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.
