Bill C-6 (Historical)

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services

This enactment provides for the resumption and continuation of postal services and imposes a final offer selection process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, mind-boggling, unacceptable and outrageous are some of the adjectives used to describe the government's attitude and the way it is handling this matter. I do not know whether the government has really not understood anything or it is just trying to prevent Canada Post workers from continuing to provide services to the public. The sole purpose of that action is to create a precedent that will enable the government to impose its vision every time.

Today, I am asking this Conservative government to put the interests of Canadians ahead of partisanship and ideologies. This government, elected by only 40% of Canadians, has a duty to serve the interests of the whole population, as it has promised many times before and after the May 2 election. I do not understand why this government, which made so many promises before the election, is now depriving Canadians of services and seriously harming the Canadian economy.

It should be noted that Canada Post subsidiaries and its joint venture annually spend $2.8 billion on goods. Therefore, we are not just talking about the businesses that no longer have access to Canada Post services, but about Canada Post itself, which provides those services, thereby creating 300,000 additional jobs that are currently being threatened. The economy is a daily topic of discussion. There are 585 domestic flights scheduled for Canada Post services. There are also 100 delivery vehicles and 18 rail services. All that money is being lost because the Conservatives have shut down our Canada Post services.

Job-creating small businesses are waiting for postal services to resume, so that they can send their bills and receive their cheques. The government could end this crisis immediately by allowing the employees to return to work, resume services and negotiate with their employer in good faith and on an equal footing.

From the beginning of this crisis, the government has not just interfered and imposed its vision; it has run a propaganda and smear campaign demonizing Canada Post employees. Once again, as my colleagues have pointed out many times, the government is trying to polarize matters, create conflict and divide Canadians.

The Conservative government knows full well what it is doing. Its plan is clear: cut services, privatize Canada Post and create a precedent. In the meantime, this government has no qualms about depriving people of services and putting a squeeze on family budgets. The government keeps saying that we are responsible for this situation even though the government, and the government alone, can put an end to the lockout and let Canada Post employees resume the work they never wanted to stop doing. But that has never been the government's priority. It is perfectly obvious that its priorities are elsewhere. The government is there to serve the CEOs of large corporations, banks and oil companies. The government is asking employees to make concessions and tighten their belts, as if Canada Post were truly in trouble, and all the while, its CEO is collecting a salary in the neighbourhood of $500,000 with bonuses. That is insulting; it is a slap in the face to all Canadians.

Today, the hon. members across the way have targeted postal workers. Tomorrow, they will target other public servants. And the day after that, will they take aim at all workers? Yes, the Conservatives must make their friends happy. It is much more enjoyable to go off and play golf with the heads of big business than to mix with the average Canadian and the real workers who make our economy go round.

Apparently, this government, with its irresponsible policies, is oblivious to the pride Canadians have in their postal service, one of the best in the world, one of the most efficient, one of the most accessible, a service provided by the Crown, a service that is not yet in the hands of the private sector. But for how long?

Canada Post employees have always done an excellent job serving Canadians from coast to coast, rain or shine, at an extremely reasonable cost. I really do not know how the hon. members across the way will be able to look their letter carrier in the eye after passing this special legislation. Nor do I know whether they could have taken this approach prior to the May 2 election. It is a classic move. They disregard Canadians and serve the interests of their cronies at the beginning of their mandate, and then, come election time, they claim they are going to help the economy.

This government has the power and the duty to put a stop to this crisis immediately. It can intervene right now so that employees can go back to work and negotiations with the employer can resume.

At this time, the population is being held hostage for ideological reasons and partisan purposes. This government has to act. Yesterday, while we were debating here, the Prime Minister was not even in Ottawa, but he just had to add insult to injury. And even though he prevented the members of this House from returning to their ridings to celebrate the national holiday, he went to Quebec himself.

Be that as it may, it is not stopping: the calls keep coming in, and I continue to get emails from worried citizens who are asking us to continue our work. I think that this government is distancing itself even further from the population, and isolating itself. It has been completely blinded by its partisan goals. This government, which has no consideration for workers, is conducting a veritable disinformation campaign by continuing to accuse us, while all of the power rests with it: all it has to do is lift the lockout and send the parties back to discuss what would be best for both of them and their new collective agreement.

I wanted to add that a few hours ago Martin Victor sent me a message saying that he had been sleeping on his couch for two nights in a row in order to follow the debates on Bill C-6, and he added that he was willing to die on that couch in order to see this bill defeated.

There was a 64% turnout in the last general election. At this time, the population is worried about the debate and constituents are getting in touch with us to tell us about their concerns. My colleagues across the way say that they are only receiving emails from small businesses. That is logical, because the people in their ridings are writing to us, because we listen to them.

People from Prince Edward Island, where no NDP members were elected, unfortunately, are writing to us to thank us for our honesty and solidarity. Scott Gaudet wrote to me to say he was happy to see a new way of doing politics in Canada. He said he was disgusted with this harsh law.

The NDP is asking the government, which is accusing us of delaying the process, to order an end to the lockout so that employees can return to work and their collective agreement can be ratified in the manner agreed to.

For a while now, much has been said about the eight months of talks that have taken place. Personally, I am still looking for information about that matter, but I would like to know how many rounds of talks took place over these eight months. How much time was spent at the bargaining table? It is all well and good to say that the parties negotiated for eight months, but if they only met a few times over the course of these eight months, then the Conservatives are waging a public disinformation campaign. I am quite tired of all of this and I am also anxious to go home, but I am extremely proud and pleased to be here defending my fellow citizens.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to be asking two questions. As to the emails last night over the Internet, it was disappointing that people did not understand the issue. Yet a lot of people support us in our efforts. Let me read a message I received on Twitter an hour ago from Steph Aubry, “Congratulations on keeping up the fight. Down with Bill C-6! Employees’ and citizens’ rights must be protected.” Indeed, this affects not only workers but the entire population.

As to the second part of the question, we are just coming out of a recession and people have to understand that. But the issue is people’s right to strike as well as management’s right to impose a lockout. The government can nevertheless decide to end the lockout whenever it wants to. Is it prepared to—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of relevancy, could you remind the member we are talking about Bill C-6, not the budget speech?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague should have listened to what I was saying. We cannot pass this bill so hastily because we respect a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 2007 concerning BC Health. That decision is clear. What clause 12 of Bill C-6 provides regarding wages will be ruled invalid by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In all good conscience as a lawyer and the member of Parliament for Gatineau, I absolutely cannot recommend to anyone that they take part in this kind of hijacking of the legal system, because it will be overturned. In this context, that is one of the reasons for our decision. That is why, at this stage of the process, we simply cannot vote in favour of Bill C-6 in its current form.

We have been trying to explain this every possible way, but the Conservatives do not seem to understand. Furthermore, they do not seem to understand that we share their frustration about not having any mail service. Yes, it is frustrating for everyone to not get their mail. It was also frustrating when OC Transpo went on strike last year, and in years past, and an arbitrator was needed to settle the dispute. It is frustrating when police officers go on strike. However, that is part of labour relations. It is not a question of life or death. We must do things properly and in accordance with the law.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate has been going on for several hours now. I would like to say good morning to everyone and offer the same congratulations to my colleague.

This is not easy for everyone. The most frustrating things in this debate are perhaps the gratuitous attacks or the statements that are somewhat rude, not to mention crude, made by some colleagues concerning our positions. Sixty-two per cent of the population of Gatineau sent me here to Ottawa because my campaign focused on my leadership in Ottawa on the areas of health, pension protection, seniors and social justice.

I am listening to this debate with interest because this is sort of my passion. I came to Ottawa with my background. Some may not be aware of it, but in 1984 I became a lawyer with the Barreau du Québec. This does not make me any younger, some of my NDP colleagues were born after I joined the Barreau du Québec. I specialized in labour law. I am hearing a lot of talk that we have a direct line to union leaders. During the election campaign I was attacked my by opponents who claimed that I was an evil employers' lawyer. But what is happening on the other side of the House, with Bill C-6, is a direct attack. Trust the lawyer in me that some may call an employers' lawyer, even though I also represent unions. I have no shame in being called that because I have common sense and try to contribute that to the negotiations that I take part in.

Bill C-6 poses some serious problems. As legislators and parties, we must absolutely pass bills that are not only correct, reasonable and fair for citizens, but also legal. But this bill poses some serious problems in that respect, and I will talk about that shortly.

What is also sad in this debate is that once again, true to form, the Conservatives are taking pleasure in dividing. The big bad employer against the union. Postal workers against Canadians. The big bad socialists against the fabulous Conservatives. In no way does that elevate the debate.

What is even more sad is being told that all of the hours we have spent here could have been spent with our families, celebrating the national holiday, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, or participating in activities in our riding. We are being told that we are purposely doing this just to upset people. I am sorry, but we never express our opinion just to upset people. It is a fundamental right that we have here, and we decided that we would exercise it. We will not stand back and stop talking, even though some would like us to do that, just because we do not have the numbers to win the vote.

If the Liberals want to go home to sleep for the next four years, they have the right to do so. We will be here in Ottawa to carry out the mandate we were given by voters. I will never apologize for that. If that means that we will be here until September 19, then we will do it.

The member for Gatineau will not agree to pass a bill that will fundamentally be fought before the courts and will be rejected. Who will pay for that? The taxpayers. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I will come back to that.

My colleagues have been talking about the problem with Bill C-6, but that does not seem to be sinking in for our friends opposite. The fundamental reason that the minister wants to see this bill pass is to solve a serious problem with the Canadian economy, since Canada Post workers are essential, a fact with which we all agree. In fact, mail in Canada is essential for a lot of people, such as seniors and small businesses. I know, because I had a small business myself and I sent my invoices by mail. My small legal firm would have suffered if I had not been able to do so.

That is part of collective agreement negotiations. Everything is provided for under the Canada Labour Code. If Canada Post were an essential service like the police and nurses, where it is a matter of life or death if they did not work, and it were in a lockout, the Canada Labour Code covers that. Those people do not have the right to strike.

In Quebec, Gatineau police officers do not have the right to strike. It took six years before they negotiated and concluded their collective agreement. They had the right to use pressure tactics. We ended up with police officers dressed in army fatigues and all that. Some might find that outrageous, but that was their only pressure tactic. They ended up settling the dispute. Every sector has its own way of resolving things.

We often hear the members opposite say that seniors are not receiving their cheques, but that is not true. They were receiving their paycheques, their pension cheques because the postal workers agreed to make that special delivery. The employer has the right to declare a lockout. I remember a professor of labour law, when I was studying law at the University of Ottawa, which is probably the best and greatest university in Canada, who always told us: if you work in labour law as a lawyer representing the union or the employer—let us say the union—and you represent blue collar workers in a city in Canada, take Gatineau for example, do not go on a snow removal strike in the middle of summer. It will not work.

So we know that the lockout and the strike exist to re-establish a balance of power. When the other party is not listening to us—like the Conservatives opposite—we are obliged to take more draconian measures to ignite a spark. Then, the system, be it public pressure or the other party, is going to wake up at some point and will be willing to settle the conflict.

But then the government, with its heavy-handed approach, decides to put forward special legislation that goes a lot further than it should. I am going to make a free recommendation and I will not send a bill to anyone. Anyway, the employees are locked out and my bill would never arrive.

I would be very healthy if it could be proven that the lockout, even after one day, has greatly weakened the Canadian economy and that it is necessary to force employees to return to work immediately. Well, the government could do just that, order employees back to work and ask the arbitrator to hear both parties at a formal hearing, and not impose conditions that would not allow any discussion. The arbitrator will not even be able to address trade practices or anything else. The arbitrator will have to side with one party or the other This is exactly the Conservative's style. It is always one or the other. But law has grey areas. Sometimes it is good to water down your wine. In this context, it would have been so much better than what the government is currently doing.

Why is the Conservatives' proposal illegal? Last night, our hon. colleague from Outremont began addressing this question. I encourage all members to read the case of Health Services and Support--Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia. This ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada—the highest court in the land—is crystal clear. In this case, when a special bill affects workers' wages, as the government is trying to do in this case, it is going to wind up stuck in court. The Conservatives will be stuck defending this before the Supreme Court and, once again, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it.

Let us be fair to both sides. Let us bring them back to the bargaining table and get the employees back to work—I see no problem with that—without the appalling conditions the Conservatives have included in their bill. Within the next few years, we are going to be left with a bill of several millions of dollars for something that has already been ruled on. It would be nice if the government would listen to the NDP every so often, because sometimes what we say makes sense.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is pretty much the end of the night shift, and we will all be glad of that. Certainly I will be, that is for sure, but I hope I am able to make as coherent an intervention as my colleague just did.

I want to talk about three things over the ten minutes I have. Hopefully I can do that. I will talk a bit about democracy, as it relates to Bill C-6. I want to talk about the next generation. And if I get to it, and hopefully I will, I want to talk a little bit about postal worker wages and pensions and corporate profits and the salaries of CEOs.

I will start by telling all members of the House how thrilled I am to be here, how thrilled I am to be part of this caucus, part of the official opposition and able to participate in such an important debate, in such an important attack on workers' rights. I am so grateful to the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who supported me in the recent election and sent me here and gave me, frankly, this wonderful opportunity to work and to speak at some length on an issue that is so important.

I have a bit of experience in parliamentary procedure and in the legislature. I was in the Nova Scotia Legislature for 12 years. I was there as a member of a two-person caucus, of a three-person caucus and of the official opposition, and here we are as the official opposition, but I want members to understand how I have approached each and every single day as an elected official. I approached it with the sense of responsibility to speak up on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of those people who too often go without a voice in places like this.

Again, whether it was in a two-person caucus or whether it was in the official opposition, I took every single opportunity I had to make sure I raised any concerns I had or any concerns my constituents might have had or any concerns I had about people being affected by the actions of any particular government.

I did not worry, and I still do not worry, that I am somehow inconveniencing the government, that I am somehow inconveniencing any other party within the chamber I am in at any given time, because I have a responsibility as an elected official, in this case as an MP, to be as articulate as I possibly can be, to work hard to point out the flaws, the weaknesses and the things that can be done to make a piece of legislation better. That is why I was elected. I take that very seriously, and I thank the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for giving me this opportunity.

Also, I want it to be known that I come here with not only the experience I gained but also the experience of having been raised by a man and woman who were big Conservatives. I should say that out front because somebody from Nova Scotia is going to tell us. I grew up in a big Conservative family, but the most important thing about these people, I want it to be known, is that they were small business people.

My dad was a World War II ace. He fought in North Africa. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross and Bar. My mum worked in the insurance business. She was also active in meals on wheels before she died and, in fact, provided hospice services for the first self-identified AIDS patient in Nova Scotia.

I am very proud of my parents and what they did and the values they left with me. The values they left with me are about fairness, about justice, about speaking up when we see things are wrong, about making sure we do not take no for an answer, that we stand up against tyranny and injustice.

My father did that in the war and that is what many of our veterans did, those who came back from and those who died in the second world war. That is why it is very important that I take every opportunity in this place when I see a piece of legislation come to the floor that has the kinds of implications as this one does on working people in this country. I commit to members opposite and the third party that I will do that with every breath in my body.

The second thing I want to talk about is the next generation. My daughter Jessie is 23 years of age. Hopefully she will be out of university some day and will be looking for a job, other than the one she has as a lifeguard, which does not pay very well. She will be out in the workforce, as are many other young people today, and I feel I have a responsibility to ensure that she can find jobs that pay a decent wage, that have good benefits and a pension, that she can work in a safe and healthy workplace and not suffer from discrimination or other human rights violations in the workplace. That is the responsibility I have.

With my history as a trade unionist, I know why we have public pensions, employment insurance, universal medicare and why we have all the rights and benefits we do. It is because of my father and mother, and the pioneers in the trade union movement, in the small business community, in legislatures and in this country. It is because of what they have been able to do to ensure that people in the workplace are able to enjoy those kinds of benefits.

While I have had the opportunity to enjoy the hard work they have done, my responsibility is to ensure that I protect the benefits and working conditions that they were able to fight for to ensure people are safe and healthy. My responsibility is to make them better and stronger and to ensure that my daughter and her generation are able to work and contribute to their families and communities. That is my responsibility and, I would suggest, the responsibility of every member of the House.

There have been some suggestions and comments by members opposite that the people who work for Canada Post have it good, that they make all kinds of money, have a pension and they should be happy and go away. I will share some numbers with members. An entry-level CUPW worker makes about $23 an hour. An average pension enjoyed by a CUPW worker, who has worked his or her entire life with Canada Post and contributed actively to his or her pension plan, is about $24,000 a year.

Let us compare that with some of the CEOs of Canada's big banks who have realized salary increases of well over 10% in 2009. The Bank of Nova Scotia's CEO makes $7.45 million, the president of the Bank of Montreal made $9.7 million in 2009, the CEO of TD Bank made $15.2 million, the CEO of the Royal Bank made $12.1 million and the CEO of CIBC made $6.2 million. The oil companies made $16 billion in profits last year and yet they are receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks.

My point is simple. Why is it that the government wants to hand over billions of dollars to profitable corporations at the same time as it wants to put the boots to hard-working women and men who toil at Canada Post?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome.

It is with some pleasure I enter the debate here on Bill C-6. As a disclosure, I have been up for about 25 hours now, so that is a small caveat to forgive me for any of the potential mistakes I make. I usually do not forgive myself before I start.

The dispute we have in front of us is about far more than just one simple piece of legislation, as draconian as it is. It is about far more than one labour dispute that we have here with Canada Post and its management.

What we have before us is a government that is attempting to set out what might be called labour policy, but it might be better described as management policy for the country. Its implications go far beyond the 45,000 CUPW members who are going to be beholden to any legislation that is drawn here. It goes far beyond that to other public sector and public service employees.

This is a strange government. Every once in a while when they get into some sort of trouble or scandal they are quick to throw a public service member under the bus and say the bureaucrats made them do it, as we saw recently in the Muskoka affair, and at other times when they are looking to hold up the public sector they laud them for their proud work.

We have also seen a slight evolution from the government in the speaking notes over this past 24 or 30 hours. The labour minister started off the discussion by saying that it was the 45,000 postal workers against the 33 million Canadians. They were not in the same basket somehow. Then we saw the evolution of that to many Conservatives now standing up and showing very high regard for the postal workers in their riding and the good work that they do. That is good to see, because trying to characterize a group of Canadians as outside of Canada somehow because they are having a labour dispute is a troubling trend, and should be a troubling trend, for all of us. That is not the way to characterize any Canadian who is having any dispute in a democratic and fair way with any level of government or management. So it is nice to see Conservatives acknowledging that these are people, these are families that live in their constituencies as well as ours, and they deserve a fair break, as do all Canadians. We all seek fairness for this. I hope there is some common ground in this.

We have also seen an evolution that the labour minister three times in her speech mischaracterized this and I think misled the House in fact by calling it a strike. We now see the talking notes have shifted and the Conservatives are now getting up and calling it what it is, which is a lockout. It is correct to call it what it is, because to mischaracterize it any other way is to try to reframe the debate from the truth into a lie. We need to talk about what has happened here and how we got to this point, because if we do not know how we got here, how, for goodness sake, is this government ever going to hope to find its way out of the predicament it finds itself in now?

I say that this is about much more than one dispute simply because the government has chosen to take this particular approach in this particular case. I would suggest it is a bit of a trial balloon to test it out to see what happens in Parliament, to see what happens in public debate and discussion around the notion that an employer can be in the middle of a negotiation with a group of employees, see some job action from those employees--all legal--and then lock those employees out and have the government impose a contract on the locked-out employees, thereby rewarding the employer for having done the lockout in the first place.

I do not know if this is good labour law. It is certainly not good for peace in the land, because we must take account of how we developed labour law in this country in the first place. It was developed after many generations and many years of people striving to be able to legally gather, collect together and raise their voices in a unified way, after trying to find other ways to raise their voices and sometimes clashing with the law itself. It was in fact governments and business that eventually called for some sort of certainty in the process to settle disputes. It was not the union movement that called for this first. If you go through your industrial relations history, and I encourage many of my colleagues to do so, it was the companies that realized that it was bad for productivity and it was bad for business to have these very often strong and sometimes violent strikes. Instead, they wanted to have a legal mechanism codified in the law and protected by Parliament and the courts to allow the employer to sit down in a predictable way with their employees and negotiate fair terms.

That can be a difficult process. We all have to make concessions. Anybody in this place who has ever been involved in any kind of negotiation, mediation, or collective bargaining knows that there has to be some give and take, and that can be difficult.

Canada Post is protesting that its ship has fallen on hard times, that there is not enough money, and yet it shovels bonuses out the door to its executives and its 20 vice-presidents that it has stacked up over the years. The argument of a $220-million bonus package does not make any sense when you turn around and claim poverty and say that the postal service is in trouble. Meanwhile, the volume of parcels has been going through the roof, and the economy is changing.

The point we are making is that beyond this particular lockout, beyond this particular moment, the government must reconcile itself with the fact that causing more uncertainty in the labour market and more uncertainty in Canada's economy lowers productivity, lowers our competitiveness, and lowers our ability to compete with the world.

It seems to me that the government has given absolutely no incentive to future employers to bargain in what is called good faith. There's no incentive at all. If we allow the pattern that is happening here to take place, which New Democrats will not allow, the next employer in line about to negotiate with its employees will ignore the bargaining table because that is not where the deal has to be made. That employer will simply lobby the cabinet of the day to make sure the next Bill C-6, the next force-them-back-to-work bill, is there. That employer can lock out its employees, claim hardship, dictate the terms of the negotiation and force its employees back to work. Forget all we have learned through more than a hundred years of labour disputes. Forget those hard lessons that you pick up over time to realize that give and take is what we want.

A bunch of employees who go back to the workplace upset, feeling that they were absolutely murdered by the system in the process, is not a workforce that you want to manage. Anybody with any intelligence or experience in management knows that a motivated workforce is absolutely the best thing you can have. It is the best investment, the best asset, the best resource.

Here we have a government sending signals to management and to other groups across the country that they do not need to go to the bargaining table and organize and bargain in good faith. All they need to do is simply rely on the government to have back-to-work legislation at hand.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very relevant and very pertinent comments.

Indeed, in this particular situation, mail delivery could be restored very quickly. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has already demonstrated its willingness to get back to work as soon as possible and to resume free and open negotiations without this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. That is what Bill C-6 represents, since it imposes a contract that is completely unacceptable given that Canada Post, with the Conservative government's support, now wants to offer wage increases that are lower than what it was previously willing to give.

For the workers, it is unthinkable that a corporation that made $281 million in profits in 2009 can no longer offer them what it was previously willing to give its workers. The difference translates into $754 for each worker for the next four years.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission, I would like to use these few moments to paraphrase a famous poem by Boris Vian. It goes like this:

Men whose names are great
I am writing you a letter
That you will read perhaps
If the Tories remove the locks.

I found it appropriate under the circumstances. In fact, since yesterday, a number of hon. members, from my party and from the government, have been able to read emails and messages that people have sent them. I would like to take this opportunity to share with you a message from a lady in Montreal who works for Canada Post. I have to say that I was also able to discuss Bill C-6 yesterday and to express my views on the matter. After introducing herself, she writes that she has been a Canada Post employee for about 30 years and wants to thank us for the support that we have been giving them in the House as we debate Bill C-6. She explains that this is her last contract and that she will be retiring soon. She indicates that our comments have been very accurate and precise; she tells us to keep up the good work, and then she thanks me.

I would like to use this email to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that this lady, who has devoted 30 years of her life to delivering mail to our fellow Canadians, will soon be able to retire knowing how much her retirement pension will be. That will not be the case with new Canada Post employees if the bill before us is eventually passed and imposed on them by an arbitrator. Its clauses contain a significant disparity in treatment. New Canada Post employees will have to work five years longer before they can retire. And since they are in danger of having a defined contribution plan, not only will they know that they will have to retire later, when they are older, but they will also not know exactly how much money they will receive when they do retire.

This is an extremely important aspect of the current debate. I am pleased that the hon. member for Gatineau raised the question a few minutes ago. It really does create a two-tier system. It creates a conflict between generations, where some employees have certain rights and enjoy certain working conditions while new employees, the younger ones, have inferior working conditions.

I have been talking about the pension plan, but it is equally true for wages. New employees will start at a salary that is 18% lower than Canada Post workers currently get. This is completely unacceptable. The NDP is going to fight day and night, as we are doing now, because we do not accept these iniquities and inequities. It is not true that young workers will be paying for the poor decisions of the Conservative government.

Why is it unfair and inequitable to have a two-tier system within the same corporation? Because we do not have a two-tier system when it comes to rent, mortgages, cars or groceries. These things cost just as much for young workers, who are often in a situation in which they wish to buy a house, start their lives and start a family. They thought they had found a good job, but they are going to be left with inferior working conditions, and that is not fair.

Before the session began, I had the opportunity to meet the president of Force Jeunesse in Montreal. For those who do not know, Force Jeunesse is an umbrella organization for several youth organizations, including junior chambers of commerce, junior unions, community groups and student groups. One of their key concerns for the upcoming year is in fact orphan clauses.

He told me that young people are afraid. They see what is happening with Canada Post, what this Conservative government is going to allow, and they are wondering if this is what young people have to look forward to in the coming years. Are young people entering the work force going to be systematically held down? Is that the Conservative government's vision for the future? Is that the kind of society we want?

We in the NDP say no. We must allow these young people to enter the work force, to have good working conditions, to qualify for a mortgage in order to buy a house and face the future with confidence, because they know they have good working conditions and insurance coverage, and a good pension plan for when they need it after giving 25, 30 or 35 years to a company or to the public service.

In this debate, it is also important to remember that attacks on unionized workers are attacks on the middle class.

I want to go back a little bit. We can easily argue that the middle class is a creation of the union movement.

When industrialization began in England first and then in other western countries, continental Europe mainly, peasants left the countryside in droves and moved to the city. There were large factories producing the first manufactured products under extremely difficult working conditions: six or seven days of work a week, 10, 12, 14 hours of work a day, child workers, completely appalling health and safety conditions, pitiful wages. All these people could hope for was to survive and that their children would live in the same terrible conditions.

What happened over the course of decades and centuries? These workers got organized. They created trade associations, trade guilds. They fought to make gains and change their working and living conditions. Then as these fights were fought by women's groups, community groups and especially unions that changed the work organization and signed collective agreements, workers obtained salary increases and created things that did not exist before: health and safety committees, paid leave, sick leave, the fact that a child must not work in a mine or a factory. All of this meant that the average quality of life and working conditions improved.

When we look at what constitutes the middle class these days, we see that much of the middle class is made up of small-business owners, entrepreneurs, restaurant owners, convenience store owners, florists, hair stylists, and so on. They form a good portion of the middle class, but another big part of the middle class is made up of unionized workers with good working conditions. People who work in mines have good working conditions. It is a tough job, but they have good working conditions, because they are unionized. People who were lucky enough to work in forestry in the past—there are fewer and fewer unionized workers in that industry—and in the oil industry were unionized.

Everyone who works in the public service, the teachers who teach our children, are also unionized workers. Nurses in hospitals are also unionized. When the Conservative government attacks unions, the fundamental right to associate and collective bargaining rights, it is attacking all of these workers.

An attack against the union movement is an attack against the middle class. We are here to defend families, workers and the middle class. That is important to us. That is our priority and we will not abandon it.

For the past two days, government members have been asking us why we do not want to get the mail running, why we want to prevent SMEs from doing business. They have been asking us why we refuse to get the economy rolling and let things get back to normal.

As far as I know, not one NDP member wanted a lockout at Canada Post. The lockout was imposed by the employer and the Conservative government is doing absolutely nothing to get the postal service running again. It has an obligation. It cannot say it has no role to play in this. That is impossible. Canada Post is a crown corporation; it is a public corporation. Ultimately, the government is responsible for it.

If the government truly cares about charitable organizations or entrepreneurs who need to send invoices and other things by mail, they should immediately put an end to the lockout. That could be done by making a phone call. What is even worse is that the wages that are not being paid to the 48,000 Canada Post workers will increase Canada Post's profits and, as a result, the CEO of Canada Post will receive a larger bonus.

Canada Post's union has been completely blocked in the bargaining process. It is so biased that the crown corporation does not need to bargain because it knows that special legislation could force employees to return to work. What is more, it is the one that locked the employees out. There is no free bargaining. This system puts workers and their families at a complete disadvantage. We are calling on the government to take responsibility and to put an end to the lockout as quickly as possible.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I was obviously expecting that response. Thank you to my dear colleague from Bourassa.

I went through this preamble not because I have not slept much and am rambling, but because I noticed that here, in this House, we have witnessed a miracle. The calendar on the desk shows that it is still June 23. So I have plenty of time to return to my riding to celebrate.

I joke, because as I have been listening to the debates over many hours now, I started to realize that it would really take a miracle to put an end to this. But in looking at the calendar, I realized that that was the miracle. In this House, we found a simple way to stop time and still continue working. We have been debating in this House for hours, we are moving forward, yet it is still June 23.

Why is this miracle that is possible in this House not possible with the bargaining of a collective agreement? We could require that Canada Post and the workers provide the service and, at the same time, ask the two parties to hold clear, clean, fair, just and precise negotiations, stopping time until a settlement is reached. If it is possible for the House of Commons, it must be possible for everyone.

The problem we have been seeing for a while is not about the differing opinions that we all have as much as it is about the demagoguery used by our government colleagues to try to force a bill down our throats. A bill that is indigestible, to say the least.

Over the past few hours, I have amused myself by taking note of the most demagogic lines we have heard. I did not sort them by order of importance to pull out the top five or top three, because that would have meant participating in this demagoguery. Regardless, I have no doubt that the Canadian public watching us on CPAC is interested in this debate. There were people in the gallery until 3 a.m. I think that is telling. Not to mention, I have been receiving so many messages that the BlackBerry I have on my belt is more like a massager.

What have we been hearing in these debates? First the legitimacy of the union and of its negotiation committee in particular has been attacked. I believe that a committee that gets 94% of the votes to represent its members has significant support. Here, in Parliament, we have a government leading in a legal manner after winning only 40% of the votes. I wish people would stop making this argument.

Then they talk about negotiations that have been going on for eight months. I have a slight problem with the word “negotiations”. The beauty in negotiations is trying to achieve a balance between the interests of the employer and those of the employees. All the work done to achieve this balance must not however be destroyed by the intervention of a third party. That seems obvious to me. In this case, the government should be using its power of intervention to force the parties to negotiate, and not to impose a settlement. Let us face it, the telegraphed lockout and the arbitrator's mandate make it easy to predict the outcome of this dispute, unless the government shows openness and allows real negotiations, in return for which the postal workers are prepared to resume mail service if the collective agreement they had before the lockout is maintained. That is the second demagogic argument that should be dropped.

With regard to damage to the blessed economy, it goes without saying that this dispute cannot last forever because of the economy, which was hardly affected by the rotating strikes. However, the impact has been tremendous since the lockout, but not for everyone. When we talk about a lockout, what are we talking about? We are talking about employees thrown out on the street without any wages who are told to stew for a while until they have had enough and are prepared to go to employer and accept what they would not have accepted otherwise.

What happens in the meantime? The crown corporation's profits go up because its expenses have gone down. In fact, I am expecting an email from the CEO of Canada Post encouraging me to defend the workers because his bonus increases with every day of the strike.

Enough has been said about strikes and lockouts. I do not need to add anything more. The concept seems to be clearer in everyone's mind. Even the Conservatives are speaking more and more about a lockout, which is the real situation.

I received a little message. The union had offered to stop all strike activity—including the rotating strikes, which, I would remind the House, were not terribly disruptive—if Canada Post would reinstate the old collective agreement while the mediator was continuing his work. The corporation categorically refused. This illustrates the current atmosphere.

Since we are in the process of negotiating instead of the parties—which is not at all our role—let us explore things from the inside to see how the situation is playing out for the locked out workers. I would like to share a few facts.

Canada Post management decided to adopt a really tough negotiation strategy. As soon as the union notified the corporation of its intent to take strike action, all leave and insurance coverage were cancelled. The collective agreement was tossed out the window. As a result, the employees were left without the financial resources to deal with serious illnesses. Some were forced to pay the full cost of medical expenses for themselves or their loved ones. Some had to pay thousands of dollars to buy medications they need to treat their illness or that of their loved ones, because Canada Post decided to cancel all musical coverage, I mean, medical coverage. A little music would have done us some good, since music has a calming influence.

Employees on sick leave were contacted and informed that they would no longer be receiving a salary during their absence and that they no longer had medical coverage. At present, there is not a single Quebecker without medical coverage, apart from the postal workers. Any corporation that brings in such draconian measures cannot do so without knowing that it has this government's support. It is truly unacceptable.

In closing, members on both sides agree that some sort of legislation is required to get the mail service running again, but we will never, and I mean never, support Bill C-6.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak on this critical issue.

The workers of Canada Post have been locked out. That is right: they have been locked out. They are not on strike. They have been locked out.

This is not a strike. The workers are “locked out”, a term should give us all nightmares. I am sure we all remember very clearly that not so long ago the Prime Minister himself locked parliamentarians out of the House of Commons.

It was not the fault of Canadians that parliamentarians were locked out and it not the fault of Canadians that the workers at Canada Post are locked out. In our case, the government locked us out. Is it not a coincidence that it is the government once again that has put the padlocks on? Canadians are the ones who are affected when the government padlocks government doors.

Postal workers want to go back to work but they cannot. Why can they not go back to work? They are locked out. Heck, posties even tabled a proposal to keep the old contract in place in negotiations. Canada Post refused and shut down the mail service. Canada Post locked its workers out.

Five days later, to compensate Canada Post for locking out its workers, the Conservative government introduced legislation that imposes a contract with an extremely regressive wage settlement. Given the fact that it takes time to draft such legislation, one can only conclude that the government was prepared to wreak havoc on the workers. One can only conclude that Canada Post was aware of Bill C-6 and willingly chose not to negotiate in good faith.

That is a shame. Workers got locked out and now we are trying to force them back to work. They did not go on strike.

Let me refresh your memory on this regressive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

This government has put forward a one-sided and irresponsible piece of legislation. With the bill, the government wants to impose an agreement in which wages are lower that those that Canada Post had offered. That is unacceptable.

Another important element of this debate is the move to defined contribution pensions. The phenomenon is blatantly one-sided. If defined contributions are absolutely as necessary as we hear, it would seem logical that management at Canada Post would be happy to lead by example and change its pension plan first.

Do not hold your breath, Mr. Speaker. These plans are far worse than defined benefit pensions. There is not a CEO in Canada who would trade a golden parachute for the gamble of the defined contribution pension.

For the benefit of those who are just taking in this debate, I will explain what a defined contribution pension is. With a defined benefit pension plan, an employee receives a set monthly amount at retirement. The amount received is based upon the participant's salary and length of employment. The retiree receives that amount plus cost of living increases every month for life.

These are the kinds of pensions most of us are familiar with. These are the kinds of pensions that allow seniors to live in dignity.

The great advantage of the defined benefit plan for an employee is that the employer bears the risk of market downturns and actuarial mistakes and is responsible for topping up deficiencies at the time of retirement. This allows individuals to retire knowing to the penny the kind of lifestyle they will be able to maintain.

Confident that they will be able to afford a reasonable retirement, these people can plan their lives accordingly. They will not have to worry if they want to put kids through college or university. They will not have to worry that they might not be able to afford to retire and have to save every cent they can to guard against that.

In contrast to traditional pensions, where the amount of the benefit is defined, there is the defined contribution plan. This plan is so named because it is the amount of the contribution that is defined. Employees contribute a portion of their salaries into a retirement account where it can be invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, et cetera. Some companies make a matching contribution up to a certain percentage. The account grows through contributions and investment earnings until retirement.

In a defined contribution plan, there are no guarantees about how much, if any, of your money will be left when you retire. The risks are placed squarely on the individual employees. We know what happened with the economic downturn that the Conservative government did not believe was coming.

These pensions can be profoundly different for employees who have very similar work histories. Here is an example. Imagine that a person retires at a time when markets are performing well. Due to good fortune and impeccable timing, that person's benefit will be higher as a result. If another person with exactly the same pension and roughly the same amount invested retires six months later but during a market downturn, that person may find benefits dramatically reduced by comparison.

It does not sound very fair. It is pension roulette, at best. We saw that in the recession. Many pensions around the world saw reductions in benefits of up to 40% in 2008. That is not good news for those retirees, to be sure.

I have had many calls from seniors who, holy crow, had to start selling their homes and moving into apartments. They did not even know if they could afford the rent. We have too many seniors living in poverty in Canada as it is. The trend to defined contribution pensions could well place even more seniors in poverty in the years to come.

Where is the commitment on the part of this government to actually do something about this phenomenon? From this side of the House, it does not appear to exist at all. This attitude is the antithesis of J. S. Woodsworth's famous line, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”

Take a look at the horrible lockout that miners in Sudbury went through recently. They spent a year on the picket line fighting the introduction of defined contribution pensions for future hires. We should think about that. These hardrock miners understood that the shift in pensions would be such a gamble for future hires that they sacrificed a year of income, delayed retirements for a full year, and walked picket lines in the heat of the summer and the cold of the winter.

My husband was one of those miners. They showed dedication and the courage of their convictions. Those miners fully understood the spirit of Mr. Woodsworth's quote.

That obviously is nothing the Conservative government can relate to in the least. This was about the future workers in the mines and the future workers in all other jobs. Again, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”

I cannot get it out of my head. It speaks of the disconnect the government has with everyday Canadians. If the government operated under that mantra, we would either be debating legislation to change the pensions for this place to defined contribution schemes or, at the very least, debating a more balanced piece of back-to-work legislation.

However, we are not, and it is nothing less than a national shame.

In closing, I will reiterate my objections to the way the government has so obviously taken sides in this dispute, the dangerous debate about the privatization of Canada Post that is a side effect of the lockout imposed on Canada Post employees, and the risky proposition of defined contribution pensions.

We need to stop this race to the bottom that has gone on for far too long in Canada. We need to see the value in an economy that is defined by its human capital; an economy that values good-paying jobs, instead of attacking them in order to validate the desire for cheap portable labour; an economy that is not all about sweetheart deals for the business elite and nothing but concessions from hard-working Canadians.

We have heard the government say that it wanted to have a stable government and that is why we went into an election. Let me tell members what a stable Conservative government means: unstable wages, unstable benefits, unstable pensions, unstable services, unstable employment, unstable economy and unstable life.

Shame on the Conservative government.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the profits that have been made over the years at Canada Post. In fact, for the last 15 years there has been considerable profit. She asked why on earth the efficiency of Canada Post and the fact that Canadians are very happy with their postal service is never mentioned and why it is not front and centre.

I wonder if perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the government and the corporation wants to create the impression that somehow workers are not doing their job and that somehow Canadians should be dissatisfied. It certainly helps the government in terms of its propaganda in regard to Bill C-6.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post made nearly $300 million in profits in 2009. To be exact, it made $281 million in profits in 2009.

We do not have the numbers for 2010, which is actually a little surprising. I thought those numbers were supposed to be released two months ago. We are a little surprised and have to wonder why these numbers have not yet been released, and whether there is any connection with the current labour dispute.

In any case, we are talking about nearly $300 million in profits in 2009 and 15 years of profits. Canada Post has turned a profit for the past 15 years.

Also, as we heard earlier tonight, Canadians are satisfied with the services offered by Canada Post and with what this crown corporation represents to our communities.

There were rotating strikes that partially, but never completely, interrupted postal services. However, the employees were willing to continue working under the conditions of their old collective agreement.

Looking at all this, we wonder where the problem lies and what crisis made the Government of Canada allow Canada Post to lock out its employees—this is not a strike; it is a lockout—and deprive all Canadians, including small businesses, but really all Canadians, of a service that they appreciate, that they need and that is vital.

Where is the crisis that, on top of all that, is making the government want to impose back-to-work legislation that contains many completely unacceptable clauses? Things like pensions, for example, come to mind. Several issues are unacceptable. For instance, it is imposing wages that are lower than what Canada Post itself was willing to offer.

We do not understand what is happening. The Conservatives talk about the best interests of the Canadian economy. Yes, the economy is important, essential and vital, sure. However, this expression reminds us of the best interests of the nation. Our question is, best compared to what? Compared to the interests of Canadians, to the interests of workers?

We in the NDP believe that the economy exists to serve people, and not the other way around.

When we hear the Associate Minister of Defence questioning the right to strike, as we heard yesterday, and when we go over events that led workers who exercised their legitimate right to strike and who were prepared to go back to work to be locked out, we have doubts. We shudder, even. We wonder how far this government will go and who will be the next victim.

I am thinking, for example, about the people—and we see this a lot in Quebec—who are fighting for unions at Wal-Mart. What is going to happen, not only to those people, but to many others who want to use legitimate, recognized methods to secure acceptable living and working conditions? What is going to happen to them? Who will be the next victim? What treatment does the Conservative government have in store for Canadian workers as a whole?

With this bill, the government is targeting not only the postal workers, but all of us. That is why all of my colleagues have received so many emails from people who wanted to testify to this and who feel threatened themselves. I will not read you an email, but I will tell the House what a taxi driver told me a little earlier. I do not imagine he belongs to a big union. He told me to stay the course because the people need us.

I say to that taxi driver: yes, I am going to resist with all my strength, along with my colleagues in the NDP caucus, and we will be here day and night to resist and to stand up not only for the postal workers but for all Canadian workers and all Canadians. Because we cannot allow this government to undermine workers' rights in Canada, nor can we allow this government to undermine the Canadian postal service, a service that all Canadians believe in, which is more than a service, it is an institution.

We know what the post offices represent in our small towns and villages all across Canada. Mostly, it is the presence of the government in all the regions, from coast to coast, as you say in English. A settlement like the one that Bill C-6 intends to impose will create a situation at Canada Post that will be terrible and intolerable, poison labour relations and undermine the excellent service that all Canadians have come to expect.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by highlighting the fact that unionized workers at Canada Post were locked out by their employer. They were willing to continue to work with minimal delays. They were willing to deliver pension and disability cheques. They were trying to minimize public inconvenience because they believe the postal service is important to Canadians. It was the government that locked them out. Now small businesses are hurting and people are becoming more and more frustrated because they do not have access to the mail system.

The issue is that the members opposite, the members of the government, simply wish to stomp on the rights of workers and prevent them from negotiating an agreement with their employer. The government wants to force them back to work with this draconian legislation. The whole thing smacks of a setup: the workers are locked out, this creates a mail stoppage, the public is upset, and the government is able to use the lockout as a propaganda tool.

This also gives the government the opportunity to implement Bill C-6, to force workers back to work and cut costs at Canada Post. What is in Bill C-6 is a deal that is far less than the inadequate contract offer made by Canada Post.

I am very afraid for the workers at Canada Post, in fact for all those who work for crown corporations and as public servants in this country. If this legislation passes, their right to bargain will also be placed in jeopardy because this bill undermines Canadians' rights to collective bargaining and the legitimate expectation that there be fair treatment of workers by their employers and by their government. This right is protected in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would also like to point out that this government claims bargaining is the best way to achieve a settlement for workers. They said this when they introduced their so-called pay equity bill. However, what we are really seeing is Conservatives undermining collective bargaining, leaving workers without the ability to negotiate a fair and appropriate agreement with their employer.

This back-to-work legislation reflects this government's true anti-union, anti-worker agenda. It is quite clear they are planning to chisel away the rights of workers--all workers. They want to take away the right to bargain for fair wages, safe working conditions, and pensions. It is pensions that are at the centre of this.

This outright attack on unionized workers sends a chill down my spine. I fear for public sector workers and employees of crown corporations, and indeed all workers in this country. Who is next? The CBC, the voice of Canadians, a part of our cultural history? Will employees of the CBC see wages and benefits rolled back? The National Gallery? Parks Canada? The Canadian Wheat Board? Of course, we know the government is trying every underhanded tactic to dismantle the Wheat Board.

Despite what some members opposite may choose to believe, unions have been very good for this country. We have all benefited from what they have negotiated at the bargaining table. It is not just fair wages. Unions have been on the forefront of human and equality rights and environmental protection. They also work for better pensions, health benefits, reasonable hours of work, and much more.

It was union negotiations that brought about the weekend. Interestingly enough, it was the CUPW's strike, the strike of 1981, that established maternity leave rights and benefits that set in place the opportunity for families to ask for and negotiate maternity and paternity rights across this country. The ability of young mothers and fathers to have time to stay at home to look after their infant children is owed to the men and women of CUPW, who went on strike for 41 days to gain those rights.

We know workers' rights are regularly threatened because employers do not just try to reduce wages, they attempt to cut corners. Unions are there to protect the health and safety of their members, to ensure they have fair wages, and they are treated with respect. Union members are not greedy. They are voters, and they elected us to represent them in this House. They deserve our respect, just as every Canadian deserves our respect. By attacking their rights, we are attacking all Canadians.

Now I would like to outline some of the issues of the current labour dispute. First, Canada Post management wants to eliminate sick leave and impose an inferior short-term disability plan that does not provide sufficient protection for short-term illness.

It also poses major problems concerning medical privacy. Recently the union offered to refer the issue to a government appointed arbitrator. CUPW believes that the current sick leave plan is adequate. It functions well and there is no need to change it.

Workers' health and safety is key. Postal workers deserve the right to work in a safe environment.

Canada Post also proposes a four-year agreement with wage increases and a cost of living allowance which will not provide sufficient protection for the wages of postal employees. CUPW believes the wage offer is too low considering the current annual inflation rate.

The people of this country know that food prices, the cost of energy, housing and prescription drugs just go up and up. Everyone is struggling, including postal workers. To add insult to injury, employees hired after the date of signing the Canada Post proposed collective agreement would have a starting salary 18% less than the current starting rate of the letter carriers. This would create a two-tier pay structure for the same job. That is far from fair. Canada Post has already cut many more jobs than is justified by the reported decline in volume, a decline that we know has been much exaggerated by the corporation.

As a result, there has been a significant increase in voluntary and forced overtime and a reduction in regular full-time positions. This harms workers and their families.

Changes need to be made. This entire situation needs to be handled differently.

The words of those directly affected by the strike are salient to this debate.

Karen sent me an email just yesterday. She said:

“I am a postal worker in your riding in London, Ontario. I've been watching the debate about the bill online and wanted to ensure that the NDP speakers knew some of the following details”.

“The corporation has demanded numerous rollbacks throughout the bargaining process despite the fact that Canada Post Corporation has made record profits for the past 16 years. CUPW members across the country voted 94.5% to go on strike because we do not believe these rollbacks are necessary. CUPW decided on rotating strikes in order to impact the public as little as possible. CUPW also informed the public in advance as to the locations that were going to be affected. Once the 72-hour notice was given, the employer immediately discontinued our benefits. On the date of the first rotating strike, provisions of the collective agreement were also discontinued; part-time hours were cut immediately and full-time hours were cut in half the following week.Many plants across the country are currently full of mail because the hours were cut and the mail could not be processed. But postal workers continued to sort and deliver the mail despite these harsh tactics by CPC. CUPW agreed to stop the rotating strikes if CPC reinstated our collective agreement. The Canada Post Corporation refused! Then CPC locked out postal workers across the country, affecting all Canadians. They did not inform the public before making this decision”.

“We are not on strike, we are locked out. CUPW has been reasonable throughout these negotiations, CPC has not. The issue of health and safety is very important to CUPW members because we have one of the highest rates of injury in Canada”.

I also heard from Geoff, a retired postal worker, who wrote:

“I and my brethren are very concerned about the obvious and predictable union-busting tactics of this ruling government. When the Conservatives got into power with a majority, I feared many things for our country's future, and sadly they are already taking place at breakneck speed. One of these things was that it would be glaringly anti-labour and this has obviously come to pass in the tabling of back to work legislation against Canada Post workers. I think it is incumbent upon the opposition party to hold this legislation up so as to force Canada Post to come up with something resembling a reasonable contract offer at a time when good jobs are disappearing all over the country. I watched my last 10 years in the post office, as routes got even longer, the route measurement system was systematically abused and we were carrying ever larger loads on ever longer routes, leading to more frequent injuries on duty”.

“Please stall this bill and get meaningful talks back to the table”.

Contrary to government assertions, many Canadians know that this is an unfair lockout by Canada Post aided and abetted by the Conservatives. Canadians want their mail. They want their mail sorters and letter carriers to get back on the job.

I call on the government to withdraw this unfair legislation and unlock the doors of Canada Post.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bourassa, who is the funniest member in the House. It is pretty incredible. Sometimes he talks a bit too much, but I am saying that on a personal level. Since it is so late, I thought I would throw in some humour.

What is very important is that we remember the clause in one of the old settlements done by the government. This clause in the agreement between the Canada Post Corporation and its workers ensured that there would be a good work environment in the future. This is lacking in the settlement proposed by Bill C-6. A clause should be added to ensure that there is a healthy work environment after the situation is resolved.