also been established that the government acted hastily by intervening in this dispute, by appointing itself judge and jury, when there was no indication that the situation was degrading to the point of immobilizing the postal service. Again, there was no indication, before the lockout or before this bill was introduced, that public services would be compromised.

For days the government has been saying that Bill C-6 was necessary. Day and night we have demonstrated, and we will continue to demonstrate, that this is untrue. The government is content to repeat, like a broken record, that the collective agreement expired eight months ago and that the situation could not continue. Do eight months of negotiations, if they can even be called that, really represent a critical delay given that the employer was not even co-operating?

Many examples of past negotiations to renew expired collective agreements show that a delay of eight months is nothing out of the ordinary. In Quebec, we have seen much worse without the government getting involved. Take, for example, Quebecor and the Journal de Montréal dispute. The lockout lasted over a year—not just several months; over a year.

The government claims that the difference is that Canada Post offers an essential service. That argument does not hold water because, and I will say it again, the unionized workers at Canada Post planned to have 9,000 employees available to work and provide services. Unionized City of Montreal employees, police officers, firefighters and other professional bodies offering truly essential services have been negotiating for over a year without a collective agreement. Eight months is not enough; it is not a justification and it does not threaten the delivery of essential services to the public.

Eight months of negotiations do not justify the government's intervention, particularly when the unionized workers have committed to continue providing services. Eight months is not even a significant precedent, never mind a length of time that requires government intervention.

These are the arguments that the government has been presenting for days to convince us to allow Bill C-6 to pass. These arguments do not hold water and the government and the opposition parties both know it.

So what is the truth? What is the justification for this situation? What is the government's plan?

The government is saying that it wants to find solutions. So why does it not tell us the truth, show us its plan and Canada Post's plan, and tell the House today the real goals of this charade?

Is the government allowing this exceptional process that is keeping us in the House for a historically long period simply for ideological reasons, or does the government have a larger motive? I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is not making the Canadian public go through this simply to satisfy its ideology. That would be too sad. But if that is not the reason, then what is?

Since September 2010, there have been discussions in England about the future of the Royal Mail. The government is talking about rationalization and the possibility of privatizing the postal service because it is losing money.

In Germany, 20% of the postal service was privatized in order to pad the coffers of the government corporation that was losing money. In Belgium, postal services were privatized because they did not make the desired profit. In Denmark, postal services were privatized because their performance did not live up to expectations. It was the same thing in Finland. Even Japan is currently considering privatizing its services.

However, Canada Post has generated a profit of $1.7 billion over the past 15 years. Then why are we having this debate today? Why are we taking our cue from countries with services that lost money when not only does Canada Post make attractive profits, but it provides exceptional service for less than what is charged in Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, England, Japan, Australia and the United States? Why are we attacking Canada Post workers when, unlike all the postal services I mentioned, our crown corporation's performance is exceptional?

Should we not instead be thanking and recognizing these employees who make Canada Post successful? Is the real issue the fact that, in this wave of privatization across the globe, Canada Post is one of those rare, profitable public corporations and this makes it very appealing to private investors?

Can the government state today in the House that it is not subjecting Canadians to this ordeal simply to pave the way for the possible sale of Canada Post? Can the government state that it is not doing all this to break the union, lower wages, increase profits and make the product more attractive for private investors?

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, I am saying that it is up to Canada Post and the government to respond to customers who are being held hostage. It is not up to the workers who continued to do their work while they were on strike. The question was not clear. It is Canada Post and the government that must take responsibility for the fact that the crown corporation is not operating at the moment.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, it is up to Canada Post—

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

Mr. Speaker, when the government announced its intention to introduce a bill to force the unionized employees of Canada Post to go back to work, it quite simply sounded the death knell for the bargaining process.

Obviously, once an employer is assured that it will win its showdown without even making the effort to bargain, it has no further reason to go back to the table. An employer that is given assurance that it will be backed up by the full legislative force of the government has no further reason to listen to the employees’ demands, to bargain and to compromise, and to recognize the need to go forward with an open, honest and constructive dialogue.

Since the government announced its intention to force the workers to give up their most fundamental rights, bargaining has simply come to a halt. The government is thus subverting an entire tradition of dialogue, dialogue that is sometimes passionate, sometimes difficult and often agonizing, but that is always carried out with the ultimate goal of improving working conditions and enabling businesses to develop.

Let us be clear: employees do not want to harm their company’s profits. They never intend to jeopardize development and interfere in the pursuit of business opportunities that will increase revenues and, yes, produce higher profits.

No Canada Post employee is questioning the fundamental objectives that are shared by any business: success, growth, profit and investment. The employees unquestionably have that success at heart. Their demands are in no way egotistical or naive. On the contrary, they want to put their experience to work. We are talking here about an organization that is head and shoulders above all its counterparts in the world. Canada Post has adapted its management methods to the reality of an enormous land mass and a widely dispersed population, a land that presents unique challenges for a delivery company. That is how Canada Post has distinguished itself from the competition, by finding ways to extend its network everywhere within Canada, while not only continuing to be profitable, but maximizing its profits.

Canada Post is a company with an enviable business model and sets the standard for many countries worldwide whose networks are not as complex and capable of absorbing such large volumes for delivery.

That is why the government’s attempts to compare Canada Post to other delivery networks elsewhere in the world amount to such a weak argument. Canada Post should not be comparing itself to anyone else. Rather, the competition should be showing how it would be capable of doing the job that is done so admirably by Canada Post.

If we look closely at the operating methods referred to by Canada Post managers and the Conservative government to justify their actions, what we really see is that very few of those businesses stand up to the comparison.

Canada Post is a pillar of the Canadian economy, not because it compares favourably with the competition, but because the services and expertise that have been developed by Canada Post employees over decades are unique in the world.

Recently, the new president and CEO of Canada Post, Deepak Chopra, recognized the opportunities for expanding services at Canada Post. He compared Canada Post’s potential to that of other countries in the world, in particular New Zealand, which has developed new services and thus increased its profitability.

Mr. Chopra could have taken that opportunity to point out that Canada Post is exceptional when its performance is compared with New Zealand specifically. We are talking about a country with a population of 3.5 million, one-tenth the population of Canada; a country with an area of 270,000 km², or one-thirty-seventh the size of Canada, with its 10 million km². If we consider population density, we can also compare New Zealand, which has 15 inhabitants per square kilometre, with Canada, which has 3.3 inhabitants per square kilometre.

I am pointing out these simple facts to remind people that when Canada Post executives compare Canadian service to service in other countries, they must keep in mind the outstanding performance of employees in the field, which is such that the public sees no difference in service delivery despite completely different geographic and demographic situations.

Does the government thank the Canada Post workers for their outstanding contribution to the provision of our national service? Absolutely not. Rather, it resorts to disinformation by insinuating that more needs to be done with less in order to catch up with the competition.

But what competition? It is not up to Canada Post employees to compare themselves to the examples the Conservative government uses. No, the Conservative government should instead be humble and express its gratitude for our uniquely successful mail distribution service.

And who is behind that success? The employees of Canada Post. Canada Post has always favoured a strategy based on the competence and talent of its employees, a strategy that rests on human resources.

How else can Canada Post proceed if it is to provide service across the vast Canadian territory? How can it achieve that without having absolute confidence in every one of the workers who contribute to the success of Canada Post? The success of Canada Post is indeed based on that confidence, the result of a long tradition of cooperation, collaboration, and yes, negotiation. The absolutely unique historical success of Canada Post rests on the confidence it has in its mail carriers. They are far more than simple employees; they are in fact partners. These mail carriers are area managers, distribution route managers, client service specialists, performance optimizers, performance engineers. Letter carriers are dependable, independent, consistent and punctual. These are all criteria that our modern economy values highly.

And what does the Conservative government do? What approach has it adopted even though it has only been in power for a scant few weeks? Without hesitation, it has chosen to totally sabotage a whole history of loyalty-building and mutual understanding, of support by the business for its employees, in the form of decent salaries, stable benefits and renewed confidence following negotiations. The Conservative government is attacking the relationship of trust that allows Canada Post to depend on employees who manage their distribution routes in the most remote parts of our country.

Now let us discuss the moment the government chose to impose its legislation. The Conservative government thought it would destabilize the opposition by introducing an extraordinary measure. But we have news for the government. The government's strategy, aimed at forcing a quick vote by extending the parliamentary session and preventing Quebec members from being with their families and constituents during Quebec's national holiday, is going to backfire.

The Conservative government is forgetting, or ignoring, that the absence of their New Democrat MPs will not go unnoticed by Quebeckers.These very Quebeckers are the ones who revolutionized the Canadian government by electing a record number of young people, women, members of visible minorities, and progressives from all walks of life. They are the ones who hoped for and caused the most extraordinary wave of change that has been seen in Canada for a number of years.

Does the Conservative government actually believe that the NDP members' absence from the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day festivities will go unnoticed? No. The absence of their members of Parliament will disappoint Quebeckers, as will the Conservative government's attitude of contempt for Canada Post employees.

What is even worse is that this absence will draw the attention of the entire population of Quebec to what is happening here in the House. When they ask, “Where are our elected officials when we have been waiting since their historic election to celebrate their entry onto the Quebec political scene?”, we will respond that we are standing steadfast in the position to which they elected us.

[Libya, June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Libya are currently under a huge amount of stress. Right now, there are a number of students of Libyan origin studying in Canada. The freeze on trade relations with Libya is putting their scholarships and student visas in jeopardy.

Will this government extend the temporary exemption granted to Libyan students living in Canada, and will it ensure that they receive financial assistance immediately?

[Foreign Affairs, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the development of our strategy with countries in the Americas is not limited to supporting companies that do business there. We need agencies that liaise between governments, civil society and experts in order to help us develop a more comprehensive strategy for this continent.

Can the government commit to providing core funding to Canadian agencies such as FOCAL in order to develop a long-term strategy for the Americas?

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this dialogue started a while ago and is still going on. I simply focused on Canada's attitude towards people who want to visit the country. Often, a family wants to visit a newborn and is unable to do so. Trade, for its part, is going very well. God knows that we have agreements with many countries. Canada has an extraordinary relationship with Chile. But we must strengthen this relationship in another way, in terms of people, of sharing cultures, and not strictly in terms of economics, because things are going well on that front.