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

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

moved that Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the second reading of the bill entitled “An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services”.

A work stoppage is under way, a vital service is gone and Canadians have some urgent questions: How did this happen? How did things get this far? Do we not have mechanisms to resolve labour management conflicts?

We certainly do and they actually work quite well, and over 90% of the time.

In this country, employers and unions that represent employers are able to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment through the process of collective bargaining. This usually involves compromise on both sides and these negotiations almost always result in a settlement that is acceptable to both sides. We do not hear much about these proceedings because there is usually nothing very dramatic about the signing of a collective agreement.

However, what if the talks fail? This occasionally does happen. However, all should not be lost because the Canada Labour Code does provide for a series of measures the government can take in order to help the parties in a dispute get past their differences and avoid a strike or a lockout.

So what happened in the case of Canada Post?

I can assure Canadians that we did everything within our power to help Canada Post and the union to come to an agreement. We used every tool at our disposal.

I will take members back to the fall of last year. Negotiations between the parties began in October 2010 and the goal was to get a settlement before the existing collective agreement expired at the end of January. Despite some concessions made on both sides, the two parties could not agree on some crucial points. Therefore, on January 21, 10 days before the contract expired, the parties informed me that they were deadlocked.

As I said, in a case like this, there are steps the government can take. The first step is to send in a conciliator and, if conciliation fails, to appoint a mediator.

In the case of Canada Post and CUPW, the government followed the usual process as set out in the Canada Labour Code and we spent a lot of time with both sides. I want to stress, in case there is any doubt on this point. that this government does not play favourites and we appoint experts who are impartial. The job of conciliators and mediators is not to impose the kind of agreement that would be most agreeable to the government. Their role is to help the parties find their own solution.

I will go back to the chronology. After 60 days of conciliation, there was still no agreement between Canada Post and the union. Considering the stakes involved, both parties agreed to extend the conciliation by a further 32 days. Even after 92 days of effort by a conciliator, an agreement in this case was not forthcoming so, on May 5, I appointed a mediator. The parties entered a 21-day cooling off period, as prescribed in the Canada Labour Code, and still there was no progress. Instead, on May 30, the union filed a 72-hour strike notice and, on June 3, the postal workers walked out. Finally, on June 15, the employer declared a lockout.

I said at the beginning that Canadians have questions. The next question they have is: What will happen now?

If the last postal disruption, which occurred in 1997, is anything to go on, the damage to the economy could be significant. Businesses that rely on the mail will be severely affected. If the strike is prolonged, some of those businesses could go under, jobs could be lost and some of the job losses could be permanent.

Can we afford this disruption at a time when our economy is still recovering?

Many of our citizens depend on the services of Canada Post to receive essential government information and benefits. In fact, everyone will be affected by the work stoppage but people with disabilities, elderly people and people who live in remote communities will be hurt the most. This strike will cause undue real hardship to many Canadians.

The next question in their minds is: What is the government going to do about it? The answer is that we have made the difficult decision to end the strike with back to work legislation and binding arbitration.

When collective bargaining actually fails, employers have the ability and the legal right to bring pressure on the unions in order to settle the matter. The unions also have the right to withdraw their labour in order to make sure that there is a settlement at the end of the day.

In this case, we are unable to see a resolution. That is why we introduced this resolution in order to give the parties a way forward so that they conclude their collective agreement at the table.

It is the culmination of a long process. I have worked with the union and I have worked with management for a long period of time. The reality of the situation is Canadians cannot go on without postal services for much longer. The government has no alternative but to introduce back to work legislation and that is what we have done today.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the Conservative Minister of Labour three times in her speech called it a strike. I remind the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister that this is a lockout. The workers did not go on strike.

The Minister of Labour, who I have great respect for, should understand the difference between a lockout and a strike. The mail was being delivered. The company told the workers that they were no longer required.

How can the Minister of Labour stand in this House and on three separate occasions call this a strike when she knows that it was Canada Post that locked out the employees?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that he is correct. It is a lockout which was precipitated by a series of rolling strikes.

I might offer this piece of advice to the opposition. In the case of the government, it does not matter how the work stoppage happens. What matters is we act for all Canadians and we make--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have really reached a low point if the Minister of Labour said today that it does not really matter how things will turn out. Our government is siding with the employers.

I have been on the government side in the past, and when there was a two-week general strike, we differentiated between a lockout and a general strike. We certainly had a bill to ensure that the arbitrator could be respectful to both parties in arriving at a negotiated solution.

We have a minister who has just completely denied collective rights and workers' rights.

Is the minister prepared to make amendments to ensure that we do not begin a marathon session? There is a lack of respect for two groups today. There is a lack of respect for workers, and for Quebeckers and French Canadians, because the NDP wants to start a marathon session when we should rather be celebrating, since we have agreed in this House that Quebec is a nation.

What does she have to say about that?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remind the hon. member that there are in fact 45,000 members of the union and in reality there are 33 million Canadians.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while I was making my speech before the vote, I had a message from one of my constituents which I would like to read.

It says: "Great job on your speech...We were watching it live. My business is affected by this. I hope the situation is resolved soon!"

What message should I give to those constituents?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the message to give to Canadians in general in businesses and charities is that we are here to ensure the return of postal services and we are here to ensure the continuation of postal services.

Indeed, we will sit here as long as we need to sit here to ensure that postal services continue.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister was speaking, I received a message from one of my constituents, who said that his pension fund was in jeopardy. He was asking the Minister of Labour to protect workers.

He also asked why the Conservative government and the Prime Minister hate the working men and women so much. Why does the bill hurt only the workers and not Canada Post?

That is what Canadian workers are saying.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess none of us should be surprised that unions have a hotline to the NDP.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments made by the minister in her speech, prior to the heavy-handed lockout that Canada Post came forward with, she said it was prompted by the rotating strikes as if they were an illegal tactic. They are absolutely legitimate. Does the minister disagree that they are a legitimate tactic?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated clearly, we do not blame one party or the other. The blame is that the two parties at the table were unable to reach a deal after being in the collective bargaining process for eight months.

Quite simply, Canadians want to know what the government is going to do. The government is going to make sure that the service starts again, that they are back to work, and people can resume their lives.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation calls for wage increases of 1.75% this year, 1.5% next year and 2% in each of the subsequent two years. I wonder if the Minister of Labour could tell the House why these particular numbers were chosen and whether or not they are based on what the government has negotiated with the federal public service.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, colleague and neighbour for the question. Indeed, the increases in wages for postal workers are wages that have been negotiated in another free collective bargaining process with PSAC, the largest public sector union in the federal government, and they are fair.

As I have said many times, these are amounts that every Canadian would love to have as a guaranteed wage increase for the next few years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also received today an email from one of my constituents who is a letter carrier.

Here is what he said:

Mr. [MP's name], thank you for defending postal workers. Many people do not know what we are fighting for. We are not for fighting for wages, but for safe working conditions. Please ask the Conservatives what they intend to do about all the workplace accidents that will occur once we go back to work and our working conditions have still not been addressed.

I would like to know what the Minister of Labour intends to do about worker safety.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the top priority of this government is the health and safety of all Canadians. We take that very seriously. That is why in the legislation we have included this in the guiding principles for the arbitrator to ensure that the principles of the health and safety of the workers on the job are looked at.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the polarized ideological barbs that have gone back and forth between the government and the official opposition in the last few minutes, I wonder if the minister could tell us what in fact has been accomplished by that type of exchange. The postal system is still dysfunctional, the workers are still out of work, the small businesses across this country that depend on Canada Post are still without service. Why can the minister not adopt a more constructive approach?

Will the minister entertain specific constructive amendments to her legislation to try to improve that legislation and actually get this problem solved rather than have ideological polarization on the floor of the House of Commons? What good does that do?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member because obviously what he is indicating is that the Liberal Party will gladly support the bill and we can count on its full support for quick passage of the bill.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we start this debate on a bit of a sad note. We have just heard the Minister of Labour say, in thinking about the situation before us, that there are 45,000 postal workers, though I believe there are more than that but I will use the number she used, and there are 33 million Canadians. In other words, she is dividing the people who provide the mail to us from the rest of Canadians.

First, I find it sad that the Minister of Labour would see the world that way and, second, that we would be approaching this issue on such a divisive basis. I have said in the past, and I was hoping things might have been different, that it is a government that preys on the concept of dividing Canadians, one from the other. Unfortunately, we are starting off in that frame of mind.

I do not intend to use that approach. In fact, when I think about postal workers, the first image that comes to my mind is the postal delivery fellow who comes to my home. His name is Gary and he provides mail service to my house. At my house people are normally home during the day, so it is my 85-year-old stepmother who receives the mail. Like a lot of senior citizens and Canadians, a relationship develops between the person who delivers the mail and families. It becomes quite a personal thing.

When families celebrate the important seasons and everyone wishes each other well, it is one of those cases where the services that government provides comes right up against the public in a particularly intimate and important way. I think we all want to start this debate by realizing that we need to appreciate the work of those who work in the public service.

Second of all, I want to say that we are here to achieve a positive outcome. We are going to propose amendments to this legislation. I want to tell thePrime Minister and the Minister of Labour that my team and I will be available, no matter what time it is, to discuss the possibility of finding a solution to this situation.

We in the NDP do not support the legislation that has been presented and we will explain why. We are here to propose changes, amendments and propositions that could improve the legislation. We are prepared to work with the government to find language that might actually get us out of the predicament that we find ourselves in today.

I simply want to say that we are available, it does not matter what time of day or night, to work with representatives of the government to try to accomplish that goal in the interests not only of 33 million Canadians, but also the people who work so hard to make sure we get mail service in this country.

Ensuring good labour relations in this country depends on the good faith of everyone, and unfortunately, the Conservative government has decided to act in bad faith. Postal workers in Canada's urban centres have been in talks with Canada Post since last October. Their contract expired just five months ago, on January 31. Now, this government, as the owner of this crown corporation that took in revenues of $2.81 million last year, is imposing wage reductions, especially on all new employees. The government is ordering an 18% reduction in the basic wage rate, as well as a reduction in vacation time, in addition to forcing new employees to work an additional five years before they are eligible to receive full pension benefits.

Even so, these workers have bargained in good faith. Throughout all of the bargaining, they made sure that Canadians got their mail and that all social services cheques were delivered on time. That is very important for Canadians to understand.

I think about these folks who work so hard for us. The image I have in my mind right now is visiting the large postal sorting stations. These postal sorting stations are huge operations. I visit them at least once every year to touch base, because it is a huge employer right on the border of my riding. Thousands of people are working there to sort the mail, and it is actually a surprisingly intimate process, despite all the machines.

I am thinking of some of the people who sit in their chairs and have all of these sorting boxes into which to put the mail that we write. Some of it cannot be sorted by a machine and has to be looked at by an individual.

There they are, and looking over their shoulders and talking to them, I have seen mail from all over the world. There are personal stories and messages from one Canadian to another, or from someone beyond our borders who is not a Canadian but is communicating with a Canadian. Chances are it is family related, or maybe it is business related, but there is an intimacy there. The respect with which those workers ply their trade is quite remarkable.

A lot of them, I noticed, wear various forms of braces on their hands and their arms because of the repetitive motions that they do. These motions produce a strain on their bodies to the point moving is painful and difficult. However, there they are, working nonetheless to try to provide a service and also because they have to provide for their families.

Another thing I noticed about that group of workers, at least in the plant near my riding, is the diversity. I do not think a more diverse group of Canadians could be found anywhere. They come from absolutely every background. Maybe that is why there is a certain appreciation of the importance of the mail. In a way it is a part of the democratic communication process that brought them to Canada in the first place, the notion that people can communicate freely, that they can speak their mind and that there is a public postal service to make sure people can communicate with each other.

Many of them will mention the charter of rights and so on that we have here in Canada, and how proud they are to be Canadians and to be working on behalf of Canadians. That is why I found it very distressing to see them being partitioned off as though they were somehow not part of the 33 million Canadians. They are as much a part of the 33 million Canadians as anybody else.

I am very proud of Canada Post and its management and the decisions that have been made there over the years. I have had my opposition, as many of us have had, to some of their decisions. I will speak about that later.

One decision was to turn over of many of the postal operations in the small businesses in my community to Shoppers Drug Mart. I have nothing against Shoppers Drug Mart, but it does not need to be delivering the post. Lots of small mom-and-pop variety stores have had to close because of a decision by Canada Post to give the contracts to the highest bidder. That has been very hurtful.

Nonetheless, I have been very proud of Canada Post as an institution in this country. I think of Purolator, for example. Most Canadians do not even know that it is owned by Canada Post and by the Canadian people. It does a fine job of delivering on our behalf in a very competitive environment and has taken leadership in environmental areas. Purolator has a hydrogen-powered van that operates out of a garage in my riding, and that hydrogen is created by the wind turbine that you see when you come into Toronto along the waterfront at the CNE. That is where the hydrogen comes from. That is a publicly owned postal delivery vehicle that is powered by the wind. I think that is fabulous.

Another reason I am personally fond of Canada Post is that it took a decision--and I appreciate the Prime Minister's support for it along the way--to issue a stamp in honour of the 100th anniversary of services to the blind in this country by the CNIB and by the Montreal Association for the Blind, which was founded by my blind great-grandfather, Philip E. Layton.

As it happens, Canada Post took the decision to put his image on the envelope. When we buy a group of those stamps, his image is there, and I take a lot of pride in that. All of those who have been working with and involved with the blind over the years appreciate that gesture. We could cite many stamps that have been issued and many gestures that Canada Post has made because it is part of the community. It is part of who we are, as Canadians, in many different ways.

I do not want what I have to say today about the legislation to take away from all of those positive things that we have to say, nor from the public services that we rely on, because we do rely on these public services, each and every one of us.

However, I have to speak against the bill. I must briefly explain why, or maybe not so briefly, as a matter of fact, if you don't mind, Mr. Speaker.

Effective labour relations in this country rely on good faith. We have not seen that in the actions of the government here. I too, like the member for Acadie—Bathurst, was quite shocked to hear the labour minister describe the situation facing us as a strike. That simply is not true. It was the most brazen example of propaganda designed to try to turn people against these workers that I have seen, and to see it right here in the House of Commons is shocking.

What we are facing right now is a lockout. If we did not have the lockout, we would not have this debate, we would not have this legislation and people would be receiving their mail.

The workers who provide that service are ready to go to work now, but they are faced with a problem. When they show up for work, there is a lock on the door. They cannot work. They cannot go into that sorting plant. They cannot go into the Post Office. They cannot collect the bag of mail and deliver it to people like my mother-in-law and lots of other people who are waiting for their mail.

There is a simple solution. I have asked the Prime Minister repeatedly over recent days to simply adopt this solution, which I will say again: Prime Minister, take the locks off the door and let us have our postal service back.

It is not a strike. It is a lockout initiated by the management, clearly supported by the government. We say that it is supported by the government because if the government were sincere in suggesting that the strike is causing a problem for the Canadian economy, it would be taking action to ensure that the mail was delivered as quickly as possible. The simplest way to do that is to take the locks off the doors, but that is not the objective, unfortunately, despite what is being said; the objective is to interfere with the process between workers and management in coming to a fair collective agreement. That, unfortunately, I must conclude, is the objective.

The government says it has to legislate the workers back for economic reasons, but if that is the case, why did it shut down the post office in the first place?

I would again ask the government to order Canada Post to take the locks off the doors. It is an agency of the government. Let us remember that. The actions it has taken have compromised the Canadian economy; let us remember that too.

It could be done now. A simple phone call would get that process sorted out within hours. I have no doubt that would happen if the Prime Minister were to call the CEO.

However, by siding with the employer and by pitting the workers against the Canadian people in a blatant attempt to try to divide and conquer, as we have seen the government do before, the government has essentially killed the incentive to bargain.

Let us put ourselves in the position of the CEO of the company. He would have a big grin on his face after seeing this legislation, which essentially tells him he does not have to do anything anymore. He does not have to compromise and he does not even have to talk to his workers, because the government is simply going to ram legislation through.

Can we guess what the icing on the cake will be? The government is going to give the workers less in wages than he, as CEO, was prepared to give them.

Mr. Speaker, do we know why else he would be smiling? It is because the CEO, who I am told is the best paid of the CEOs of the organizations we have in the Canadian government system, is allowed a 33% bonus on top of his salary. If a CEO's bonus is based on the profitability of the enterprise and he has just been told that a reduction of the wages of the workers has been legislated through the Parliament of Canada, can we guess what happens? It is higher profits and a bigger bonus. We know who is smiling now.

This is what leaves us with the sense that the government has essentially taken sides here, and we think in a most inappropriate way.

Let us look at the impact on the average full-time postal worker's family during the four years of the agreement.

It turns out that $857.50 would taken out of the pockets of the postal worker's family. We can understand why people would be upset about this, particularly when the CEO is going to get a bigger bonus by virtue of that very reduction.

If a government is prepared to do that to the postal workers, we have to ask ourselves who it is prepared to do that to next. Who is next?

This is why 33 million Canadians ought to be taking a very close look at this legislation and asking themselves if they are next. Will they be hit next? Will there be user charges to deal with the huge record deficit the government built up?

Mr. Speaker, we are getting commentary from the commentariat over here on the other side. One is tempted to respond by suggesting that the massive corporate tax cuts the Conservatives implemented left them with this deficit. If the government had followed our advice, it would not have this deficit.

A lot of Canadians are going to be wondering what will happen if their employer offers them a certain wage and there is a discussion and negotiation about wages. If the Prime Minister is willing to say to postal workers that the offer they were being given by their management was too high, so he brought in a law to reduce their wages, would that happen to them also?

I do not think there would be any reason to think it would not happen. In fact, I think there is every reason to be fearful that the government might well do it, and that anyone could be next. Who would that be?

The government will protest and say that it would never do that to anybody else, but there is a question of trust here that is going to be challenged by the legislation we see in front of us. The government is willing to do that to 55,000 Canadians, the very people who deliver the mail, usually with smiles on their faces no matter what the weather, and people will ask themselves if they could be next.

There is also the question of pensions.

Yes, many do not have a pension plan, so we need to strengthen the Canada pension plan to help all these people.

However, anyone who does have a pension plan for when they retire is looking at a government that is willing to impose restrictions on them. It is telling them they can't retire with the full pension they thought they had, the pension they told their families would be available for retirement and on which all family plans were dependent, the plan that kept workers going on some of the worst-weather days when their job involved going door to door or when their arms hurt as they were sorting the mail.

At the end of the day, that worker was probably thinking that he or she could retire with a certain pension and would not live in poverty, that the work would be worth it and would allow them to spend more time with their family, because a lot of this is shift work and workers do not have much time to spend with their families. So workers make promises to their spouses and kids that they will eventually spend more time with them based on their having a pension.

However, this legislation tells those workers they will have to work five years longer than they planned. That is not right. It creates further problems, which I will speak about in just a second. Sure, it would be a big saving for Canada Post, yet we could do all kinds of things if all that we wanted to do was to save money. Let us just cut everyone's salaries down to size, let us not have pensions, let us forget about health care. We could save money in all kinds of ways. Saving money is not, by definition, the best thing to do in all circumstances. It is a question of balancing things, and that has not been done in this legislation.

Canadians should therefore be forgiven for doubting Canada Post's claim that it is going to be in financial trouble if it does not squeeze the workers, the same workers who helped Canada Post make $1.7 billion in profits over the last 15 years. That was done by hard work, because the postal system did not make money years ago, as that was not how it was set up, but it has been structured that way for a number of years. Those workers have helped to create that profit, but now they are being punished for having done it. How do people get motivated when they are faced with that situation?

Canada Post made $281 million in net profits in 2009 alone, the last year for which we have the full numbers. Let us remember that the government gets a chunk of that money, so I suppose this is one of the ways that it is going to reduce the debt. To reduce its debt, the government is going to extract $857.50 from the average full-time postal worker's family. It will take that money and put it against the national debt. That is not right and it is not fair. The national debt is something that we all have to shoulder together, all 33 million of us, not just the 55,000 workers in the postal system.

The company does not need a bullying big brother to support its demands against workers who just want to support their families. This is really reprehensible legislation because of the way it tries to push people around, and it is not done in good faith.

Let us talk about the contract the government wants to impose. The contract divides workers into two categories: new versus old, young workers versus more senior workers. By asking new workers to accept lower wages, less secure retirement benefits and less vacation time, the government is turning them into second-class workers. I admire the workers for rising up against this injustice, even though it is not necessarily their rights and benefits that are in jeopardy, but those of future employees. The workers have stood up to protect the next generation, upholding the tradition of the labour movement. That is also a tradition of the NDP, one we are proud of.

It is linked to a broader value that we hold, a fundamental Canadian value, that no one should be left behind. That means that we do not create two classes of workers in a place like Canada Post.

The government actually wants to impose a contract that takes that very value and turns it on its head. It says that some should be left behind and says who they are going to be, essentially structuring it to give one generation of workers an inferior arrangement. This invites resentment in the workplace, which is only human. Over time the younger workers are going to resent the older workers and the better deal they have. How can that be positive for the morale of a workplace or the efficiency or quality of life of the workers?

It is really quite a negative a thing. It is dividing people once again. It weakens the bonds that can exist in a workplace between people working together. It pits worker against worker, and worse, in this context, a generation against another generation. I think that is a very dangerous situation.

It weakens their collective voice because to the extent they are not working and feeling like they are part of the same team but are feeling that there is a conflict within, their collective voice is not going to be as strong or as effective as it could be. Maybe that is what the government wants. Maybe that is what is really going on here, amongst other things, to try to weaken the voice of working people at their workplace. Certainly, if we look at this legislation in its many dimensions or the actions of the government in recent days on both of the strikes we have been dealing with here, people would have to come to the conclusion that this could be part of the strategy

From the perspective of some employers and governments, maybe this is somehow seen to be a good thing, to divide and conquer in a race to the bottom, except for those at the top who do better and better. In fact, the statistics in our country should be alarming for all members of Parliament, because the inequalities that are growing in our society are the kinds of inequalities that ultimately lead to a reduction in quality of life, a reduction in the sense of well-being. There are lots of measures of this.

The societies that have a greater level of equality, where the distance between the top and the bottom is not as great as other societies, have all kinds of advantages when it comes to the well-being of their citizens, everything from lifespan to measurements of disease and happiness, and the list goes on and on.

There has been a lot of work done on this. In fact, I know that a lot of parliamentarians of all political stripes are starting to pay attention to the work that is being done on the growing inequality and how that needs to be challenged.

Unfortunately, the policies of the government, piece by piece, have actually helped the inequality to grow. So there are cases where, for example, if someone is not a taxpayer with a decent income, some of the tax credit approaches offered by the government are not available to them.

Many of the tax reduction strategies have ended up benefiting those at the top, to a greater extent. Or, some of the measures that have been offered up are really only workable for people who have extra money at the end of the month or end of the year, when there are a lot of folks who do not have that.

The result is that we are going to see a step-by-step growth of the distance between those at the top and those at the bottom. What are we looking at here but a piece of legislation that actually makes that the case within this group of 55,000 employees, creating a distance within the workforce and, of course, the distance I spoke about earlier between the CEO with that whole bonus system and the workers. There are probably other upper echelon managers who get some kind of a bonus as well.

So the inequalities within that workplace are going to increase. That is a reflection of a pathology that is afoot in our society right now. This legislation runs counter to the sorts of initiatives we should be following to deal with that pathology.

It also undermines the workers' voice. Now some people perhaps think that is a good idea. I was doing an interview earlier today with Mr. O'Leary of The Lang and O'Leary Exchange. I had challenged him in an earlier interview, taking issue with that quote of his that “greed is good“. I took him on and said that I did not think that greed should be considered a good thing. I just needed to go on the record saying that on the public broadcaster.

I had the opportunity to be interviewed by him on this very topic this afternoon. He asked me, “Wouldn't we be better off if we just simply didn't have unions at all, Jack?” He used my first name. I hope I can use it in that context. In responding to him, I pointed out that he had just saluted the very successful economy of Australia, which has a labour government and a strong union movement.

The fact is that the union movement in our country has given us and working people wherever unions are allowed to form a dramatically improved standard of living. We could go through the list of the things that have been accomplished by trade unionists over the years. Most of them were negotiated, perhaps in labour contracts to begin with, but became sufficiently popular with all Canadians that they became the law of the land.

One could start with child labour. Had we not had the union movement, we would have child labour. If we have any doubts about that, we should go to the places where there is child labour and find out how easy it is to organize a union there.

We could also take a look at things such as weekends off. We would not have weekends off if it were not for trade unionists organizing for the right of working families to have a little time together once every seven days.

We would not have health and safety committees in our workplaces, which sit down and talk about how to make working conditions safer and better for workers, without unions. However, we still have three workers a day dying on the job in Canada. We have an awful lot more work to do in these areas. We passed the Westray bill. That never would have happened, had it not been for the union movement. Here I refer to the steelworkers and all of those who supported that strong legislation we now have, which is being brought to bear in appropriate circumstances. I know there are corporations, large and small, that have changed their practices as a result of that bill.

I had the privilege of sitting on the board of directors of the fourth largest energy utility in the country, Toronto Hydro, and we did not. When I joined that organization, we did not have anywhere near adequate workers' health and safety. We had the worst record of any public utility in North American. This bill came in. We were all briefed on it as board members. I do not mind saying I had been pushing for change there, but it was that bill that ultimately said to the managers and directors of the board that they could be criminally liable if they knew that a situation was dangerous and did not do something about it. That snapped everyone to attention darn quickly.

I want to salute Toronto Hydro, because within six quarters it went from having the worst quarterly record of injuries and those sorts of situations on the job to having zero injuries a quarter, and it was because of that legislation.

I am really trying to make the point that the unions we are talking about here perform an extremely important service in our society. People are frustrated when something they were counting on is not available. When people's mail is not delivered, it is tough and it is very tough for small businesses.

I had a small business once and I would pay my contractors, but if the cheque had not arrived from the person I had the contract with, it was tough. Some small businesses right now are struggling because of that situation. Other business owners rely on the mail as fundamental to their business.

We all know about those kinds of businesses. That is why, if we were serious about these businesses, we would take the locks off the operation and let the workers get back to work.

I would like the government to understand how important it is to build bridges between generations and between different groups of workers. I would like the government to agree to work with us to defend the rights of workers and to secure a better agreement for their families. That is why we are proposing to work with the Prime Minister and his team to come up with acceptable amendments to this bill in order to improve the situation.

Let us be clear: this bill violates the rights of workers to negotiate a collective agreement in good faith. It also weakens the collective bargaining rights of all 33 million Canadians; their right to work together with their co-workers to secure better conditions, a right entrenched in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are the facts. This legislation sends a message to employers across the country that the government is prepared to side with employers against employees every time it has an opportunity to do so.

Why should employers bargain in good faith if they can count on the government to step in and impose what they cannot get at the bargaining table? Where is this going to end? Once we allow this sort of thing to get started, who knows where it could go?

That is why we propose that the laws be changed and why we cannot support the legislation. It encourages employers everywhere to go out and test the waters. Look what they got at Canada Post. Maybe we can manoeuvre into a similar position. Who do we have to call in the government to get it on side? Who do we check in with? I guess we will start with some of those consulting companies that seem to be populated by former members of the party. Maybe we will get some advice there, but that is a topic for another day.

By sending a message that back to work legislation could be the new norm for labour negotiations in our country, the whole notion of good-faith negotiations really goes out the window, and it is a slippery slope that the government wants to force Canadians to go down. I simply ask the government if this is really where it wants to go because it will be very dangerous.

It is important for us to understand that the benefits provided by collective agreements go beyond a mere contract. The added benefits negotiated by workers over the years have helped to raise the standards for all Canadians. Unionized workers fought for rights that we now take for granted: a decent wage to raise a family—the salaries of unionized workers have a positive upward effect on the salaries of non-unionized workers—plus occupational safety and health standards, the 40-hour work week, weekends, protection against harassment, vacations, workplace pension plans, and the list goes on.

Hand in hand with progressive parties like the New Democratic Party, collective bargaining has been one of those engines for progress for working people. I see this as a legacy to build upon, not something to be torn down.

We are celebrating our 50th anniversary as a political movement. At our convention, we reflected on our achievements over those years. It was always with one goal in mind, which was to make life better for working families. That was and is what we are.

At our convention, we reflected on our achievements over those years and we paid a special tribute to our founding national leader, Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare. Public health care was his signature achievement for all Canadians. Public pensions were another achievement, working with Lester Pearson. However, Tommy Douglas accomplished so much more, including rural electrification, universal access to education and income stabilization for farmers.

Tommy also knew that securing workers' basic rights was a key to a just and prosperous Saskatchewan and Canada. Therefore, as premier of Saskatchewan, he passed legislation, and we are going back many years, guaranteeing a minimum wage for working people. He passed legislation establishing a 40-hour work week, paid vacations and full collective bargaining rights for all workers.

Tommy gave credit to where credit was due, which was to the ideas that had come from working people. They were bargained into existence by working people. Tommy's job, as he saw it, was to extend those most basic protections to all working people through legislation in his province and in his country.

When we see legislation in this Parliament, we hope for the kind of legislation that would accomplish those kinds of goals. Instead, we are seeing legislation today that goes precisely in the opposite direction, for several reasons that I have touched on already. Other members of our party in our caucus will speak about other dimensions of this in the debate.

Tommy's legacy was extraordinary.

Sixty years ago, Tommy Douglas was instrumental in bringing in Canada's first real labour code.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Are we allowed to sing? I imagine that at times, it might improve the tone of the debate.

The labour code represented a major step forward for workers of the day. We will not sit idly by and watch the Conservatives turn back the clock and strip workers of vested rights they fought so hard to achieve.

I am simply not going to sit and watch the Conservative government follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Republicans and their Tea Party friends.

We have all been watching occurrences in Wisconsin, where the governor yanked collective bargaining rights from 175,000 public employees and nullified their rights to decent conditions, gender equality and fair pensions. The governor is not even hiding that this is an attempt to cut down the number of workers. It is not just in Wisconsin, but Ohio, Indiana and Idaho are all attacking workers, using the excuse of austerity.

Their real goal is to maximize profits by mistreating workers. The Canada Post Corporation Act does exactly the same thing: a profitable company is saying that it cannot afford to pay new hires. This Conservative government is complicit with the employer by proposing this legislation. Simply put, its inspiration is coming from the wrong place.

I will summarize our essential position.

First, we must not be dividing Canadians in this place by talking about 55,000 postal workers and 33 million other Canadians. It is time we started to see each other as all part of the same people who are trying to accomplish the same goals for our families. That is what this is about. Therefore, I am asking that we see less of this divisive politics, particularly in this debate because many Canadians will be following it.

I do not want those who deliver the mail or who sort it on our behalf, each and every day, to feel that they are somehow less than anyone else.

Second, this bill attacks the workers' basic right to negotiate their working conditions. That cannot happen.

Third, this bill will increase disparities in our society. If we begin to see numerous bills such as these in different areas of our economy and society, disparities will increase. This approach is completely unacceptable, not only to the New Democratic Party, but also to the great majority of Canadians.

People must be wondering if they and their families will be the next ones to suffer from the Conservative government's tactics. If the government can do this to Canada Post workers, will it do the same to other workers? Is there a list? Are there several other companies with the same type of contract? Will CEOs be celebrating tonight, tomorrow or this weekend because they can use the same tactic that Canada Post used? That is unacceptable.

To conclude, I want to reiterate once again that we can put an end to this dispute right now. The Prime Minister can ask Canada Post to take the locks off so that these people can return to work. My team and I are once again offering to work and create amendments to the bill so that we can end this debate and so that proper bargaining can take place.

That is all I can say at the moment.

I therefore move:

That Bill C-6 be not now read a second time but be read a second time six months hence.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the Leader of the Opposition give his speech. There were a number of things, frankly, on which we agree but there were a number of things on which we disagree.

I do have concerns when I hear conversations about different levels of Canadians. Well there are, sadly, Canadians who have not been at the table in these negotiations but, believe me, they are being deeply impacted.

His motion, which would suggest a hoist motion, to move this in six months, unlock the doors of Canada Post, for what? Is it so we can have more rotating strikes? Maybe tomorrow it would be Toronto that shut down. Maybe next week it would be Peterborough or somewhere in Ottawa or elsewhere. This is not a solution.

I have received notes from postal workers asking why they have not had an opportunity to vote. Their union would not let them vote on this contract. There is intimidation within the ranks of CUPW and workers are afraid. Does the member know that?

Would he call on CUPW and ask it to allow a vote on the last offer by Canada Post, or is he simply going to allow this kind of tyranny from the top union leaders?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if that offer was so terrific one would think it would have at least been replicated in the legislation.

I appreciate the comments and observations from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister but he suggests that if we unlock the doors that this would take us back to the rotating strikes. We need to be crystal clear here. The representatives of the workers involved have said that if those locks are taken off they will go back to work and deliver the mail.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was back in 1988 when I last heard of a six-month hoist motion. In fact, that was also on a labour bill. At the time, inside the Manitoba legislature, it was the New Democrats in opposition. When I get the opportunity to speak to this particular motion, I hope to fill in what actually transpired. There were some highlights and some lowlights.

I am very sympathetic to many of the arguments. The Liberal Party believes in the efforts and work that the Canada Post workers have put in and the services they provide for Canadians. We do not question that. The issue is the lockout.

Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that, if the lockout were never put in place, we would have had an agreement or the mail would have continued to be delivered to address the concerns in terms of the public interest?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes I do.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that in my 14 years here, the hon. member's speech has been one of the finest speeches ever in the House of Commons.

My father was a letter carrier in south Marpole for many years in Vancouver, British Columbia. The proudest moment as an immigrant to this country was when he got a job with Canada Post, which meant that he had medical benefits, dental benefits, and not just for him and his wife, but for the nine children that he had. It was the proudest moment of his day when he was on SW Marine Drive and put that postal cap on.

Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition believe that the government's real agenda is the privatization of Canada Post?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his comments just now and the story about his father. It is a touching story and underlines so many points. He summarized in 30 seconds what it took me half an hour to try to explain, and I appreciate it.

The question really addresses a fear that many have, which is that the government would degrade public services to the point where people's complaints about them begin to increase and, therefore, there are calls for privatization. We have seen this occur before and that, naturally, is a concern. I did not elaborate on it here but it naturally is a concern for a great many of us.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the official opposition leader's speech, and I am wondering if he did not overlook a certain aspect of the situation. I was here in 1997 when back-to-work legislation was passed. In that bill, the legislator included provisions that required the mediator or arbitrator to take the importance of good labour-management relations into account.

However, the bill that we are debating today does not include any such provisions. There is therefore a danger that, once the regulations are imposed, the work atmosphere will not be conducive to good working relations and this will have a negative impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall postal system. The arbitrator responsible for the final offer is not the person who has to live with the consequences of his decision. Can the leader of the opposition tell us whether he also hopes that such provisions are included in the bill?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments clearly reflect his experience. He is right and we share the same concerns about this bill. That is why we proposed discussing amendments to try to address the shortfalls of the current bill.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition said in his speech that he is opposed to this bill, but he also said that he wants to propose amendments to improve it.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned several times in his speech that he is willing to improve the legislation. What exactly are the amendments that he proposes to bring forward?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of amendments touching on a number of areas that we are preparing to submit. However, it would be particularly valuable if the government would indicate a willingness to talk about amendments, because it might be possible to agree on a package of proposals that could meet our various objectives, which is why I am reluctant to run through a long list.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Don't be shy.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I am being called upon to be less shy, Mr. Speaker. That is the first time that has ever happened.

In my remarks, I touched on quite a number of the areas that concern us, such as impacts on pensions, the way in which a two-tier structure is set up, lower salaries and the tone and structure that is being established for any arbitration. In fact, I would have to say that the structure that has been recommended, where there would be a process of mediation to be then followed by final offer selection, is completely and utterly unworkable.

No mediator or arbitrator would be able to work in that sort of situation. It would be like, as one member said, playing poker, spending time showing our cards to the very person who we will ultimately have play against and then moving to the actual game of poker later. That is not how negotiations work.

Those are some of the areas where we would have concerns.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to the bill. Fully recognizing and appreciating the greater sense of decorum here in the 41st Parliament and the greater degree of collegiality, I would ask the House if I might split my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are a great number of aspects of the bill that cause concern, and some have been raised by the previous speaker. I would like to put a bit more meat on the bones and be somewhat more specific. There are two things about the approach that the government has taken on this legislation.

First, the government would like to paint the picture that the Canada Post workers are on strike. We know, and we know through the comments of the previous speaker, that that in fact is not the case. These workers have been locked out by Canada Post. We need to understand that is the situation. These workers have offered to go back to meetings with senior officials with Canada Post and have offered to go back to work. They said that they would go back under the past agreement. Any time people are off the job because of a labour dispute, it is not fun. There is absolutely no joy in this for the workers.

I know the government has--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There is an awful lot of noise in the House. I would invite members to find their way to their respective lobbies and we will let the member for Cape Breton—Canso continue.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government read a number of emails and letters that it would have received over the last couple of days and we fully appreciate the impact that some Canadians have experienced because of the lockout. We know there has been an impact on some businesses. We know there has been an impact on some charities. We know that some individuals have been inconvenienced.

It has not been rosy for the workers. I shared earlier an instance where a Canada Post worker who had been delivering mail and had been going about his route. He was up on a porch and a dog ran around the corner. The postman was loaded down with mail. The dog came at him and he fell back off the step. He cracked his arm in five places. He has undergone significant surgery. He is having a heck of a time, but we know that his benefits are cut off. Anybody who is suffering any kind of hardship has his or her benefits cut off.

I have two friends who work with Canada Post, Cliff and Lorraine Murphy. If we want to put a face on postal workers, Cliff has been there for over 25 years. Lorraine has been a long-time employee. They are great members of the community. Cliff, year after year, is a committed volunteer in the community coaching young ball players, having an impact on young people's lives. For Lorraine it is the same thing. She sorts the mail. She is an incredible person. She takes in members of the major junior hockey team, the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles, and she is a billet for the hockey team. She gets up at four o'clock and does her work. She comes home and provides a home atmosphere for young major junior hockey players. Trying to keep them fed is no easy chore, but she is the mother for those players as well. Cliff and Lorraine Murphy make that commitment to the community.

The postal workers are people we live beside, that we live with, who provide a tremendous service for us. They are hurting too and they would like to have this resolved, but they certainly do not want to have it resolved in the manner that the government has undertaken to resolve it, which is to come in with the sledgehammer, with this piece of legislation. That is not the way to find agreement on this.

There are a number of aspects of the proposed legislation that cause us great concern. We would hope, ideally, that the sides would come together and find their way through this so that the service is provided, people get back to work and that way everyone wins. However, we believe that the way the legislation is written and with the provisions in the legislation it greatly handcuffs the ability to find a way through.

I wish to consider specifically clause 11(2), guiding principle:

(2) In making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries--

On comparable postal industries, there is only one Canada Post. There are private companies that provide similar services, but for the cost of a postage stamp they are not delivering to Nunavut. They are not bringing mail to rural communities and remote communities in this country. There is nothing comparable to Canada Post.

Under “guiding principle” it is also important that they:

provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short- and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of the Canada Post Corporation, maintain the health and safety of its workers and ensure the sustainability of its pension plan--

So we further handcuff the arbitrator by putting in these provisions.

They also identify in paragraph 11(2)(a):

that the solvency ratio of the pension plan must not decline as a direct result of the new collective agreement--

We know that points to the end of the defined benefit pension plan. We know that is what is being identified in that paragraph.

When we move amendments these are clauses in the legislation that we would like to see taken out. The minister said earlier that she would be amenable to these types of amendments and I really hope she is.

Clause 13(3) talks about salaries. It says that the salaries should be no greater than those offered in section 15, and we see what is offered in section 15. The government has put rates forward that are lower than those offered by Canada Post prior to the tabling of this legislation. That makes no sense at all.

We hope that these clauses within the legislation will be taken out. That would give far greater latitude to an arbitrator to put a deal together, a deal that would assure a safe, healthy and productive work environment. Any interruption would be a thing of the past. We think this would be productive.

We want to work toward a positive conclusion to this lockout. We in the Liberal Party would like to do what we can to make sure that we can find some kind of pragmatic approach to this so that we get mail delivered, we get the people back to work and get this thing over with.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the wage percentages in the legislation simply reflects what the public service has received. I hope that answers the member's question.

The parties have been negotiating since October and the labour minister has already outlined all the steps, the timelines and the considerable amount of effort that has gone into bringing the two parties together and yet they have not been able to come together. Would the member not agree that it was time for legislation to be brought forward to bring Canada Post and its workers back to serving the people of Canada to ensure that the Canadian economy continues to recover instead of having this very unfortunate situation? Would the member not agree that it is time for the government to act?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, these things have due process. They have a path that they follow on their own. IWK Health Centre nurses signed a contract today in Nova Scotia. Their contract lapsed in October 2009 and they have been negotiating since then. They resolved the issues. There were no last hours worked. There were no interruptions in the work service. These things can be done.

If the government had made it imperative that both sides sit down and get this deal done rather than coming in with the heavyhanded, tilted approach that really handcuffed any hope that the workers would get a fair deal out of this then we would be further ahead and we would not be here tonight and over this weekend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Cape Breton and I have also been listening to the comments coming from the Conservative benches, in particular the Minister of Labour, who somehow managed on three occasions in her speech to misconstrue the entire situation by calling it a strike rather than what it is, which is a lockout. I do not know if that was wilful ignorance or a lack of experience in dealing with these kinds of things. We here on the New Democratic benches have a lot of experience in this.

Is the very reason that we have these labour laws in place not because some time ago when there were many strikes and many disruptions employers asked for some sort of fair negotiating practice alongside working people? To undermine this process takes us back to a time when we had more strikes, more disruption of services and they destabilized the very economy that Conservatives seem to care so much about but do so little about.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when I posed the question to the minister, she referenced the fact that the lockout was triggered by rotating strikes.

There were 25 different places where these strikes took place. It tied up a minimal amount of mail over that period of time. It had limited, if any, impact. It allowed the workers to get their message out.

It was looked upon as if rotating strikes were illegal in this country. We know they are not. They are long accepted. They are a legitimate process. They have been used on a great number of occasions in various labour disputes. It was not a fair assessment to put them in the light that this was a radical tactic that was assumed by the union and that this would throw everything into peril. It was not a fair rendition of exactly what was taking place. It was heavyhanded on the part of Canada Post to come in with a lockout.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso and the House for allowing me to share his time.

First of all, I acknowledge that, from time to time, there may be circumstances when the government and Parliament must intervene to put an end to a strike and force a return to work.

In my time as an MP, I have participated in such debates on a few occasions and have had to vote on the issues. There was mention of 1997, the last time there was a postal strike. That is one case. There was also the strike affecting grain producers in western Canada who were unable to deliver their products.

However, this is not the only means the government can use to help. I will give another example of parliamentary intervention. After the 2008 election, the government was faced with a situation that I will talk about later. The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. A few days later, OC Transpo, Ottawa's public transit company, went on strike. The strike lasted 53 days during the winter. It was very difficult for the people of our city. When Parliament resumed in January 2009, I asked for an emergency debate at the earliest opportunity. The Speaker at the time scheduled a debate for the next day because Parliamentary staff had to be able to make arrangements to return home in the evening.

In the meantime, knowing that there would be a debate in the House the next day, the two parties, which were at serious odds and very far apart in their respective positions, agreed to go to arbitration. The strike was settled.

The government can also intervene by using its moral authority, by debating, as we are doing at present, but not by making threats.

Let me set up the backdrop to this situation. I want to go back to the 2008 election. Those who were here and everyone in Canada will remember that, following the election, the government was supposed to provide a fiscal update. When the government provided the House with the update, it added certain elements that had never been discussed during the election. One of those elements was to suspend the right of public servants to strike. Parliament had recognized that right to strike in the 1960s under the leadership of Lester Pearson. The right to strike has never really been misused in Canada, but it did strike a balance between management and the union's need to assert its rights. Without notice, the government was proposing to suspend public servants' right to strike.

The three opposition parties at the time agreed to say no, and that lead to the prorogation I talked about earlier. The government did not change its mind, at least not at the time.

Here is another factor: a few days ago, an Air Canada union went on strike after an agreement could not be reached. Everyone agreed that Canadians who use Air Canada had not suffered very much because of that strike—as there are other ways to fly other than Air Canada. In less than 24 hours, less than a day after the strike began, the government still tabled back-to-work legislation. The legislation did not have to be considered because an agreement was concluded. That being said, like anyone with a background in labour, I am sure that negotiations are attempted once it becomes known that back-to-work legislation is planned.

The third factor in this backdrop is the current Canada Post situation. Following unsuccessful negotiations and its members' overwhelming vote, the Canada Post union decided to launch a rotating strike that affected local mail delivery. However, the union members and representatives agreed to deliver cheques to those who needed them at all times. They still showed some flexibility.

On June 9, they proposed going back to work if Canada Post agreed to restore the clauses that were in the old collective agreement. But Canada Post did much more than just refuse; it put the locks on the doors and imposed a lockout, while negotiations were still under way. That is unheard of. While the negotiations were still under way, the government showed up with a bill to force workers back to work after a lockout. That makes no sense.

This backdrop is very worrisome for anyone who believes in the legitimacy and legality of the right to strike. We are in a situation where a right has been recognized in this country for decades, a right that has its place, a right that creates problems for the employer whose workers are on strike or for the people who use and need the services in question. There are other considerations, however. There is the essential nature of the service affected, but that is not what we are talking about. I think it is understood that this situation is disruptive to business owners and perhaps charitable organizations. But by its very nature, a strike must cause disruption in order to bring pressure to bear at the bargaining table. That is what the union was trying to do and what Canada Post never wanted. We are all aware that Canada Post has just one shareholder and that is the Crown, in this instance, the majority Conservative government, which acts for the Crown.

This backdrop is very worrisome for anyone who believes in upholding rights that have existed in a nation decade after decade, Parliament after Parliament. That is why—as the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso mentioned—we are going to propose certain amendments; this is a draconian piece of legislation and needs to be less rigid.

As I said, we accept that there may be times when the government can and must take action, but this is not one of them. As the leader of my party noted, the government is wielding a club or a hammer, and is coming at every problem as if it were a nail. This is not the way to resolve problems, this is not how society evolves, and this is not how one shows respect.

I hope that in its desire to take action, the government will take people's rights into consideration. Our record on that score is an honourable one. There have been significant advances in the field of labour rights in this country. The circumstances here are unique, as is the backdrop against which these events are unfolding. We have a government that, when it was in a minority position, talked about suspending the right to strike. We have a union that decided to strike and that was ordered back to work by the government less than 24 hours after walking out. Now, we have a government that tabled back-to-work legislation even while the parties were still at the bargaining table, because the employer locked out all of its employees. I hope that everyone who is listening to these proceedings recognizes that this situation is extremely disturbing.

And, here, I think the government needs to show some flexibility and make some concessions to find a solution, preferably a negotiated settlement. Let us get back to the bargaining table—the union has said it is ready—and ensure that mail gets delivered in the meantime.

To conclude, only once all of the truly genuine, frank and honest attempts have been made and failed, only at that time can we fathom the government returning to Parliament. Nothing is keeping the government from bringing Parliament back this summer. Right now we are being called on to sit for 48 or 72 hours. Instead of doing that, they could ask the union and Canada Post managers to reach a settlement through negotiations and, when that happens, everyone could work with the best deal and in a better environment. But if that is not the case, things could be quite challenging at Canada Post for some time to come.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member and for all members of the opposition about how they are characterizing the debate.

This came to me shortly after I delivered a speech this afternoon. It says:

“I am a letter carrier and so is my spouse. We have four children. Please pass this legislation as soon as possible. This is not what we wanted, not what we expected. We never wanted a strike. We feel that we were deceived and misled by our union about the power given to them with a strike mandate. There have been four more offers from the company since the original offer that we have not been given the opportunity to vote on. A lot of us feel this way, not just my spouse and I”.

How would the member respond to letter carriers who feel they should get back to the job? That is what we are about to do from our government side.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond simply by repeating what I have said before: a strike causes disruption. That is what a strike is meant to do—disrupt things and put pressure on the employer to bargain at the bargaining table. That is why they are used. Not everyone who was asked their opinion was in favour of striking. Only about 90% were. So I imagine that the person who sent the message to the hon. member was part of the group that did not want to strike. I have no problem believing that. It could also be said that a large number of Canadians did not choose this government.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier for his comments. I just read his parliamentarian file, and I see that he has been in Parliament for over 16 years, since 1995. As I am a new member, I would like to benefit from his parliamentary experience. I am certain that he was politically astute before he came here, and I would like to know if he knows of any government that ever acted with so much contempt for workers?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. I began my speech by saying that I recognize there can be circumstances in which the government must in fact take action. As a member of Parliament, I have been called upon on several occasions to vote on this type of bill. I mentioned the situation that occurred in 1997. However, the current situation and that of 1997 are not really comparable. So, to answer the hon. member's question, I would say that I do not believe that other governments have behaved in this manner. I am not talking about the 1800s, but in modern times I do not believe that there has been a government that created or tried to create a situation so worrisome to Canada's workers.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and I remind the member that there were eight months of negotiations. The Minister of Labour made every effort to bring the two parties together.

The member referred to the rotating strikes, which effectively had a devastating impact on Canada Post and the company responded with a lockout. The two parties are clearly not coming together and they are not going to come to an agreement.

The major stakeholder is not the union, it is not management; it is the people of Canada, it is the economy of Canada and it is the families of Canada. This situation has to come to an end.

Why will this member not support the government's back to work legislation?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can repeat the same gibberish as much as he likes but it does not change the way things really are. I said what I said and I believe it to be true. Just because the government is telling people stories and saying it has done everything it can to resolve the situation does not mean that people are going to believe it. This is what the government is doing, through its bill: it is supporting a lockout. That has never been done and we should not support such a measure.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition provide his remarks on this legislation. I have a lot of respect for him. I actually agree with many of the sentiments he expressed, although I disagree with some of the specifics about which he also talked.

Notwithstanding some of the perhaps intellectually disingenuous conclusions and analogies made in parts of his speech, his speech underscored that as Canadians, regardless if we are members of the NDP, the Conservatives, Liberals or whichever party, there is much more that brings us together and unites us than divides us.

Today we are discussing Bill C-6. The bill is intended to bring together Canadians in the united cause of getting their mail service back. I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services in Canada.

Our government believes that parties of all labour disputes should be allowed to find their own solutions. Most of the time this happens. Our government does not take back to work legislation lightly. Back to work legislation is a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted. Unfortunately, the two parties have not been able to reach an agreement, despite being at the negotiating table since last October.

This is not the first time Canadian citizens and businesses have had to suffer the effects of a work stoppage involving postal services. In fact, I remind my colleagues that in 1997, back to work legislation was used to resolve a dispute at Canada Post. This legislation also included guiding principles and wage rates.

Our government does everything possible to help the parties in a labour dispute resolve their differences without a work stoppage. However, I will spend a few minutes reviewing the impact of Canada's postal system on our country's business sector.

When people consider the importance of Canada Post, they often think in terms of individual Canadians, as they should. Canada Post is an iconic Canadian corporation. It unites Canadians from coast to coast to coast, whether urban or rural, in houses, condos or apartments. Be it families, seniors, students, kids or their grandparents, Canada Post is a uniting force in our country.

Canada Post also has a significant number of businesses that it affects in various industries across the country that rely on traditional mail services to fulfill their commercial undertakings and achieve profitable results.

Although Canadian businesses are recovering from the setbacks faced in the 2008 recession, we are still in a fragile state. We only need to look around the world to see how fragile the situation is. Though Canada has exited the economic downturn stronger and faster than most of our companions in our—

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could confirm for me whether quorum is present in the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see quorum. We will let the Minister of State for Transport continue.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not fault the NDP member for having a problem with the numbers. That is not uncommon with the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The Minister of State is in the middle of his speech and I would ask that the chamber at least stop the additional noise and we will allow the Minister of State to continue.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are more interruptions than there are members in the House, perhaps. However—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the government stayed in the House, there would be enough people and we would not have to call for a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I do not know that this is a point of order, but we will take that in stride.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member across the way indicated there were no Liberals in the House. I can assure the member that there were at least two Liberals, which is just as many as there were New Democrats. It is not that difficult to count.

To have a quorum, is it just a quick count, or is there a need to identify the members who are present when a quorum is called?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is really not a point of order, but to answer the member's question for the benefit of other members, there needs to be 20 members present in the chamber to maintain quorum.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one Liberal member is half as many as there were in Manitoba before the last federal election. I think the hon. member will appreciate the significance of the number one.

It is a very serious issue when Canada Post has a work stoppage. There are, as I was saying, many iconic images about Canada Post and how it affects individuals. I want to take a moment, though, to reflect on the effect that Canada Post has on businesses.

Many industries still rely on traditional mail service to fulfill their commercial undertakings and to achieve profitable results. Although Canadian businesses are recovering from setbacks in the last recession, we only need to look around the world at the various challenges other countries are having such as sovereign debt crises, be it geopolitical. Many things could cause Canada a lot of grief.

Let us not create challenges within our own country. This is what we are trying to avoid when we bring forward back to work legislation. Our goal is to help Canadians achieve their full potential monetarily, individually and personally. As a result of the demands of the new world economy and efficiencies, Canada Post Corporation is implementing a major infrastructure renewal program.

The member for Winnipeg North, who intervened earlier, will know that one of these great new facilities is in Winnipeg, on the boundary of our ridings. These infrastructure renewal programs help Canada Post achieve efficiencies and become more competitive.

Infrastructure renewal projects are expected to bring around changes that will improve the corporation's efficiencies and its flexibility. The government expects that these changes will also result in benefits for Canadian businesses through more expedient mail delivery, as well as new types of services.

Businesses, especially small business, will continue to rely on traditional mail as an important channel of communication, marketing and delivery of parcels. In fact, Canadian mailers can depend on Canada Post to account for more than 500,000 jobs and Canada Post is the largest enabler of remote trade and commerce in the Canadian economy. Although parcels can be delivered by private courier companies, Canada Post is often engaged to provide the last-mile delivery outside the Montreal-Windsor corridor and other major urban centres.

The number of Canadian businesses that customers of Canada Post rely on is impressive. The corporation has reported that it has about 100,000 commercial customers, over 5,000 of which do more than $50,000 worth of business over a 12-month period, a statistic that clearly demonstrates the importance of Canada Post to small business and the corporate situation in Canada.

Canada Post has 60% of the market share of the business-to-customer market among businesses of less than 10 employees. This work stoppage is hurting these small businesses. In fact, a local small businessman in my riding contacted me today, requesting that this legislation be passed immediately because it is damaging his business.

As much as the postal service is important to businesses, it is equally, if not more, important to Canada's charitable sector. National charities like the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Alzheimer Society, just to name a few, rely on mail to receive more than $1 billion in donations each year.

The current work stoppage is having a material effect on this important segment of Canada's society because 25% of all fundraising is received in late spring or early summer.

We cannot let this interruption of businesses and charities continue.

Many businesses are turning to alternative modes of communication as a result of the present work stoppage. However, there are some for which there is no alternative. There are small businesses without the ability or technology to conduct their business online. Some small businesses are using other courier companies to deliver their packages but are finding that they have to pay more than when they used Canada Post. This is also affecting the corporation's own profitability and competitiveness.

Most small businesses and charities still rely on Canada Post for billing purposes and fundraising. This work stoppage is drying up their cashflow. These additional costs are hurting our own small businesses which, in turn, hurts the Canadian economy.

In short, mail is an important enabler of Canadian commerce and it is now being threatened by this work stoppage.

At this point, there is no one in this chamber who would not have preferred that Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers had negotiated a collective agreement that each was comfortable with. But we must face facts: They are not able to resolve their differences. The impact on our country is mounting. Now the government must act. It must legislate the parties back to work. They cannot reach a negotiated agreement, so an arbitrator will be chosen for them.

As I said, there is a mounting impact on Canadian businesses, individuals and governments due to this mail stoppage. I am also concerned about the impact this will have on Canadian taxpayers.

First, the threat of strike action and the reality of rotating strikes raised significant uncertainty about the mail delivery in Canada, and now the situation is affecting individuals and every Canadian family. Couples wonder when their wedding invitations will make it to their loved ones. Grandmothers cannot send birthday greetings to their grandchildren. Students are waiting for course material and university acceptances. Canadians and their families want to share in the Canada Post experience. We all remember getting that handwritten letter from a loved one or that first letter from an employer or that first paycheque after a long couple of weeks of work.

The advancement of telecommunications has caused Canada Post to lose letter volume. This is true for postal services throughout the world. The combined loss of mail volume and growth of Canadian communities causes a great burden for Canada Post. There have been 200,000 new addresses added each year. Direct mail delivery has become more costly as a result. Add to that the mail customers that will never return to Canada Post as a result of this mail stoppage. I worry about Canada Post's ability to remain in the black.

Parliament established expectations for Canada Post through the Canada Post Corporation Act and the Financial Administration Act. Canada Post is to provide universal service at affordable rates while remaining financially self-sustaining. It is expected to earn a return on equity, to pay a dividend and to operate without reliance on government appropriations.

We are in a situation that is very serious. Canada Post is unable to deliver the mail. We can look at the months of negotiations and the tireless efforts of the labour minister to bring the two parties together. We can also look at individual families from coast to coast to coast, urban and rural, apartment dwellers, condo dwellers and homeowners. We can look at every corner of Canadian society. When we do, we see that Canada Post plays a role.

Our economy is in a fragile state of recovery. Canada Post's involvement in the Canadian economy involves hundreds of thousands of individuals and companies, and billions of dollars in transactions. The situation at Canada Post is unsustainable. The government must act in a timely and thorough manner. It is not the preferred course. Back to work legislation is the last resort but at this point it is the only resort.

I call on all members to stand up, not for Canada Post or the Canadian Union of Public Workers, but to stand up for Canadians so that Canadians can get their mail. The back to work legislation would allow that to happen and it would allow Canada to fight a good fight in the world economy and allow for economic recovery.

Together we can make this happen and we need to do it in a timely manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about the serious situation. He talked Canada Post being profitable. We know it is profitable and it will be even more profitable. Given the technological changes that are going through, it will have a profit of an additional $250 million.

How serious is it that we are dealing with this issue today? It is very serious. I have a colleague from Newton—North Delta who will actually forego her 40th wedding anniversary and her husband's 60th birthday. I have another colleague who will be thanking all of her volunteers on this issue,. I can say that this it is very serious.

The minister talked about the economy. I have an email from a constituent of mine. Basically she talked about the economy, because she has not been able to get her vulnerable persons cheque from the RCMP, and she applied in March 2011. She is about to lose everything she owns. Why is the economy not important on this issue but only on the issues that the government wants it to be, like taking the rights away from workers?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the preamble to the member's question, I point out that Canada Post has assets of $7 billion or $8 billion, in that range. It is in the black, and the range, I think the member suggested a higher number than it actually is, but even if we used the member's numbers, the return on investment is not a very high number by any stretch of the imagination, and anything that is in the black at present is being reinvested in appropriations in the infrastructure that I have talked about.

That is now all in jeopardy because of this work stoppage. Canada Post has lost over $100 million since these rotating strikes began. Canada Post is in a very serious situation. The future of Canada Post is in jeopardy and that makes it very difficult for the very people who that member claims to support. If the NDP were really genuine about that situation, it would support the government's back to work legislation. It is very simple.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister said that this was a work stoppage. Many of his caucus colleagues prefer to call it strike. The reality is that it is actually neither in the sense that it is a lockout, and there is a significant difference.

I believe that cabinet was aware of the lockout that Canada Post was putting into place. Does he believe that Canada Post did not tell the government about putting into place a lockout? Was the cabinet aware before Canada Post put it into place?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all crown corporations are am's-length from government. They are run by a board of directors. They have a management team. The management team makes decisions regarding the day to day operations of any corporation. The government does not get involved. As minister responsible for Canada Post, I do not get involved in the day to day operations of the corporation.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's speech and found him to be very reasonable and very convincing.

What I find very unreasonable is the NDP turning its backs on the tens of millions of Canadians across the country who are not at the bargaining table but who are suffering material damage because of this strike.

I do remind members of the NDP that these are the Canadians who elected them and yet they are turning their backs on them tonight.

I would ask the minister to please comment on this.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a relevant question when we look at the situation. The NDP just had its national convention. There was an opportunity for the NDP to cut its ties with organized labour but it chose not to, which is fine as that is part of being a democracy.

However, it shows Canadians which party in this House is beholden to which stakeholder and, obviously, the NDP are beholden to organized labour, which is obviously involved in this dispute.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's concern for the economy but the reality is that it is not only about the economy. This is about democracy. It is about how the checks and balances in our society function. We have to ask if there is such a thing as a right to strike when governments can make a simple call and lock out workers.

I will paint a picture. The government wants to privatize Canada Post so it creates a crisis, blames everything on union labour and prepares the ground to proceed to privatization.

Could the minister confirm that this is what the government actually wants to do?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to see the member's artistic ability because I think the painting that he would draw would have a lot of black helicopters circling around our country. I have no idea how the member could come up with such a preposterous notion.

Again I go back to my previous comment that crown corporations are arm's-length from government. The government represents the stakeholders in Canada who are the people of Canada. The people of Canada have recently elected a strong, stable, majority government.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, a quick letter from a constituent tonight. It reads:

We operate an art business in the Yukon that ships art to over 50 galleries in North America. With the current postal strike, our shipping costs have become insane. Our business is not viable without Canada Post.

With most of our business occurring in the summer, we will soon be realizing significant financial losses that we will not be able to recover from.

Could the minister please assure Shadow Lynx Artworks that the Conservative government is standing up for all Canadians and small business across this country?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Yukon on his arrival here in the House of Commons.

I think it is very apropos that a member from Yukon asks a question on this issue, because it is people in the north and in rural communities who will feel the work stoppage acutely because Canada Post is the only entity that can provide the service of mail delivery.

The sentiment of the business, if we take that and multiply it by a million times, we would have a sense of the magnitude of the situation.

The answer to the business and to all Canadians is that the government is absolutely committed to ensuring that mail service is provided so that businesses and individuals can get their mail and reach their full potential, be it as businesses or as individuals.

The Conservative government stands behind the people of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have one minute for a brief question and a brief answer.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite astounding that the Conservative government is claiming to stand behind Canadians and ordinary people who want to receive their mail, their letters, as well as behind SMEs that do not have access to all their mail. I would like to remind the Conservatives that they are the ones who caused this crisis. The Conservatives are the ones who imposed the lockout on workers.

Will the Conservatives lift the lockout and solve the problem?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, again I am astounded by the lack of understanding of the relationship between the government and a crown corporation. The government cannot do what the member has suggested because the government does not play a role in the day to day operations of any crown corporation. It is an arm's-length organization.

What the government can do is help bring parties together. The labour minister has tried to do that over an eight-month period but t parties have not done so. There were rotating strikes that were causing huge problems for the corporation and costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

We are at the brink here. We need to bring forth back to work legislation, otherwise there will be a very difficult economic situation and a very difficult personal situation for millions of Canadians. There is no choice but to pass the back to work legislation. I wish the opposition parties would do this in a timely manner and save a whole lot of people a lot of grief.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to ask the minister any questions, and therefore I will ask questions that will go unanswered. The minister just said that it is not the role of the government to meddle in the affairs of a crown corporation, and that we should have a better understanding of that. In my speech, I have one question that will go unanswered: In the bill, why is the Conservative government's offer lower than that of the employer, which is a crown corporation? The minister is trying to make Canadians believe that he is not interfering in the affairs of the crown corporation, and that such is not his role. And yet, he wants to pass a bill where he would impose a wage settlement.

He says that Canada Post's last offer for 2011 was a 1.9% increase. Instead, the Conservative government is offering 1.57%. For 2012, the employer, the crown corporation—and the government is boasting that it is not interfering in the operations of the latter—had offered 1.9%. The Conservative government, which does not interfere in the affairs of the crown corporation, is offering 1.5% in the bill. For 2013, Canada Post made a final offer of 1.9%. Again, the government is changing managements's offer to 2% for 2013 and 2% for 2014. The wage increases offered to Canada Post employees were 3.3%, well below the rate of inflation. There will be no response from the minister, but I would have liked one. Let us not forget that the government does not interfere in the affairs of the crown corporation.

In addition, the minister said that the government's role was to implement a mechanism to bring the parties to the negotiating table. According to the mechanism I am familiar with, when we bring the employees and employer to the negotiating table, we also bring an arbitrator and we do not tell the arbitrator what to do, other than to try to strike a balance between the two and come to an agreement. If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, it is up to the arbitrator to make the final decision.

Again, the minister, who says he does not interfere with a crown corporation's operations and that we should understand that, says that the arbitrator must select the final offer put on the table. Let us consider that. I do not know whether the minister responsible for Canada Post, who just spoke this evening, knows what is involved in the bargaining process. However, I do know. I am a former negotiator and I have negotiated countless collective agreements. If a bill, which will become law, includes a provision for an eight-week mediation period—one of the proposals that has been made—and the arbitrator must then proceed with the final offer, what will the employer do? It will not pursue the mediation process. It will not reach an agreement with the employees because the arbitrator is supposed to make the final offer. However, in the past, every time an arbitrator went into the arbitration process with a final offer, the arbitrator has always sided with the employer, as the Conservative Government is now doing. That is what always happens.

So, if the government does not want to interfere with the negotiations, why does it not accept standard procedure: making amendments to the bill?

The leader of the NDP has said that we were open and prepared to make amendments that would give power to the arbitrator and, if the mediation process does not lead to an agreement, a collective agreement would be presented and the parties would have to accept it. The union proposed that part.

As we understand it, mediation involves an arbitrator and, at the end of the day, the final offer put forward by both parties must be accepted. That will prevent the employer from making an agreement because it knows that the other one is better. That is the same thing that the minister should understand: by bringing wages lower than what was previously offered by the employer, the crown corporation, how can we expect the crown corporation to return to the bargaining table to work out a collective agreement when it knows that the government will protect it?

In 2009, Canada Post made a $281 million profit. How much profit did it make in 2010? I would like to know, because Canada Post is taking a long time to provide us with that figure; the information is already two months late. How many millions of dollars in profits did it make? Where does the money go in the case of a surplus? Canada Post has made a profit every year for the past 12 or 13 years.

Does Canada Post have several billion dollars in the bank, or has the money been transferred instead to the Government of Canada? And if the money has been turned over to the Government of Canada, that would explain why it is interfering in the collective bargaining process of a crown corporation. It wants this money. It is denying workers their vested rights. In its budget, the government boasted that it was cutting the taxes on workers, but at the same time, it is cutting their wages and in the process, offsetting any tax breaks awarded. That is unacceptable.

In his speech, the minister spoke of the elderly woman waiting to receive her lovely card, of persons needing their mail and of a small business needing postal services. At no time, however, did he mention the worker who needs his pension plan, or the worker who needs a decent salary or who cannot work if he is not paid the same salary as his colleagues. The minister never mentioned occupational health and safety for the workers. He never said anything about the letter carriers who deliver the mail during the winter in rural areas, under the incredibly harsh conditions that we regularly experience here in Canada. He never once spoke up for workers—never!

However, he stated that the NDP could have resolved the matter in Vancouver by turning its back on workers, as the Conservative did. That will not happen. We are talking about the men and women who get up each morning and who work to build this country. Small and medium-sized businesses are also made up of workers and we respect them just as we do any employer.

I have always had respect for Noranda, the company that I worked for. It is a major employer. The only thing I told Noranda was that if it made money, it should share it with its employees. Is there anything wrong with that? I do not have a problem with a company making money. I want it to make money, but it should share it with the workers who helped it turn a profit. The president of the company was not the one who went underground to mine the earth and break the rocks and put his life in danger. The miners were the ones who did that.

If I understand correctly, the minister would like the NDP to forget about the workers. His approach is to single out certain workers.

This time there are just 45,000 workers and 33 million Canadians. But those 45,000 workers were shown the door and told that they would receive no protection because the other 33 million people need to be taken care of. Next it will be the men and women who work at Radio-Canada. Then it will be those working at the CBC. Everyone will be subject to the Conservative government's tactics.

And that is why I asked the Minister of Labour and even the Prime Minister what the workers did to make them hate workers so much? If they believe in free bargaining for a collective agreement, why, after the parties were not able to come to an agreement, did they intervene and offer a lower salary than the one on the table? What did these people, who work and build our country, do to deserve this? All of these people work hard. People leave Caraquet, Shippagan, Bathurst, Tracadie-Sheila, Lamèque, Miscou, Grande-Anse and Maisonnette; they leave their families to work hard out west. Yes, they make good money, but think about the cost of being separated from family. What did these people do to the Conservative government? The NDP has chosen to respect the working men and women of our country.

The Conservatives and the Liberals are the same in this regard. I was in the House in 1997 when the Liberals legislated the postal workers back to work. They did the same thing. In the bill, they offered lower wages than what had been offered at the negotiating table. They do not have anything to brag about today. They do not have to come and tell us that things were different with them because the employees had been on strike for two weeks. The only thing they did in 1997 was legislate people back to work. Was it right to punish people and cut their salaries because they went on strike for two weeks? The Liberals should think about what they are saying. They should think twice about it because they did the same thing that the Conservatives are doing today. What are the Conservatives saying? They are saying that they are not doing anything different than the others; that the Liberals did it in 1997. Now, the Liberals are standing up and making a big fuss, like the member for Bourassa did this afternoon, and saying that what the government is doing is terrible.

It would be funny to go back through Hansard and read the member for Bourassa's speech. I would like to read what he said. I was here at that time. The hon. member for Bourassa and I can both speak rather loudly. Everyone in Quebec knows how the member for Bourassa can talk. That is what he did in 1997. When he rose, he did not speak in defence of the workers; he talked about just how selfish they were to have gone on strike.

I am telling the people at home and elsewhere in Canada that we are sympathetic to small and medium-sized businesses. We understand what they are going through. We understand the elderly woman who would like to receive her birthday card. If we let the Conservative government attack everyone the way it wants to, one small group after another, what kind of country will we create?

If I understood correctly, the Minister of Labour said that it is unacceptable for people not to receive their mail. She is saying that postal workers are second-class citizens who do not have the right to have a union, to negotiate a collective agreement and to go on strike like other people; she is saying that there has to be a lockout.

The government is going even further than that. It is saying that anyone who goes on strike is a second-class citizen because it is wrong. That person is bad because there are 33 million people who disagree.

Strikes are difficult. Things are not easy when there is a lockout. I know, I have been involved in a number of strikes. We went on strike many times. But today the miners have a pension fund and are able to retire because we took to the streets to fight the company for a share of the big bucks it was making.

In its bill, why does the government not ask Canada Post directors to take a pay cut as well? Why does the government not cut the salaries and pensions of the friends it has appointed as directors? It should also cut their salaries and pensions because they are well paid. Furthermore, the president of Canada Post gets a bonus. The leader of the NDP clearly made that point this evening.The greater the profit at Canada Post, the greater the bonuses for directors. This corporation wants to cut workers' wages after making a $281 million profit last year.

The NDP leader spoke eloquently about the respect we should have for these workers. Each one of us should think about that. When letter carriers come to our homes, are they not courteous? Are we not happy to receive our mail? When this is over, they will continue to go to our homes, and we will have to look them in the eye. Are we going to be among those who tell them that we did not support their fight to keep their drug plan and long-term disability plan? We are talking about people who work for the crown corporation and who serve the public. Is this the 1940s? Are we headed back to the 1930s with the Conservative government?

The government is showing itself for the kind of government it is. That is fairly clear tonight. It has talked about the senior citizen, the person with a disability and the small businessperson waiting for the mail, but it has said nothing about the worker. I want the people listening tonight to hear that. I listened to the minister, and he talked about everybody except the workers. I am not ashamed to be fighting for the workers. Our parents and our grandparents were workers.

My father went out to cut down trees in the forest. He cut the wood. That was not the finest job, but it was respectable. The wood he cut was made into 2x4s, and rich people built themselves fine buildings with those planks. The miner who goes underground, the fisher who goes out to sea to fish, does the government not support them? I would like the Conservatives to think about that.

We could settle this tonight by amending the bill. We know the government wants to get its bill passed. Whether we like it or not, it has a majority. It says it has a strong, stable majority, but 40% of the people voted for them, of the 61% of the population who voted. That is not a large majority, but because of the system it has a majority in Parliament. The bill is going to pass, but that does not make it a good bill. Is the government using its bill to attack workers? Yes. Is the government putting a mechanism in place for signing a collective agreement with Canada Post workers? Maybe there will be one, but it will have been forced on them by the government. Does that make for good labour relations in future? No. I know that, because I have seen it.

When people are forced to do something, it does not work. If you force your child to do something, the child will not be happy. Would it not be better to help the child understand the reason for doing something? We call that bullying. That is what the government is doing.

It is bullying the worker and that is wrong. You are separating the workers. You are making a fight between the workers and the rest of society and that is wrong. I recommend to the government to think. We are going to be here all weekend and you have all weekend to think about it.

As a miner, I have done lots of night shifts and my first shift tonight is midnight to six and I even came in before to do my work. I will be here tomorrow morning at six. I will be here tomorrow. I will be here Saturday. I will be here Sunday to fight for the workers and we will do what we can to get respect for the men and women who built this country. That is what we will do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I remind members to direct their comments and speeches toward the Chair.

The hon. Minister of State for Transport has the floor.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I learned something tonight. The member and I were both involved in the mining industry before we entered politics, so we have something in common.

I am going to answer some questions that the member raised in his speech.

The wages are simply a reflection of what was already agreed to with the public service. That is where those numbers came from.

We are dealing with this in a very transparent manner and this is demonstrated by the fact that we are having this debate on the floor of the House of Commons. The legislation has been put forward so all Canadians can see what is going on.

The member talked about respect. These two parties have had eight months to come to an agreement and they have not done so. It is time for the government to demonstrate that it respects the people of Canada. Members in the House need to demonstrate that they respect small business, families, individuals, the stakeholders and the people of Canada. The best way to demonstrate this respect is through action and that is back to work legislation.

Would the member and his party demonstrate respect by supporting the government's legislation?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear that the minister worked in the mines and I hope the union negotiated a good contract for him. I hope he was happy to get his wages and that he was not on minimum wage. Miners in Mexico work for minimum wage. Miners in Africa work for minimum wage. I was hoping that he was getting that.

He said that the government had to get involved and do what it has done. Why did the government not come in with a bill giving workers 3% instead of 1.9% that the crown corporation was going to give them? That would tell Canada Post that it had better start to negotiate. Why did the government punish the workers? I think I answered the member's question.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of comments by email. For example, I have received comments from people who are waiting for cheques by mail.

I visited the picket line back home in Kingston and talked to the president of the local. Workers there say they want to work but they are locked out.

Everyone finds Bill C-6 unbelievable and believes it is a bad bill. I think a lot of Canadians agree with both points. They have heard what we have said tonight, but they are waiting.

They are waiting and they are starting to hear the same things over and over again.

What more can we do for them tonight, or even this morning?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we can continue to call on the government to make amendments to the bill. Then we can vote, everyone can go home, the lockout will end and Canada Post employees will go back to work.

I am wondering if the member has received any messages from letter carriers who would like him to speak up on their behalf and ask the government or Canada Post to give them a good collective agreement. I find it odd that the members opposite are all receiving emails from people who work in small businesses. I have yet to hear them say that they had received an email from a letter carrier. I would like to know if in fact they have received any emails from letter carriers. I for one have received some from Canada Post workers.

Tonight, we can continue to press the government to make amendments to the bill. Maybe between now and tomorrow, the government members will see reason. If not tomorrow, then Saturday. If not Saturday, then Sunday. And if not Sunday, then Monday. All we can hope for is that they will be reasonable and make an offer. Then we can go home.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The speaker incorrectly identified the fact that we have not received emails from postal workers. We have. If he had been here previously, he would have heard them read out.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That is not a point of order and we will move on.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are allowed to make comments.

What I said was did they not receive emails saying that the postal workers would like the government to be on their side instead of the employer's side? I was just asking a question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think that is still a matter of debate.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual I enjoyed what my colleague had to say. He has a vast amount of experience representing working people and as a member of a trade union himself working hard in the mines.

We heard the minister earlier and the Minister of Labour as well speak with some frustration and impatience about the fact that negotiations have been going on for all of eight months and they have not been concluded. In other words, the government has decided that eight months is too long.

Would the member comment on his experience and what it was like to negotiate a complicated and complex collective agreement between two large parties?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my experience has been that normally when negotiations last that long, it is because the employer does not show up at the negotiating table. If the employer does not show up at the table, the other party cannot negotiate by itself.

I ask the government to check how many times the union tried to get to the table but the employer refused to go. Maybe that would shed some light for the House of Commons. Maybe then the government would change its mind and tell Canada Post that it is a bad, bad crown corporation and that it needs to change the proposal in the legislation. Instead of a 1.75% increase which punishes the workers, maybe the government would put in a 3% increase to punish the employer because it is a bad, bad crown corporation under the government's wing.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned earlier the 2009 profits of Canada Post. I believe he mentioned $281 million. He implied that the money went back into the coffers of the Government of Canada. If the member had read the annual report from Canada Post for 2009, he would have seen that Canada Post actually did not make a payment to its only shareholder, the Government of Canada. It put the money back into the transformative change and has done so every year since, the changes that are trying to keep a future for the corporation that would keep the union members employed.

The people I would like to ask him about, since it is not normal times, are the people who have been calling my office.

There is the lady who was a victim of crime and has been waiting for her small compensation cheque which has not arrived.

What about the injured workers who are not getting their provincial workers' compensation cheques because they are not being delivered?

What about the beekeeper? He has bees that travel across Canada, courtesy of Canada Post, to his customers who send him money. He is being hurt by this strike.

What about the small businessman who sent out his invoices and is waiting for some $18,000 to come back at a time of economic recovery?

There is 16% unemployment in the Nanaimo. This strike is hurting people locally.

Finally, when the member says that we do not care about postal workers, I want to tell him that my dad was a letter carrier and I was very proud of that. He raised me and I am very proud that--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We have to move on as we have little time left.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member that out of respect for his dad he should vote against this bill. I would not be in the House fighting against my dad who was a woodcutter.

In answer to his question about the woman waiting for her cheque, how many unemployed people lost their EI cheques because the government took it away from them? It was the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. There was $57 billion stolen from the working people because the government cut EI and they never got their cheques. Men and women who are having a hard time trying to live had their cheques taken away from them by the Conservative government. It should be ashamed. And tonight the government is trying to say that it cares for them.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member is a well respected member in this House. I am sure he did not intentionally mislead Canadians by suggesting it was this government that in fact did that with the EI. The member knows full well it was not this government. He should stand and apologize.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is really not a point of order. It is a matter of debate. Perhaps there will be opportunities for--

Is the member for Acadie--Bathurst is rising on the same point of order?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. On that point, I want to correct the record.

Who passed a bill to have this new EI? Only $2 billion will go into that fund, and yet $55 billion was passed.

The Government of Canada passed--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I appreciate that there is interest in continuing the debate in this manner. However, we will try to restrict points of order to actual points of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give my 20 minutes to the member for Acadie—Bathurst, because I am sure he has a lot more to say and he is doing it in such an impassioned way, but I too am really proud to support the determined men and women who are locked out by Canada Post.

I have listened closely to the debate for the last few days, both on the two motions before us and now on the bill. I have to say the government is propagating the biggest misinformation campaign that I have ever witnessed in the House.

Let us look at the facts. Here is the actual timeline that led us to tonight's debate. On May 24, Canada Post issued a news release claiming that CUPW demands would cost $1.4 billion. That number was never explained and indeed has never been substantiated. On June 1, Canada Post continued its misinformation campaign by claiming that mail volumes have declined by 17% since 2006.

Then, on June 2 at 11:59 p.m., CUPW began rotating strikes. Almost immediately, on June 3, Canada Post cut off drug coverage and other benefits to all employees, including those on sick leave and disability insurance. On June 7, the Canada Post Corporation claimed that mail volumes have declined by 50%, just since June 3. The fact that this does not correspond with any information from postal facilities did not stop the government from propagating that myth.

On June 8, Canada Post announced that it would stop letter carrier delivery on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The following day, June 9, the labour minister requested that the union suspend its rotating strikes and that Canada Post resume postal service. Canada Post's chief operating officer responded by claiming that CUPW had more than 50 demands on the table, while at the same time reneging on several of its offers. The union, on the other hand, agreed on June 10 to suspend strike activity and continue to negotiate. Sadly, that did not last very long. At 6 p.m., Canada Post management rejected the union's offer.

The first inkling that the government had the employer's back appeared on June 13, when CUPW astutely accused Canada Post of aggressively trying to force postal workers out on a full-scale national strike in order to secure back to work legislation from the majority Conservative government.

The next day, the quick movement from the ridiculous to the sublime began. In the morning on June 14, Canada Post claimed to have lost $70 million in revenue since June 3, and in answering the question of a reporter at that time, the labour minister rightly said that there was no need for back to work legislation at Canada Post, since the labour stoppage was only a rotating strike and the mail was still being delivered.

By the evening of the very same day, Canada Post upped the ante on what was at stake and claimed that it had lost almost $100 million in revenue since June 3, $30 million more than it had claimed in the morning to have lost. Of course, it used that number as justification for an immediate national lockout.

It gets even better. Here is what happened next. Once again, pay attention to the shift between the morning and the afternoon position. In the morning of June 15, the labour minister said she had received very few complaints about the rotating postal strikes, but by afternoon, she announced that in response to Canada Post's national lockout, she would be introducing back to work legislation.

The manner by which Canada Post provoked the government to introduce back to work legislation explains its refusal to truly negotiate during the past eight months. It began negotiations determined to attack the rights and benefits of the workers who have made Canada Post a profitable company for 16 years, and it was rewarded for its intransigence by the Conservative government.

Clearly, it was Canada Post that caused the mail stoppage in the first place. To suggest otherwise is simply to spread a myth. Canada Post took that action because it was certain that the Conservatives would respond by bringing in the back to work legislation that the corporation had wanted all along.

That dispels only one myth in the government's tragic interference in free collective bargaining. Let me be clear about some other myths I have heard on the floor of the House. In fact, I think there are at least eight more myths.

Postal myth number one: it is suggested that no one writes or sends letters. Now, it is true that letter mail volumes are declining slowly, but the letter is by no means dead and buried. In fact, transaction or letter mail volumes are 10% higher than they were in 1997, the last time that CUPW went on strike, and that is according to Canada Post's own annual report.

Postal myth number two says that postage rates are too high. Our 59¢ stamp is one of the biggest bargains in the industrialized world. People in Japan pay the equivalent of 94¢ Canadian to send a standard domestic letter. In Austria they pay 88¢ and in Germany they pay 78¢.

The real price of a stamp has actually decreased since Canada Post was set up as a crown corporation in October of 1981. At the time, the government of the day established a 30¢ stamp because the post office was losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The price of a stamp has increased 96.7% since this time, from January 1982 to March 2011, while the consumer price index has increased by 128.8% over the same period.

Let us go to postal myth number three: Canada Post is a drain on the public purse. The truth is that the post office and postal workers do not cost the public money. Canada Post has made $1.7 billion in the last 15 years and paid $1.2 billion in dividends and income tax to the federal government. By keeping Canada Post profitable, postal workers actually save the public money. Again, the source is Canada Post's own annual reports.

Postal myth number four says that Canada Post has low productivity. In fact, Canada Post is very productive. Unlike many companies, Canada Post has significantly increased productivity in the last two years. For example, mail processing productivity levels for transaction mail have increased by 6.7%; that is, the number of pieces of mail processed per paid hour has actually gone up.

In addition, the number of workers has gone down. The corporation has cut staff to compensate for the decline in mail volumes. Proportionately, the cuts to staff have been greater than the decline in volumes. The corporation is also expecting large productivity gains from its $2 billion modernization program. Canada Post's high productivity has allowed it to keep postage rates low, make profits, and put substantial dividends and income taxes into public coffers.

That takes us to postal myth number five. The Conservatives are saying there is a crisis at Canada Post: letter volumes have declined by 17%. In fact, as I said earlier, Canada Post transaction or letter volumes declined by 7.2% between 2006 and 2009, some of it due to the economic recession. The 2010 figures have not yet been released, but with an economic recovery, total volumes are likely to recover somewhat with direct mail rebounding and parcel volumes increasing as Internet purchasing gains more acceptance. Letter mail volumes are declining, but not nearly as much as Canada Post would have people believe when it trots out the 17% figure. Our post office is not at death's door.

Postal myth number six says that postal workers have their heads buried in the sand about challenges such as declining mail volumes and revenues. That is not true. Postal workers understand that there are challenges. That is why CUPW is trying to negotiate new services such as banking. In 2008, 44 countries had post offices with banking services that produced 20% of total revenue. A postal bank existed in this country from 1867 to 1969. Perhaps it is time to bring it back. As we know, CUPW has already negotiated provisions that allow the corporation and union to experiment with expanding services, creating jobs and new approaches.

Postal myth number seven says that Canada Post needs to negotiate big changes so that it can deal with declining volumes. Again, that is not true. CUPW's collective agreement with Canada Post already allows it to adjust staffing levels, and the corporation has already cut staffing hours proportionately more than the declining volumes.

Article 47 outlines a process for restructuring letter carrier routes. Restructuring allows management to reduce the number of letter carrier routes and positions based on volume counts.

Article 14 of the contract allows the corporation to reduce part-time hours and inside positions, so that myth too has been dispelled.

Then there is postal myth number eight: people think it is time to privatize or deregulate Canada Post. That is patently not true. It is true that multinational courier companies regularly lobby the government to deregulate Canada Post. These companies want the letter market opened up to competition so that they can increase their profits and their share of this market.

Lately, some media outlets and right-wing economic institutes have called for both privatization and deregulation, but pretty much everyone else is opposed. In 2008, the federal government conducted a review of Canada Post, which reported in 2009. The report clearly stated that there appears to be little to no public support for the privatization or deregulation of Canada Post. I am proud to say that New Democrats fully opposed both postal privatization and deregulation when the issue came before the House in the last Parliament.

If we are going to continue with this debate, why do we not focus on the real issues at stake rather than spending time on the myths being spread, which is completely counterproductive to achieving a negotiated settlement between CUPW and Canada Post?

Let me begin that discussion by focusing on one issue in particular: pensions. The hard-working women and men who make up Canada's national postal system work for all Canadians, and they are locked out today because they are standing up not just for their own working conditions and benefits, but for fair conditions and benefits for all Canadian workers.

One of the central demands made by Canada Post management in this round of negotiations is that pension benefits for workers who have contributed for their entire working lives should be curtailed. Even more egregiously, management intends to all but gut pension benefits for new hires.

The attack on pensions that we are currently witnessing in both the private and the public sector is short-sighted, ill advised and fiscally reckless. As employers move to free up cash to finance lavish executive bonuses, they are increasingly looking at workers' pension plans as a ready source of cash. It is simply wrong. Pensions belong to the workers who earned them, workers who sacrificed pay and benefit improvements over many years to secure a reliable and fair pension plan.

Pensions are deferred wages, but Canada Post, it seems, is to be the government's flag-bearer in the effort to put severe downward pressure on employee pension plans, no doubt in the hope that the evisceration of pension benefits across the public and private sector will then follow.

As an opening salvo, Canada Post is attempting to divide and conquer members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Management's demands include that all newly hired postal workers be covered by a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit pension plan.

It is worth pausing to briefly outline the important differences between defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans. The first is a real pension plan. The second is a wing and a prayer.

The vast majority of public sector workers, about 70%, currently have in place a defined benefit pension plan. This means that employers and employees both contribute through workers' deferred wages, as I have already mentioned, to the pension plan. As the nomenclature indicates, the defined benefit plan means that workers are promised a certain monthly benefit upon retirement, generally based on a formula that includes years of service, age and wage level. That means workers have a very precise sense of how much they will receive in their retirement and they can plan accordingly.

“Defined benefit” means funds must be set aside to provide for future payments. A defined contribution plan, on the other hand, means workers and employers contribute a fixed amount to the plan, but what benefit a retiree might derive is subject entirely to the vagaries and indeed the follies of the market. There is a post making the rounds on social media right now. It goes something like this:

Remember when teachers, nurses, postal workers, librarians, social workers, airline employees and care assistants crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bailouts and bonuses and paid no taxes?

No? Me neither.

Working Canadians were surely not responsible for the economic meltdown of recent years, but they certainly bore the brunt of it. For far too many, this meant that their registered retirement pension plan savings were decimated. Canadians who had worked their entire lives to save for their retirement saw it disappear in a puff of smoke. Some retirees were all but wiped out.

This is what the future is with defined contribution pension plans: insecurity at best and financial disaster at worst. This is what the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, on behalf of all Canadian workers, is fighting against.

To say that there is today in Canada a crisis in retirement security is an understatement. Even before the demographic shock of baby boomer retirement fully hits, one-quarter of a million seniors in this country currently live in poverty. The vast majority are single women. It is a national embarrassment that in a nation as wealthy as our own, we seem content to let the women and men who built this country face appalling poverty in their retirement.

While the government supported both our pension motion in the last Parliament and our motion on supporting seniors' income security just this week, those were clearly empty promises by the Conservatives.

What Canadians need and want is a fair, decent pension they can rely on to ensure they can retire with the dignity and respect they deserve. Just 38% of Canada's labour force belongs to a pension plan. Close to 10 million workers do not have a private pension plan. These workers must rely on their own individual savings through RRSP contributions or other means for their retirement security.

In 2007, fully 30% of Canadian households had neither a pension plan nor any RRSP savings. As we all know, the commercial accounts through which RRSP investments are held are subject to some of the highest management fees in the world. In short, Canadians are being left to fend for themselves in retirement and particularly in the private sector where a full 75% of workers have no pension plan at all.

With the demographic realities associated with the current and imminent retirement of a generation of “boomers”, the untenable situation of retirees in Canada is set to become much worse. If we as legislators continue to ignore this crisis, we are going to preside over a situation in which the number of seniors who live in poverty increases dramatically. This will place more pressure on taxpayers as we see an increased demand on social services and, at the same time, tax revenues will decrease.

As one of the largest pension plans in the world, CPP has the capacity to provide a greater share of retirement income for Canadians. Because it is national in scope, it has the benefit of many highly skilled investment staff who can ensure a well diversified portfolio. It can offer tremendous economies of scale with lower administration costs and investment management fees.

For Canadian workers, it provides less risk, greater certainty, portability and increased benefits, like spousal benefits, death and disability benefits, and protection from inflation.

We need to expand our national, public, universal workplace pension plan. We can begin by laying out a responsible plan to double benefits over time. We should work with the provinces to build in the flexibility for workers and their employers to make voluntary contributions. We should immediately increase the GIS to a level sufficient to lift every Canadian senior out of poverty.

It is socially and financially irresponsible for the government to, in the first place, utterly fail to make the necessary improvements to CPP and GIS to lift those Canadians now living in poverty out of it. It is reprehensible to further compromise the retirement security of Canadians by aiding and abetting employers determined to weaken workplace pension plans as the Canada Post Corporation is now doing.

Canadians across the country understand that the struggle of postal workers for a fair and decent pension is the struggle of all workers and, indeed, all Canadians. Other public sector workers certainly fully comprehend the implications of Canada Post's unfair and unwise demands to weaken hard fought for pension provisions.

They know that if Canada Post is successful in its determination to strip pensions, it is only a matter of time before a government committed to giving billions in corporate tax breaks and building gazebos comes looking for their pension benefits.

All workers understand that undermining pension benefits would create a downward pressure that would leave workers and seniors more vulnerable to the indignity of poverty in their retirement.

It is just days since all parties in this House, including the Conservatives, voted in favour of the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe. That motion called on this House to end seniors' poverty, agreed that it is fiscally feasible, and called on the government to take immediate steps to increase the guaranteed income supplement sufficiently to accomplish that goal.

The government now has the opportunity to show Canadians it has more than hollow promises to offer workers and seniors. As I am closing, I just want to reiterate my solidarity with all the members of CUPW and in particular those in my home town of Hamilton, led by president Mark Platt.

And of course I want to give a special shout out to all the men and women who work at the depots, in both Upper Gage and Upper James on Hamilton Mountain, whose service and sacrifice have strengthened our community and built friendships. We stand in solidarity to protect not just their pensions but those of workers who cannot yet conceive of the day they will need them. That solidarity is remarkable and inspiring, and it deserves the support of every member in this House.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments. Tonight we are talking about Bill C-6, a bill to bring the mail back to Canadians. This is an important piece of legislation. It needs to be passed in a timely manner.

I appreciate at least the sentiment expressed in the member's comments. One way to express that through action is for the opposition to allow the legislation to move forward. The parties will have an opportunity to bring forward their points of view before an arbitrator, and the arbitrator will choose which one is appropriate.

The process outlined in the legislation tonight is very transparent. It would allow for an opportunity to deal with the issues that are raised by the opposition, but more importantly, it would also allow Canadians to receive their mail, create the economic synergies that we need to have during this fragile economic recovery, and provide people with what they need in their day to day lives, which is the mail.

Will the member please accept the legislation so we can deal with the issues she has raised and get a sustainable framework so Canada Post can do what it has been asked to do by the stakeholders and the Canadian people?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. One way to resolve this dispute is indeed to go to arbitration and to have final offer selection. Another way to resolve this dispute is to allow free collective bargaining to happen.

When the Minister of Labour stood up in the House and said there was a strike that needed to be resolved, she was clearly and categorically wrong. There is no strike. We are talking about a lockout. The workers have been locked out by Canada Post. So how do we get the mail going again in Canada? We stop locking the doors. Doing that is entirely within the government's ability.

I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he get serious about that, and that he have those conversations with his colleagues, because like him, I agree that the mail service in Canada is indeed an important public service.

I would suggest to the member that every single member of CUPW agrees with that premise. It is an important national service. It is a service that ought to be supported. That is our responsibility as members of Parliament. I would encourage him to go back to his colleagues, stop the lockout, and return to free collective bargaining in accordance with not only the laws of this country, but in fact ILO conventions, UN resolutions and, as the member would know, a long, proud tradition of most jurisdictions in the western world.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and agree with the vast majority of what my colleague from Hamilton Mountain has shared with the House, and certainly the fact that this legislation is not only heavy-handed, but wrong-minded.

I think the best resolve is to get people back to work and to get the mail flowing, and I think we agree on that. During the comments made by her leader earlier this evening, he mentioned that he would be putting forth amendments in the very near future. Could she share with the House, within the time allotted, maybe two specific amendments that she would be putting forward?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member did not hear the response from our leader on that issue. We will be bringing amendments forward. This is not the time to be debating amendments, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, as the person who governs this process. That will happen in committee of the whole. We will be introducing amendments at that time. We will be debating them fully, and I would encourage the member to stick around and participate in that debate, no matter what time of night it happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words and wisdom of the chief opposition whip. We are always in store for an excellent presentation when she gets on her feet in the House.

I was quite interested in her comments in regard to poverty among seniors. That is a profound concern of mine.

The GIS was introduced in the mid-1960s because of the horrendous poverty among seniors in this country, and now we are seeing a return to that poverty. The GIS did indeed help.

The reality is that a quarter of a million seniors live in poverty in this country. My fear is that the blatant attempts of the government to undermine pension plans and to roll back pension security are going to lead to even greater disparity in the future.

I wonder if my esteemed colleague could comment on that.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for London—Fanshawe.

As I said earlier in my original comments, it is highly ironic that not only did the Conservative Party endorse my seniors' charter when I introduced that on behalf of the NDP in 2006 but it later supported a pension motion and just this week supported the motion by the member for London—Fanshawe, all espousing to support additional financial assistance for the poorest and neediest seniors in our country. While the Conservatives talk the talk, we have not seen them walk the walk.

I am keenly aware that it is 11:50 in the evening and I just want to point out a supreme irony here. Members in the House might not be aware that today, June 21, has actually been declared Public Service Day by the United Nations. It is a day to celebrate the value and virtue of public service to the community, to highlight the contribution of public service in the development process, to recognize the work of public services and to encourage young people to pursue careers in the public service. What a slap in the face to all public service workers that this is the day the government decided to begin debate on Bill C-6 and to bring in this draconian back to work legislation for public sector workers.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the NDP is the official party of big public sector labour unions, and this week, particularly after the speeches we have heard tonight, it is fair to say that big labour unions are getting their money's worth.

As elected officials, we are elected to serve the interests of all Canadians. How can the NDP continue to ignore seniors, citizens, the small business community and a growing number of Canada Post workers who just want to get back to work, put food on their tables, and see this legislation get passed?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to see the member read that question from his iPad, because that means he has Internet capabilities. I hope that every single person who is watching this debate at this rather late hour will send him emails to explain to him exactly how this can be done. I ask them to send the member an email that simply says “end the lockout”, because that is precisely the Conservative government's responsibility.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member meant to say today is June 23, which is Public Service Day. Today is apparently Thursday. Tomorrow will also be Thursday, but we have kept the same days of the month.

I did hear the answer from the hon. leader of the official opposition and I have heard that member's answer as well. I understand that we are to wait for the amendments at committee of the whole. Is there any chance that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain could give us a hint of the parameters of the areas she believes could lead to a resolution of the impasse in this chamber?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to do that. It basically requires that we allow negotiations to happen in accordance with the principles of free collective bargaining.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my efforts to understand what the government is doing here, I have read and considered Bill C-6, and I have also listened carefully to the government's reasons for introducing the bill.

What I see is a company that pays its CEO $660,000 a year locking out workers, arguing that the company cannot afford a decent pay increase. What I see is a government forcing workers back to work under terms less provident than the employer itself offered. What I see is a government unmasked only three weeks into the 41st Parliament, revealing a face that is as mean-spirited as 60% of Canadians on May 2 had anticipated.

I am left with a couple of possible interpretations of what is going on here. The most obvious conclusion is that this bill, BillC-6, reflects an objective much larger than the current labour dispute. In listening to the questions and supporting speeches of the members opposite, it sounds as if this bill represents a profound contradiction of the purpose and commitments set out in the Canada Labour Code in that the preamble promises “the promotion of the common wellbeing through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes”. It sounds as if this bill reflects a shift away from, and I quote the preamble to the Canada Labour Code,“ a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy”, a tradition informed by employers, unions, and workers recognizing and supporting free collective bargaining, and I quote again from the preamble of the legislation that is meant to govern this process, “as the bases of effective industrial relations for the determination of good working conditions and sound labour-management relations”.

It seems that this bill represents an assault on the very concept of free collective bargaining, that this bill represents a challenge to the very existence of trade unions, and that this bill represents a challenge to the very right of workers to join trade unions.

This bill conflicts with the enshrined right to associate freely. This bill conflicts with the international commitments we have made as a country to the freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize, as reflected in Convention number 87 of the International Labour Organization.

Finally, what this bill most certainly breaches is the Parliament of Canada's stated commitment, as expressed in the preamble to the Canada Labour Code, to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices. It also breaches the Parliament of Canada's commitment to the development of good industrial relations, in the best interest of Canada, to ensure a just share of the fruits of progress for all.

That is what it looks like from this side of the House.

However, I wonder too, as I listen to the members opposite, as they justify this bill, whether they have any concept of how the collective bargaining process, as set out under the Canada Labour Code, is supposed to work. This perspective has some credibility when I hear the Minister of Labour refer to this lockout as a strike. It has some credibility as I hear members opposite rise, one after the other, and repeat that this labour dispute is a strike.

What is meant to emerge as an end result, and what we all hope will emerge from the relationship between labour and employer, is a fair deal. We decided decades ago in this country that the way we in Canada would try to approximate such an outcome would be by developing a labour relations regime that allows workers, where they so choose, to bargain collectively with their employer. It is a system based on the recognition that individuals are relatively powerless in their relationship with their employer.

While that may sound like a radical notion to the members opposite, it is something that has held consensus throughout all western democracies for decades. We provide a labour relations regime that allows workers to collectively decide, always through some form of democratic process, whether they want to bargain as individuals or bargain collectively with their employer.

At the core of this labour relations regime we have and have long had a system of dispute resolution that is essentially one of mutual deterrence. That is, it is a system designed, in fact, to focus the parties in collective bargaining on finding a resolution, understanding that if one side or the other in the bargaining process behaves in what is believed to be an unreasonable manner, a strike or a lockout is the resort.

It is or should be a system that provides the parties in the collective bargaining relationship with a predictable context in which to bargain and administer their collective agreement. For this system to work, both parties need to understand the rules of conduct and the norms of conduct. They must understand the consequences of unreasonable behaviour and understand the likely consequences of seeking something at the bargaining table that the other party finds too difficult to concede.

Within these rules, the parties get to know each other. They develop an understanding over time of how each other reacts and behaves at the bargaining table and away from the bargaining table. That is a critically important part of this system.

While the people at the table may change, what parties establish over time is a relationship, good or bad, that allows them to make informed decisions with respect to their bargaining relationship.

Within these rules and within the context of mutual understanding, the parties are meant to be free to negotiate. Sometimes somebody is going to make a mistake or a miscalculation, perhaps. Sometimes somebody is going to do something quite out of the ordinary, for a whole number of reasons. Either way, in order for the system to return to fair and good-faith bargaining, both parties need to understand and feel the sting of exercising their rights. They need to be able to assess whether the position they are taking at the table is worth the lost wages for workers or the lost revenue for the employer.

Let us be clear that it is a system whereby both parties are acknowledged to have a right to lock out or strike, and both parties have to understand that if they so choose to take that course of action, it is with full knowledge that it is fully and completely predictable that there are consequences for doing so.

Now, when one party is relieved of the consequences of its actions, as the Conservative government is doing with this legislation, then the entire labour relations regime comes crashing down. There is no longer predictability. The parties are relieved of the consequences of their calculations and their decisions. Now there is a whole new set of calculations that go into how one conducts oneself at the table and away from the table.

With the introduction of Bill C-6, the Conservative government has relieved the employer of the incentive, under this labour relations regime, of behaving reasonably, of behaving rationally, and of having to live with the consequences of exercising its economic muscle by locking out the workers in this dispute.

While the current government talks about its desire for a mutual settlement, it has, through this legislation, removed that very possibility in this round of bargaining. Moreover, because of its intervention, it has seriously undermined the likelihood of achieving a mutual settlement in the future. The only thing that has been added to the predictability of this bargaining relationship is that a Conservative government will interrupt and undermine the exercise of free collective bargaining in a labour relations regime that is intended to bring some approximation of balance between workers and their employers. The only thing predictable is that a Conservative government will exercise its ability to nullify the ability of workers to bargain collectively with their employers.

More than that, the government has, in fact, signalled with this legislation that all employers under this code, and indeed across this country, are relieved of the consequences of their actions. This is a signal that will ripple across bargaining tables under federal jurisdiction, at a minimum, and will serve to undermine the chance of mutual co-operation and agreement between employers and workers across this country.

With this legislation, the government says to employers that they can try it on and see what they can get from workers. They will be sheltered from any fallout and will not have to live with the consequences of what they do at the bargaining table.

This is not a recipe for a labour relations regime that is supposed to serve Canadians and our economy well. This legislation does a profound disservice to all Canadians because of the broader implications it has for a mature, co-operative labour relations regime in this country.

To understand the extent of the disservice to all Canadians, one needs to properly situate the place of free collective bargaining in our history and in our economy. One needs to appreciate that free collective bargaining sits at the foundation of our economy and is responsible for much of the wealth this country has enjoyed since collective bargaining was adopted.

One needs to acknowledge that this labour relations regime is far from perfect. It excludes too many from unionization and therefore from the wealth that is created, but it is sufficiently extensive that it has created in this country enough well-paid workers with good, decent jobs to make up a thriving Canadian middle class. The regime has provided this country with a labour force that can afford to buy the goods they produce, to buy and furnish nice homes, to put their kids through college or university, and to retire comfortably on deferred wages in the form of workplace pensions.

This labour relations regime was intended to be, and was, a way for workers to share in the wealth created by their own skills and labour. So integral to our economy is this labour relations regime that we designed our country's pension system around it. Most importantly, we built around this regime a generous and compassionate country based on a tax base that is supported by decent, well-paying jobs. The regime allowed us to have social programs to protect the most vulnerable to allow them to live in dignity. It allowed us to have in place a post-secondary education system that was accessible to so many Canadians. Most significantly, it allowed us to afford a universal health care system.

However, what we are seeing in our country are initiatives that undermine this labour relations regime and the practice of free collective bargaining that it is meant to protect. These initiatives take the form of free and open trade agreements that fail to protect the livelihoods of Canadians, agreements with low-wage countries around the world, agreements with countries that do not have a labour movement, agreements with countries that have child labour, agreements with countries, in fact, where collective bargaining is barred and where trade unionists are targeted by thugs and death squads. We are seeing direct attacks on the regime itself, such as the one before us tonight, that are giving licence to employers to escape, ignore, or abuse a labour relations regime that is good for all Canadians.

With the government imposing lower wages on Canada Post workers than their own employer was attempting to impose, we are seeing the sharp poison tip of a different economic plan, a plan to continue to take this country in a very wrong direction, a direction very different from the one in which we travelled when free collective bargaining enjoyed the support of Canadians and the Canadian government.

The Conservative government calls this stage of the economic plan the next phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan, but the only action here is downward--downward for workers, downward for their wages and pensions, and downward for the public services they rely on. We see this plan working its way through Canada as well-paying manufacturing jobs disappear, unionization declines, the middle class disappears, and public services and public sector workers come increasingly under attack.

We now live in a country in which one in four of all workers and one in six adult workers earn less than poverty line wages. We are second only to the United States in the OECD as a low-wage country. The proportion of workers who earn less than two-thirds of the median wage is about double that of continental Europe and far higher than in Scandinavian countries. This is leaving us with a country with distressing and increasing income polarization, as federal government after federal government in Canada fashions an economy where wealth is not fairly shared.

This trend is very clearly reflected in the bill before us: a corporation with a CEO making $660,000 that is blocking out workers who are making a fraction of that, and a government that orders those workers back to work with wages that are even lower than the company was prepared to pay.

As a resident of Beaches—East York, in the city of Toronto, I have witnessed the impacts of such legislation in my own community. Toronto's neighbourhoods have fallen into three distinct groups in terms of income change. The middle-income area of the city has been shrinking dramatically, the high-income area of the city has increased, and the low-income area has increased substantially.

A number of years ago two-thirds of Toronto's neighbourhoods were middle-income neighbourhoods; today there are less than a third of them. Over the same period of time, low-income neighbourhoods have grown from less than 20% of all neighbourhoods to over half of all neighbourhoods. Over this period of time, Toronto has seen average household incomes drop by almost 10%.

This emerging income landscape is evident in my own riding of Beaches—East York. Once a community that was largely middle-income neighbourhoods, it is now a community with a large and growing number of people who are living below the poverty line.

My riding, my city of Toronto, and our country, could use a return to a time when our government supported and promoted our labour relations regime, and in doing so protected the livelihoods of Canadian workers. It was a regime that could bring good jobs, good pay, good pensions and healthy neighbourhoods and communities to our cities, indeed to cities and communities across this country.

That is why I can say with confidence that although this bill intervenes in a single labour dispute, it stands for something much larger, much more hostile and much more pernicious than it appears on its face. It represents a country that we are afraid of becoming, and it goes a long way to fashioning that country.

We need this government to uphold its commitment to the preamble of the Canada Labour Code: that is, the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining, the constructive settlement of disputes, and the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interest of Canada to ensure a just share of the fruits of progress for all.

I am proud to stand up for the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers tonight, and to do so I stand up for all Canadians.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not want to interrupt the member, but I do think we need to respect the conventions of the House.

In Marleau and Montpetit, on page 516, it clearly states that members should not read from a written prepared speech. Even in O'Brien and Bosc, on pages 607 and 608 it says that when points of order are raised about the issue the chair typically rules that members should use notes rather than written prepared speeches.

I think that in the interest of encouraging real debate in the House, with the real cut and thrust of debate, that we encourage members to use notes rather than written prepared speeches.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting when someone goes to the rule books, whether it is Marleau and Montpetit, Beauchesne's or the House Standing Orders, and recites something that says that a person should not read from a prepared text.

One thing that always has to be taken into consideration is the tradition of the chamber. From my perspective, I would love to see a debate where there are no prepared speeches, where members stand up and say what they really think and maybe put a little more passion in what they are thinking. I am all for that. I would not have a problem with that, and I would encourage it.

In terms of traditions, from what I have witnessed over the last number of months, 90% of speeches seem to be of a prepared nature. We have found that there is even greater latitude provided for newer members, who are afforded the opportunity to read their speeches virtually verbatim.

I would encourage members to tell us what they really think and push the speeches to the side; in my opinion, it quite often leads to a more interesting debate.

I would suggest that in fact there is no point of order and that we should allow questions and answers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on this point of order. While I appreciate the sentiment of the member's point, I would suggest, as the Speaker did earlier, that we certainly have to pay attention to the conventions of the House. I would also suggest that if the Speaker were to rule in favour of that point of order it would put ministers in a real pickle when it came to responding to questions from members on this side of the House.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to differ from my colleague, but what he might be missing is the fascinating juxtaposition of history and philosophy that was in that speech. We are talking about freedom of association, and how can we discuss freedom of association without using notes on history?

Maybe other members in the House were wondering why he was using notes, but it made me think that perhaps it was because the NDP has a history of union involvement. The history is so closely intertwined that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I have heard from each party on this point of order. If the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has something to add, I will entertain a brief comment.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting behind the member for Beaches—East York. It was a wonderful and masterful speech, and it was worth reading from notes.

I should mention, though, that earlier today in question period the Minister of Industry read the same prepared notes, not once, not twice, not three times, but five times. Surely if that does not contravene the regulations of the House, it contravenes all decent humanity to have the same prepared text read five times in response to questions from this side.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for what it is worth, I can appreciate, particularly with new members, that sometimes there is a need to read from a prepared speech. After all, this may be the first opportunity that many new members have had to speak in this assembly.

I would suggest that one way we could perhaps accommodate both sides of this discussion is that when members are speaking in this debate, which is a very important debate, that they be encouraged to read from prepared speeches written by their own hands rather than from CUPW.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if it pleases the House, I will apologize for the way I gave my speech. The finer distinctions between notes and a prepared speech have eluded me. However, I do understand the distinction between a lockout and a strike, I am pleased to say.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair is pleased that we were able to reach a resolution in this case.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little nervous about standing up after that. Thank goodness I did not write down my question.

There has been a lot of reference to emails received from constituents. I received a text from a constituent about 20 minutes ago, and that text said, “Hey, Daddy, are you still in the House of Commons?”.

This constituent is rather close to me, and I know she is watching right now, so I will say, yes, I am. I expect to be here for a long time because it is really important that we pass this piece of legislation.

There has been a lot of talk today from the NDP about threats to pensions. I would argue that the biggest threat to pensions in this country is the NDP platform. The NDP talks a lot about banks and oil companies, for example, and about other corporations wanting to raise their taxes by some 20% to 25%. That led to me want to do a bit of research.

I wondered who the owners of these corporations are, and I went to the Canada Post pension website. I noticed that the top five holdings by the Canada Post pension are the Toronto Dominion Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural Resources. In fact, 15 of the top 25 holdings in the Canada Post pension are banks and oil companies. That is very interesting. That is $1.5 billion right there.

With the NDP platform promise to raise taxes by 20% to 25% on these pensions, how can the hon. member justify that to the pensioners?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of an NDP platform that called for the raising of taxes on pensions. I ran for many months to succeed in the election on May 2, and I am happy to report that I did succeed and that issue never arose. I was unaware that the issue is in fact a part of our platform.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House all day, engaged in this debate, and obviously this could go on for many hours. How much new light is being shed? I think there is very little light being shed.

The NDP leader said in his comments that he would be proceeding with amendments.

My question to my colleague is that we want to put people back to work, so why do we not go right to the amendments?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am in the embarrassing position of having been shown to not understand House procedures very well. However, I do understand from previous discussions that now is not the appropriate time to have amendments to this legislation. That time is forthcoming, and we will look forward to hearing the amendments when that time arises.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the NDP's speeches tonight, and a couple of times I heard the term “right to strike” being used. In Canada there is no right to strike.

In fact the Supreme Court ruled, in 2007, in a decision that was partly written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, that the fundamental charter right of freedom of association does not guarantee a right to strike but rather it guarantees a limited right to collective bargaining. That is a right of process rather than a substantive right to an actual outcome in terms of benefits and pay and the like.

I am wondering if the member would be able to clarify his party's record on that issue.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I completely understand the question and what record the member is referring to. He has made an observation on legal comments by a chief justice, and I am not in a position to take issue with his arguments.

We most certainly do respect the fact that freedom of association is constitutionally enshrined in this country, and we do believe that the freedom of collective bargaining flows from that enshrined right.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a labour lawyer for 16 years and I also read a lot of cases from the Supreme Court of Canada. I would beg to differ with that last comment, that freedom of association does include the right to free collective bargaining.

As a matter of fact, one should read the Supreme Court of Canada case in the HEU decision, where the Government of British Columbia, a Liberal government made up of Conservatives, actually interfered in the collective bargaining process, interfered in a contract and ripped up negotiated settlements. It interfered, much like this government is interfering in the collective bargaining process, by trying to write a collective agreement for the parties and directly interfering in the free collective bargaining process. I would dare say that violates the Supreme Court of Canada dicta that I have read.

I wonder if my friend could comment on that.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the question that the member opposite had asked previously is really more a question of relevance.

In my speech, read from notes as it may have been, I did remind the members opposite that we are in fact here dealing with a lockout and not a strike, raising the relevance in fact of the question.

In response to my colleague who is requesting a comment on this from me, I most certainly do believe that from freedom of association and the Constitution enshrinement of that freedom flows the right to free collective bargaining. Part and parcel of free collective bargaining is the right for workers to withhold their labour, which is in fact the right to strike.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member for Beaches—East York to the House of Commons. I think he did a pretty good job.

The issue this evening is Bill C-6. The fact is that after eight months of negotiation the two parties were not able to come to an agreement. There was a strike that went into a lockout. Canada Post is not providing the services that Canadians want, demand or need. The economic recovery is fragile.

Will the opposition party pass Bill C-6 in a timely manner so that Canadians can get the mail they expect when they expect it?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite refer to the issue of eight months of efforts to resolve the collective agreement. If the member had listened to my speech, he would have heard that it is no surprise to me that the parties were unable to resolve that dispute in light of what has happened here. The very point of my speech was to suggest that under the labour relations regime, free collective bargaining depends on predictability and the predictability of the parties having to solve this dispute among themselves through the labour relations regime.

The intervention of the government into this collective bargaining dispute and previous interventions of governments into labour disputes have removed the predictability of collective bargaining and made it very easy for employers to sit back and wait for governments to act in the fashion that they have done with Bill C-6 before us tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage in debate on this bill and the motion to take some time to consider more fully the implications of this bill. I think six months could be time well spent.

I think, had the government thought a little more about the implications of this action, it would not have gone down the road in such a headstrong fashion to trample on the rights of these workers.

I have heard a few themes throughout the day from members opposite. One of them is about big bad unions. They have talked about unions as if they are the devil incarnate. They have talked about them as if they were just plain bad.

I cannot comprehend this because I am sure there are a lot of women and men in their communities, in their constituencies, who through a democratic vote have decided to participate in a union, who have entered into a workplace where a union has been in place. Those constituents have realized a decent working wage, health benefits and perhaps a pension plan, if they are fortunate to be part of the 30% of Canadian workers who are lucky enough to participate in pensions. In other words, they are people who are benefiting from the rights and opportunities of bargaining collectively, of working together, of coming together to have some control within their workplace over wages, benefits and working conditions.

I do not see why any member of this House would want to argue against that. It is as though because people are in a group somehow that is negative as opposed to its being positive to be individuals. How could that be? That simply does not make any sense.

If members took the time to actually look into what kind of an organization a trade union is, they would actually recognize what I know having been a union member, that a union is one of the more democratic organizations in our society. The leadership is elected, not unlike political parties. Decisions and proper process of how that organization runs are set out in bylaws for all people to see. It inevitably has a constitution, which controls how that organization runs. The finances of the organization are completely public. The decision making within the organization is completely public. It has regular general meetings so that all members of the union can participate in the day-to-day activities of that organization.

Because I have been involved in unions for many years, I know for sure that if one member is not happy with how that organization is being run, he or she comes to a meeting, the second Wednesday of every month or whatever it is that the particular union membership decides is going to be its regular meeting time, and the member has an opportunity to stand on the floor to raise those concerns. That is the way unions operate. When it comes to how the unions spend the dues, how they decide to prepare for bargaining, that is all decided by union members.

It is not unlike some other organizations, like political parties, where not everyone who is a member wants to participate in the day-to-day activities, and sometimes members are not happy with how things happen and they grumble and gripe about the decisions that are made but they are not prepared to take a couple of hours on the Wednesday night to go out and participate in those decisions. That happens. However, the important point is that decisions are made by a majority, just as they are in our elections, and the rest of the members of the group or of the constituency live with those results.

I will not speak for any other party in this chamber but, just like our party, the union does not represent just the people who vote for it or the people who participate in it. The union represents all members because its mandate is to be responsible for and to act responsibly on behalf of all the members of the union, to bargain better wages, better working conditions, and to act constructively on behalf of all members whether they participate or not.

I can understand to some extent, given the way the government has acted, that it may not understand that. What I tend to hear is that the government seems to think that if a particular jurisdiction does not have a Conservative member, then that jurisdiction is not going to get the goodies. If people do not have a government member elected in their particular province, then they are not going to see the kind of spoils of the electoral competition that others would. I would say that is completely wrong and our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has said on many occasions that our responsibility here is to look after the interests of all Canadians, and that is exactly what the NDP caucus has been doing.

That is exactly the role that is played by unions in our society in Canada. It has been for 150 years. Unions have played an important role throughout this country in ensuring we have good social policy. That includes things like our pension, the Canada pension plan; employment insurance; the labour laws that ensure there is a standard work week and that people are not having to work seven days a week, that we do not have child labour, that we have some basic human rights in the workplace, that we have general health and safety, that people are protected and that they have the right to refuse. All of those basic protections that exist in all workplaces have largely resulted from the work by unions, and they have been doing that for 150 years in this country.

Again, I say to members opposite that I urge them not to think so negatively about unions and to recognize that, in fact, they consist of men and women and families who are out there working hard, trying to make their workplace better, trying to ensure they can provide for their families and working every day, tirelessly, to build their communities and make the lives of all Canadians better.

I must say further how concerned I am with a couple of other things that have been repeated by the government. There is this idea that the negotiations have gone on for eight months and that suddenly that is too long. I have been involved in public sector negotiations that have gone on for a couple of years, undoubtedly as a result of problems with both the employer and the union; that have gone on because of circumstances within a given jurisdiction. However, the parties keep negotiating. They keep working away. The parties continue to work to solve problems. Just because it has gone on for a certain period of time and the parties are beginning to apply some pressure to each other does not mean it is time to shut it all down, that we decide time is up and we are going to end this by stepping in. It is also setting a standard that is inappropriate. It is not up to the government to be setting that standard. It is for the parties to decide.

In this instance, we know, if we have been paying any attention at all to the debate and to the interventions by the NDP caucus, the official opposition, that what transpired here is that the parties were having trouble coming to agreement on a number of issues and that the union instigated one of the tools in its toolbox, and it has a number of them. One of the union's tools, the ultimate weapon, is the right to strike. It did not use that, for whatever reason. I think it was largely because the union itself recognized that it was the ultimate weapon and it did not want to shut down postal services in this country completely because it understood that they were at the early stages in negotiations and the parties were still far apart. Therefore, there needed to be some efforts to bring the parties closer together, so the union began to employ tactics that were more subtle and it engaged in slowly rotating strikes.

We have heard from a number of our constituents. We have heard it here. It is in the record. Members opposite have been reading from their toys about communications they have had from their constituents where the constituents said they did not have a problem with the rotating strikes, the strike action that was happening. They did not have a problem with that, but they did have a problem when the crown corporation decided it was going to padlock the doors.

That is when postal services completely ended. That is when the bills and the cheques stopped moving for the small businesses that everybody on the government side seems to talk about. That is when they were shut down, not when the union was employing its tactics. Postal services were shut down when management stepped in and put big padlocks on every single Canada Post workplace in this country. That is when things shut down. We have heard that again and again, so we understand that is what happened.

One would think that the appropriate response to that shutdown would have been to take the padlocks off, open the doors and let the workers go back in and deliver the mail. Would that not have been the solution? Would that not have been the best way to do that?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I would remind all hon. members that when people have the floor they have the floor. Some commentary takes place in this place, but it would appear we are going to be here for a long time so I would ask the co-operation of all members to respect their colleagues.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I did not hear anything coming from the gentleman. I do not mind a little noise. I appreciate that because it is important.

Canadians have told us that the decorum of the House important. I know members of the official opposition are paying close attention to what Canadians said in order to conduct ourselves in that manner.

Let me get back to what I was saying. If Canada Post is causing the problem by having locked all the doors, then we would think someone in the government, the Prime Minister or the minister responsible, would pick up the phone and would tell to the head of the crown corporation, who earns about $650,000 a year, to take the locks off the doors, that we want to get the mail running, that our businesses, our communities, our charities and other organizations are dependent on the mail service.

However, that is not what the government does. I just do not understand. I am from Nova Scotia. We do things in a much more simple way there. We just get it done.

Maybe I am not paying attention. Maybe the government has other motives. I do not know. It is not like me to impugn the motives of the government, but one has to wonder. If the easy solution is to take the locks off, which is pretty simple, then why has the government come in with this big honking sledgehammer, bringing it down on the backs of working people?

Why is the government doing that? Why would we not think that this is just the first group, the first salvo? The government has come forward with legislation which imposes a collective agreement and a wage rate, which is less than the wage negotiated by the parties. It has set conditions for the arbitrator, for the final offer selection, which will have real implications on the solutions that will be found to deal with the issues of the pension.

I read the bill, and I am quite concerned about the parameters that it puts on the kind of solution that could be found for the pension.

Again, the government is setting the parameters and conditions. It is telling the arbitrator, whoever that person might be, how he or she will go about finding the settlement.

Why is the government doing that? I do not know. Whose rights are next? Which organization or which group of people, which group of Canadians is the government going to point its finger at next, deciding it is its turn? That is my concern. That is the concern of working people across the country. It is not only working people, but representatives of other groups that the government does not necessarily support.

Some members opposite and in the corner have asked why the NDP members are talking so much. They want to go home. They have things they want to do this weekend. They want to play some golf. The members of this caucus are going to speak up on behalf of working people. That is why we are doing it.

Two days ago the member for London—Fanshawe brought in the resolution about raising seniors out of poverty. Who stood up in the House and argued for that? It was the NDP.

In the campaign, who talked about affordability issues? Who talked about strengthening and expanding the health care system in our country? Who is trying to reduce the costs of drugs for seniors? It is this opposition party.

That is why we are doing this. We are doing this to speak up on behalf of people who are under attack by the Conservative government.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, which is probably a good thing, but the hon. member opposite indicated that there was a right to strike. Just for the record, I do not believe that is correct. I believe there is a right to bargain and bargain in good faith.

Why are all members of the House here? There seems to be a simple answer. Recent polls indicate that 70% of Canadians support back to work legislation to end this costly, disruptive, crippling work stoppage that is presently going on.

Could the hon. member opposite explain to all members and to all Canadians why his party is not on the same wavelength and in agreement with the Canadians who want Canada Post to get back to work and who want this work stoppage to end? Why do we have all this rhetoric about all the wonderful things the NDP has done? Let us get the right thing done and get people back to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to this place, and as I carry out my responsibilities in the House, before I stand to speak about an issue, I do not check to see what the latest pole indicates. I do not check the wind to find out what is going on.

I look into my heart and I ask myself if there are people under attack, or people who do not have a voice or people who are vulnerable. Those are the ones for whom I will speak up.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's statement and I especially appreciated his comments about the democratic principles on which unions are founded. I think this is an extremely important point worth making.

We do not talk enough about the fact that abuse is heaped on unions for truly debatable reasons.The inner workings of a union are completely disregarded.

I would like my colleague to tell us how a union lives up to its democratic principles and how it operates in the same way that companies do when they hold shareholder meetings. They talk about defending a company's right to conduct business, whereas we are defending union rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent many years as a part of unions, working for them and studying them. It amazes me the process that those organizations go through, oftentimes to the peril of the leadership, but they do these things because they are democratic. People have the opportunity to participate in decisions all the way along.

I appreciate having this opportunity, but the Canadian unions such as the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which represents the workers at Canada Post, are involved in solidarity efforts with its sisters and brothers in the southern hemisphere for workers' rights and human rights for those who live nowhere near Ottawa or Canada. They and their members believe in the principle of solidarity of human rights and protecting working people around the globe.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite, a fellow Nova Scotian. I grew up in a community not unlike his. There were a lot of coal miners and unions and they did a lot of good work.

NDP members have wrapped their arms around working people. I have heard numerous references throughout the debate this evening to working people. I have a very simple question for my colleague from Nova Scotia, who has a fine bit of that maritime lilt and lots of great rhetoric and fiery emotion and passion tonight.

I assure him that there is no ownership in working people in any party in the country. A lot of working people are being affected by this strike, which he will be the first to admit. Small businesses, seniors, individuals count on the mail every day for their very livelihoods and those of their families, to receive EI cheques, something very fundamental to a lot of people in Atlantic Canada.

I very sincerely ask the member opposite this. What does he say to those working people and how long should this dispute have gone on? As a former union member, he has probably been involved in similar situations where these long, protracted disputes cause tremendous hardship on all sides. Eight months is a very long time. We are hearing that a lot of union members themselves are anxious to get back on the job.

How long and what about the working people suffering as a result of the strike?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister lives in an important part of the province of Nova Scotia that has a long and proud history, not only of work but of labour relations, trade and so on.

We are not claiming to be the only ones who represent working people. All we are saying is that members should open their ears, talk to their constituents, working people who vote for them such as union members. I know the people who vote for the member opposite. They are union members as well. They have some rights and interests and they are being harmed.

The minister knows I come from a proud small business background in the valley, the Conservative valley, I might add. Therefore, I am very sensitive to the desires and concerns of the small business community. That is why I saying the government should take the padlocks off those doors and let the postal service resume. Get those guys back to work. That is all it has to do. The government locked the doors. Get them back to work.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what are the workers in Nova Scotia saying about the Conservative government and the Minister of National Defence, who also said he represents the workers? In the bill the government wants to give less of an increase in wages in the collective agreement than what the crown corporation was ready to give. The government says that it does not get involved in crown corporations, but in the bill it presented to the House it government would give less than what the crown corporation offered.

What do you think is wrong with the government and why does it hate the workers so much?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the hon. member, I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments, questions and answers to the Chair.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer why the member feels the government hates workers, although its actions seem to suggest that.

I received a couple of texts from workers in my community. One said that he appreciated the rights of the workers, but asked about the small businesses. I told him what happened and that the NDP was asking the government to take the locks off. He replied and said, “Good for you and good for the NDP caucus for standing up on behalf of working people and small businesses”.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate following the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He is a very eloquent speaker.

My voice may be a bit hoarse at 1:00 a.m., and although our voices may be a bit hoarse and our throats a bit irritated, our voices will not be still in the House of Commons in standing up for the working people of this country.

I have a different background than that of the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He spoke very proudly about his labour and union involvement. I have never been a member of a labour union although I was active as a manual worker. I worked in factories, but always non-union. I went back to school and became an administrator. I have negotiated collective agreements, but I have always done that from the side of management. I have been an operator of businesses and have won two Business Excellence Awards in 2003 and 2004. I understand from the business point of view the essential nature of having free collective bargaining and allowing unions, the workers and management to work together to resolve those issues.

However, this is not a case of free and fair collective bargaining. In fact, this is the opposite case. This is why members of the NDP caucus are standing up in the House of Commons at 1:00 in the morning saying that this is wrong. The government should be taking the locks off where the workers have been locked out, get the mail system working and let the union and management negotiate that collective agreement that so many Canadians want to see.

I would like to pay tribute to the diversity of the new official opposition NDP caucus. We have people in the House with various backgrounds: small business, management, nurses, doctors, lawyers and trades. We have a diversity in this caucus that has never been seen before in the House of Commons. That allows us to bring a depth and breadth of experience to bear in this debate in the House of Commons.

I must say that the lack of experience on the government side on the issue of collective bargaining shows through in the debate we have had thus far this evening. At my count, and I certainly have not been here for every moment of the debate, but at least two dozen Conservative members of Parliament, including members of cabinet, referred to the situation at Canada Post as a strike when it is a lockout. It is obvious from their lack of experience that they do not comprehend the difference between a lockout and a strike.

A strike is when workers refuse to do the work. A lockout is when management locks the doors. What has happened here is that management has locked the doors. The leader of the NDP and members of the NDP caucus are asking that the locks be taken off and get the mail moving. That is why we are here tonight.

I do not mean that in an unkind way, but this shows the lack of experience and diversity in the Conservative caucus. It has one or two members with any sort of labour background. However, and this is very important, we are talking about one-third of households in Canada where there is a breadwinner from organized labour, workers who have come together collectively to organize in the workplace.

That is an essential component of any democracy. If we do not have the ability to collectively bargain and join a labour union, then we are not in a democracy. That is a fundamental democratic principle that so many Canadians hold dear. One of the essential elements in collective bargaining is the balance, the equilibrium between management and labour. To come to that common agreement we need honest and sincere negotiations.

That has not happened in this case. Despite the government's speaking notes and unlike the diversity of opinions we have heard from the NDP caucus this evening, members of Parliament coming to this place to debate this issue from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, we have heard the same comments from Conservative members of Parliament, comments that are factually wrong in calling a strike a lockout when there is a fundamental difference between the two, but also saying that this has been some kind of eight month protracted negotiation.

We know that is false. We know that the workers at Canada Post have sincerely tried to come to an agreement, have tried to negotiate and what we have seen is bad faith from Canada Post. There is no other way to put it.

The workers have a 94% mandate and, despite the occasional email we have heard Conservative MPs read tonight, it is quite obvious with a 94% mandate that Canada Post workers are very solid on this issue of negotiating with management. Despite all of that, management simply refused to negotiate in good faith with the workers and then it systematically shut down the mail system. First, it shut down operations for two days a week, denying mail service to Canadians. The response from the people who work at Canada Post, the letter carriers who deliver our mail, the person who walks up the 30 steps to my house on the top of the hill on Glover Avenue and then walks down, the response of the letter carriers and the mail sorters was that essential services would be continued and that seniors' cheques would continue to be delivered. Management then played its hand by shutting down the entire system.

There should have been a mature informed response, but given the fact that there is no diversity on the Conservative side and the government does not understand that there is that balance in Canadian democracy, what we saw instead, as my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said, is basically a sledgehammer, a piece of enforced legislation that rips up any sort of collective bargaining process and imposes on the workers at Canada Post the government's direction in this regard.

What does the government do? The first thing the government did was to impose a wage reduction. Any increase has to be evaluated against the current inflation rate. This is something that makes me and other colleagues in the NDP caucus apoplectic. There is an ignorance on the Conservative side of the House about the difference between the inflation rate and a real increase. If there is a 2% increase and the inflation rate is 3%, any member on the NDP side of the House would say that is a net reduction of 1%. The Conservatives are saying that is some kind of wage increase when indeed it is actually a wage reduction in real terms.

This is imposed by the government on the 50,000 letter carriers and mail sorters across the country, people who are hard-pressed to make ends meets. The government is going to make mandatory an imposed reduction in salary, year after year, after year. That is the first difficulty that I have with this government imposed interference in collective bargaining. This is highly inappropriate and if the Conservative caucus had the diversity of the NDP caucus, the government would have thought twice before wading into this matter in such an irresponsible way.

Second, there is the issue of pensions. As we know, the enforced differential that the Conservative government is bringing in also has profound impacts on pensions. On this side of the House, the NDP fought for pensions. Our predecessors, perhaps in another corner of the House when we had a smaller CCF caucus, originated the idea that was radical at the time and denounced by Conservatives and Liberals, that working people should actually have the right to a pension and that they should actually at the end of their working lives be able to somehow profit from those lives of working and have pensions paid to them.

It was the NDP that fought for that. We were denounced. We were vilified by Conservatives and Liberals but we persevered, working with working people from across this country and pensions are accepted now as something to the benefit of Canadian citizens.

We fought for public medicare. We fought for employment insurance. Each one of those fights had the same rhetoric from the other side and we won each one of those fights because there is nothing more dedicated than a New Democratic Party member of Parliament. We will not stop. Our voices will not be silenced until we succeed in building the kind of society that all Canadians want to see.

The pension element of this Conservative sledgehammer on the letter carriers and on the mail sorters at Canada Post means that for many of the younger people joining Canada Post, they cannot hope to retire at 65. They may be retiring much, much later and they will be retiring at a much smaller pension.

At a time when hundreds of thousands of seniors in this country are living below the poverty line, for the government to impose a forced poverty on those young people joining Canada Post is highly irresponsible. There is no other way to put it.

The third element is what the Conservative government wants to do to younger people. We know that Tory times are tough times, particularly for younger Canadians. Perhaps one reason why there are now two dozen members of our caucus who are younger Canadians is because younger Canadians are finding their voice, that the kinds of policies that are driving down wages, that are driving down opportunities, that are eliminating pensions later on, that are creating the highest level of student debt in our history, particularly in my province of British Columbia, that all of those policies work against young people.

This proposal being enforced, this sledgehammer, by the government makes sure that those younger Canadians or new Canadians who join the postal service will permanently work at lower wages and can never hope to have the kind of retirement security that all of us want to see.

Those are three reasons why we oppose this legislation. It is inappropriate, irresponsible and had the government been well informed, had the government the diversity of our caucus, the government would not have done that.

There may be another reason behind it. My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour asked the question that perhaps this is ideologically driven.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm shocked.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh says he is shocked.

We all remember the events leading up to May 2. We all remember the orange surge in many parts of this country. Perhaps it was just a reaction by the Conservative Prime Minister, but at the time he said we should not worry, that he would be moderate in his actions if elected prime minister. This is a very immoderate action. This is an action that profoundly hurts 50,000 families across the country, working people, people who have worked for the postal service, have served their country and are being treated, in my opinion, in a most disrespectful way.

One could say that this is another example of what increasingly seems to be a very radical agenda by the government, to wade into the collective bargaining process, as it tried to do with Air Canada, to bring in elements that are highly inappropriate, to penalize working people for the actions of what can only be described as poor management practices at Canada Post. We believe there could be a very strong, ideological component to what the government is trying to do tonight and it is highly inappropriate.

I would like to address the broader issue that my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour also addressed, which is, who is next? The precedent this sets is simply one that we cannot accept. The idea that younger Canadians must be paid a much lower wage rate, that pensions must become even lower for those who are entering the workforce in the coming years, the idea that somehow, year after year, public servants--that is the best way to describe them--who work for Canada Post, who deliver our mail every day, who sort our mail every day, should be subject to what is a net 1% reduction in salary each and every year of this imposed sledgehammer agreement, those are things that we fundamentally disagree with, because what we are seeing is an impact on the middle class right across the country. These kinds of policies are attacking the Canadian middle class. We have seen an erosion of our middle class throughout this Conservative mandate. Canadians in the middle class are earning less. Canadians in the middle class have seen their debt loads almost double over the last few years. Canadians in the middle class are working longer and longer hours and are being paid less and less.

It is the equalizer of free collective bargaining, the ability to join a union, that has often made the difference in the growth of our middle class in the past. There is only one way to describe it. The spectacular speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Toronto—Danforth, earlier tonight paid tribute to the historic role the labour movement has played in building our country and in building our middle class.

We want to make sure that the middle class in Canada is prosperous. We want to make sure that the system of checks and balances that comes from a labour movement interacting with management is preserved, that the fundamentals we heard earlier from the member for Beaches—East York in what was a fascinating examination of collective bargaining and the importance of that fundamental balance, which is somewhat lost on some members of the Conservative Party--those kinds of elements are vitally important.

We have seen the erosion and the erosion has to stop. The idea that mean-spirited policies that benefit very few at the price of many is something that we are fundamentally opposed to.

There is no doubt that what this legislation does is reward bad management practices. It rewards management that has not actively engaged in sincere labour negotiations. What it does is give them a blank cheque. It fundamentally erodes collective bargaining rights. It hurts 50,000 working families, and, more importantly, each and every year of this imposed sledgehammer will hurt further thousands of Canadians.

This is a fundamental principle. In our party the reason we have grown from 13 members to 19 members, to 29 members, to 36 members, to 103 members of Parliament is because working families across the country trust us when we say what we need to do is build the kind of Canada where everybody matters, where nobody is left behind, and where that balance is maintained and our middle class can grow and poor Canadians can be lifted out of poverty. Those are the principles that we bring to the House of Commons. That is why this caucus is fighting so terrifically this evening for the rights of working Canadians.

We will continue to do so because it is right for our country. That is why we are here, and we will not stop. Our voices will not be silent until the government hears reason.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take issue not necessarily with the comments made recently by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but with many of the comments that I have heard from others in the NDP this evening during debate, particularly the comments about members on the government side being anti-union. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is well documented.

The Minister of Labour's father was a very active member of the CAW. In my own case, my father was a high-ranking official with the United Steel Workers of America. In fact, Ken Neumann, the current head of the Canadian chapter of the United Steel Workers of America, freely admits that he learned his trade at the feet of my father. My father was his mentor. I see Ken Neumann quite frequently and we talk on very friendly terms. I can assure members opposite, even the member for Acadie—Bathurst who wants to heckle because he does not want to hear the truth, that this government is not anti-union.

What we are saying, however, is that the NDP are propagating a myth tonight when they say they are representing working people. They are not. They are representing the views of union people.

There are millions of working people in Canada who want to see back-to-work legislation. It is fine for NDP members to represent unions and union workers, but would they admit the fact that they are representing a narrow perspective of views from union workers across Canada and not the wider range of Canadians? That is our role. That is what we will continue to do.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words, and the Conservative government is using a sledgehammer against working families today. There is no doubt about that.

I am a long-time member of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce. I am a proud member of the Burnaby Board of Trade. I have worked with small businesses all my life. Small business people understand that a strong labour movement means a healthy balance in the community. It means that more of the benefits of the industries that are in communities stay in those communities, recirculate through the community. That helps small businesses.

To say that it is only a third of the country where there is a breadwinner in the household who support the fundamental principles of collective bargaining, I can only fundamentally disagree.

All progressive Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand the key role that is played when we have that balance, when working people have the ability to organize collectively, to bargain collective agreements, and to ensure that the benefits of the industry stay in the community. That is something most Canadians understand. I wish Conservative MPs did too.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from the NDP with great interest. He said his party went from 12 members to 103. That is indeed a remarkable feat, but a reverse process can also happen.

I wonder if my colleague could tell me how much this is really costing us to be here tonight and to have this process. There is no way we are going to win against the Conservative Party. They outnumber us; they have 167 members.

It has come to my attention that the NDP has collective agreements with its staff. If I am not mistaken, and I stand to be corrected, something did not happen and they have not come to an agreement for a number of years.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and happy to hear the member for Scarborough—Agincourt speak about the idea of a reverse process. Our party has grown from 13 members to 103 members. I understand he is an authority on the reverse process, going from 174 members to 34. I would be very pleased to hear his comments about that. The way to avoid that reverse process is to be sincere and to work hard.

I have been in the House for seven years. I have never in those seven years seen an official opposition willing to stand up to the government on bad policies or bad laws like the NDP caucus, 103 strong.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for an excellent presentation, as always. The passion that he shows is genuine.

I want to go back to one issue he talked about and that is the lockout.

In question period on Wednesday I noticed that the Prime Minister said the wage increase in the government's bill is similar to that of other public servants. I think that was a slip of the tongue because the next day he said the wage increase is like that of civil servants. I really think he is talking about employees in the post office as being civil servants. If they are civil servants, then he is their boss. The Prime Minister, the head of the government, is the boss of civil servants. Why can he not take responsibility for the insidious lockout that is taking place in the postal service?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Western Arctic for his question. He adds a great deal to the debate, and always has since he first joined this House in 2006.

I believe he is absolutely right. The Prime Minister and the government treat postal workers as if they are the bosses. What we have seen are bad management practices that the government is now reinforcing. It is sending the message out that if you do not bargain in a sincere manner, if you do not put things out--as a former management negotiator, I can tell you, you have to be sincere and get things out to get an agreement made. There is no falsifying. There is no hiding. When you are talking about collective agreement negotiations, you have to be sincere, you have to be honest, and you have to be forthright.

The member for Western Arctic will gather from my comments that we are not seeing those kinds of abilities on the government side of the House. They do not seem to be able to approach the whole process of collective bargaining in the way it needs to be approached: honest, transparent, forthright. That is why we are in the situation we are in now. We are saying to the government, take the locks off, let us get the postal system working, and let us have a real arbitration or collective negotiation that allows this issue to be resolved.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, having just listened to his answer, he seems to be willing to offer some advice. I wonder if the advice on negotiating contracts that he might give to us is the example of the member from Hamilton Centre, which I referenced earlier. What the NDP did to the workers the last time it had the opportunity to govern in the province of Ontario for five long, dark, miserable years was this: it allowed them to negotiate a collective agreement and then said, “Forget it. We are going to rip that agreement up. We are going to cut your pay and we are going to force you to take 12 days off a year. We are going to take $1.9 billion out of the pockets of 30,000 civil servants unilaterally, we are going to call them Rae Days, and everybody is going to be very happy.”

Now the hon. member might not have heard because he lives 30 stairs up a mountain and deep back into the side of a hill. He might not have known that this is what was going on in Ontario at the time with an NDP government. I am wondering if that is the type of example and if these are some of the amendments that we are waiting for. Perhaps the member from Hamilton Centre might advise the member on how they negotiated with workers, the respect they had with the workers when they unilaterally—

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live up a hill; I do not live in a cave. That is why I am so pleased to respond to the member's question, which is about NDP provincial governments.

Every year the federal Ministry of Finance, which certainly is not in any way an NDP sympathizer, publishes an annual compendium of which governments are best at managing money and paying down debt. For 20 years, year after year, the federal Ministry of Finance says the best party for managing the people's money in Canada is the NDP. That is the best provincial government in Canada.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise at this austere hour and speak on an issue that I think is of profound importance, not only to the people of this chamber, not only to the women and men who are affected by this legislation at Canada Post, but also to all Canadians who believe in fairness, who believe in human rights, and who want a country where we have a thriving middle class as the backbone of this economy.

I would ask a little bit of indulgence from my colleagues in the House to quote from a piece of paper that I think is very instructive.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. There is so much noise across the way I cannot hear my colleague who is immediately adjacent to me speak.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I have just come to the chair. This is a very intense debate and I would ask hon. members to moderate their comments and listen to each other.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would point out that I have been listening quietly to all of my colleagues who are talking and would ask that they extend the same courtesy to me when I am speaking and have decorum in the House of Commons.

I want to quote from something which I think would be instructive for all of us here. There is a saying that those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. The title of this document is, “Postal Workers Organizing: A Look Across A Century”, 1900 to 2000. It says:

The first postal clerks' association was formed locally in Vancouver in 1911.

I am very proud to represent Vancouver Kingsway, the birthplace of the first postal clerks association. It goes on:

It soon added branches in the Atlantic, and by 1917, the Dominion Postal Clerks Association (DPCA) had branches across the country.

It describes the post office working conditions at the time:

When one looks at the working conditions prevailing during this period, it's no wonder the postal associations soon tired of begging and petitioning for improvements. Post office workers often work 60 to 70 hour work weeks with no overtime provisions.

If a train was late, postal clerks might have to come to work in the middle of the night. Letter carriers were forced to wait around until the mail was ready for delivery. At Christmas, the work day had no limit. And for this, they received very poor wages.

These circumstances came to a head in 1918, when FALC, after failing to convince the government to appoint a conciliation board to establish regulated collective agreement conditions, called a strike. It was strongest in the West, Toronto and Hamilton.

By the way we have fine representatives in those areas who continue to this day to fight for working people in this country.

The document goes on to say:

By the end of the 10-day strike, letter carriers, clerks, railway mail clerks and porters...were all on strike west of the Great Lakes.

The first national civil service strike ended with a huge victory. Postal workers won a 44-hour week, overtime pay, salary increases, no discrimination against strikers and a Civil Service Commission of Inquiry into working conditions at the Post Office.

Who today would quarrel with any of those victories?

That came from brave and courageous women and men who stood up to governments like this one, to people who would take away their right to strike, and look at what they were striking for: a 44-hour work week, overtime pay, rest between shifts.

Moving forward to 1965, the document says:

The year 1965 was a turning point, a defining moment in the history of post office workers. In July, the government--

--I think it was a Liberal government at that time--

--announced in proposed legislation a rejection of the right to strike for government workers and a wage increase of less than half of the union's bottom line.

A strike ensued which lasted for two weeks in Montreal and a shorter period in other locations.They were rotating strikes.

The immediate results of the strike included:

- wage increases

- no reprisals against strikers

- a Royal Commission into working conditions, headed by Judge Montpetit

- the inclusion of the right to strike in the new federal public sector labour legislation.

I would also point out that the leaders of all three postal workers brotherhood unions failing to back the strike lost their positions.

There has been some talk here about whether or not there is a right to strike. It is true there is no right to strike that is implicit in the freedom of association provision of the charter. However, it is true that under the Canada Labour Code trade unions that are certified or voluntarily recognized under that agreement who go through the legal provisions can put themselves into a legal strike position and when they do so, they are validly on strike. That is the case with CUPW today.

We are not arguing whether or not there is a theoretical juridical right to strike.

[An hon. member]

Come on, Don.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

We are talking about a union that is legally on strike. If the government thinks the union ought not to be on strike, then it should have the guts to go to court and challenge that.

[An hon. member]

They're locked out.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I sit quietly while they speak and I would ask them to do the same.

The right to bargain collectively has been talked about in this House as well. That right is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also guaranteed in international conventions to which this country is a signatory. Therefore, those international conventions are binding upon this country.

The concept of bargaining collectively is about free collective bargaining. This is where it gets interesting and challenging for the government. Free collective bargaining involves negotiations between two private parties. It recognizes each party's right to sit down and negotiate a private collective agreement. A collective agreement is a contract. Collective bargaining is governed by Canadian contract law. The right of two parties to sit down in this country face to face and freely bargain a contract is something I would think the Conservatives would support.

The Conservatives claim to support private enterprise and the right of people to freely contract in this country. If the Conservatives believe that, then they have no choice but to allow a private enterprise which is a crown corporation, an arm's-length entity from the government, to sit down with another private entity, a trade union, and respect their right to bargain the terms and conditions of their relationship unmolested by government, without having the heavy hand of government imposing a settlement on them. I do not think the Conservatives would tolerate for one moment government intervening in two businesses that were bargaining a sales contract. If they truly believe in the freedom to contract, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. They must be consistent, but the Conservatives are not and this legislation shows that very clearly.

The law clearly recognizes that government has no right to intervene in free collective bargaining except in two circumstances. One is essential services. One of the members over there, who I understand used to work for the police force, would understand that. I think it is why he erroneously thought there was no right to strike, because that is true for essential services. Legislatively, very often the right to strike is legally prohibited for a reason. We cannot have our police on strike. We cannot have our medical staff in emergency rooms, sometimes firefighters, paramedics on strike. Those sorts of groups often cannot strike.

The second exception to the right to strike is when a strike reaches a point that the health and safety of the public is threatened. That situation usually demands that a party wait until it has evidence. It can go before a labour relations board to establish that fact.

I would respectfully submit that neither of those situations is the case here.

I want to talk about the strike. From what I have heard from the members opposite, I think they fundamentally misconstrue and misunderstand the purpose and the nature of a strike or a lockout. Once again, not to belabour the point, we are not talking about a strike situation but about a lockout. However, what I am about to say would apply equally to both situations.

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation. It involves a gradual increase of pressure. There are graduated measured processes taken that are calculated toward urging the parties toward agreement. These can involve things like taking a strike vote. The union will leave the bargaining table, canvass its members and come back to the table with a strike mandate and that will indicate to the employer how much support it has. It usually indicates to the employer that perhaps it has to change its position.

The employer can invoke a final offer process where it can present a final offer to the union and force a vote on that final offer. That also can force pressure on the union to change its position at the bargaining table. There can be work to rule where a union will not declare a strike but will work exactly according to the terms of the collective agreement as a precursor to taking strike action. There can be rotating strikes which are short of a full strike. Each one of these graduated steps is part of the acknowledged process of collective bargaining. Ultimately there is a strike or lockout.

The very purpose of a strike or lockout is to cause hardship. It is the ultimate weapon to exert maximum economic, political and social pressure on the other party. The government seems to think that only strikes that have no consequences for anybody ought to be allowed, that only strikes that do not cause hardship ought to be permitted.

The government would tolerate strikes only if they were ineffective. That misconstrues the very purpose of a strike. It denies workers whose labour actually has an impact on the community around them the right to strike. It leaves the right to strike to groups that have little economic power. There are a couple of examples that illustrate that very starkly in this country.

One example I do not think anybody would remember, except for my hon. colleagues from Alberta, is the strike in Edmonton during the 1980s. Workers at the woodworking plant, Zeidler, went on strike. That strike went on for eight years. Why? No government ordered them back to work. No government ordered the employer to get back to the table. No government sent it to binding arbitration or final offer selection to result in a collective agreement. Why? The Zeidler workers were a small marginalized group and did not have an impact on anybody else. In that case, the government let the workers suffer. Of course, many members on the opposite side would have been totally in favour of that.

Just last year at Vale Inco, workers in Canada were subjected to the actions of a billion dollar multinational corporation and they went on strike for a year. Did the government send them back to work? No. Why? Because the employer had billions of dollars and could easily go through that strike. A small community with hundreds families suffered intensely from that strike but that was okay.

In the present case, the withdrawal of services, I would argue, was being done in a tempered and managed manner by the union, but when it started to exert some pressure, the government panicked. It said that the workers had to go back to work right away as they were causing pressure. Talk about a one-sided application of the strike and lockout weapon.

When unions have gone on strike, or when they have pressured the employers, what have they done it for? I could do much more research, but I have a short list of some things unions have fought for over the last century and obtained for Canadian people: minimum wages; paid vacations; minimum periods of time off between shifts, including the weekend; paid statutory holidays; parental leave; occupational health and safety committees and safety standards; pensions; health and welfare plans, including dental, eye care and prescription plans.

These are the things unions go on strike for. Very often it is small groups of people who sacrifice their own financial interests for the betterment of groups as a whole. All Canadian families have benefited from these brave men and women, and they are going to benefit from the brave actions of the CUPW workers today as well.

When we talk about interference in the collective bargaining process, the government would be aghast at anybody interfering with the contractual relations between two private actors, but it is quick to jump in and do it when a union is involved. Let us look at the government's interference.

Not only did the government jump in and interfere, it started contracting for one of the parties. The government has put in this legislation lower wages than management was prepared to pay. How can that be justified? A private contract is being written by the state. Holy mackerel, they are a bunch of socialists over on that side. I have not heard one single justification for that from the members opposite.

I also want to talk about our colleagues in the Liberal Party because, of course, their position changes depending on the week, month, year or decade. I will be careful. I will just tell the truth.

In 1997 the Liberal Party brought in the same kind of legislation that is currently before the House. It ordered CUPW workers back to work and imposed wages on them. It is quite interesting to hear Liberals talk about this legislation.

And that is not the only time. It is a shameful history, because in 1965 the Liberal government proposed legislation that would strip all government workers of the right to strike, period. I hesitate to bring that up, because given that this Conservative government has copied what the Liberals did in 1997, I certainly do not want it to copy what the Liberals did in 1965. I want to be careful there.

In 1993 the Liberals fired 10,000 part-time advertising mail workers, the largest single layoff in Canadian history, and they handed over unaddressed advertising mail to the private sector. I think Canadians should know that when they see the Liberals stand up and try to pretend that they are actually on the side of workers in this dispute.

I also want to talk a little bit about what is on the table and what is at risk by this legislation. We have a proposal by Canada Post to treat new hires completely differently. They want to have two tiers of workers, where new workers who are hired receive 18% less wages than the current employees, where they have to work five years longer before they are eligible for retirement, where they join a defined contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan. Do honourable members know what a defined contribution plan is? It is not a pension, it is an RSP; that is what it is. There is no guarantee of any kind of pension amount when an individual retires, and the entire risk of the pension plan is on the workers, none on the employer. And there are reduced benefits on retirement as well.

I also want to talk about what is at stake in terms of pensions, which are of interest to all Canadians, because retirement security is very important. There is a two-tier plan here once again, and this is something workers are fighting for. They are fighting for their retirement security.

This government has bragged about its creation of jobs. It brags about the number of jobs it has created, about its fiscal performance. I note that it always compares it to July 2009, which is the trough of the recession, and then it compares how many jobs have been created from then. But it is the lack of quality jobs that is important, because what has been created in that time are part-time, temporary, and usually service sector jobs. We should ask Canadians, are there more, better, family-sustaining career jobs today than there were in 2006, when the government was elected? I would argue that is absolutely not the case.

The kinds of jobs that Canada Post is proposing here--lower wages, reduced pensions, longer working till retirement--are these the kinds of jobs the government is bragging about creating? What a legacy to offer the young generation, to offer poorer jobs on which they cannot raise their families.

I come from Vancouver, where the average price of a house in east Vancouver is $850,000, where a two-bedroom apartment rents for $1,200 a month, and where the median income in my riding is $43,000, total household income. And this government wants to create more jobs to have reduced standards? That is not the way to create a healthy economy.

The way to build a healthy economy in this country is to have strong, family-sustaining, middle-class jobs with dental plans, pensions, medical plans, and job protection, jobs on which an individual can raise a family and maybe take a vacation once a year and actually be able to buy some goods and services in the community and support the business sector that this government claims to support.

If we do not have a strong working and middle class in this country, we do not have a strong economy. I wish this government would start to understand that.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and I have to say that the government is trying to bring together two parties that have been unable to reach an agreement. That has been demonstrated over the last eight months. The union went on strike, which caused huge problems for Canada Post. Canada Post then had a lockout. The labour minister has gone to extraordinary lengths to try to bring the two parties together. She has not been able to do so.

The same economy that the member espouses is experiencing great harm. Small businesses are experiencing great harm, particularly in rural and remote communities in the north. Individuals are not able to get their mail. Things that keep our country together are not being delivered.

Will the member stand up and support the government and its legislation to bring all the parties together and get our economy going again? Will the member support the government's initiative in a timely manner?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, what my honourable colleague left out is the fact that Canada Post locked out the workers. He fails to mention that the union offered to go back to work and back to the bargaining table if the corporation agreed to operate under the expired collective agreement, and the corporation refused. That would have allowed the mail to be delivered.

I cannot think of a more reasonable position for the union to have taken than that, but it was rejected by the employer. Of course it is no surprise it would be rejected by the employer, because there is no incentive for the employer to bargain in good faith with the union, since it knows the government has already said it will order workers back to work and give them lower wages than management has already put on the table. Where is the incentive for the employer to get back to the table?

I want to conclude by saying that a disturbing pattern is emerging in my time in Parliament. When I was elected in 2008, the first thing this government did was attack the public sector by attacking pay equity and rolling back negotiated wage settlements with the public sector. It also, by the way, reneged on its promise to pay RCMP officers the promised wage increases it claimed it would during the campaign.

When the Conservatives were re-elected in 2011, what was the first thing they did? They brought in draconian back-to-work legislation and attacked CUPW.

It is very important that we stand up against this attack on workers' rights in Canada.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, even though I am two hours late, I want to wish everyone a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

We are faced with a bizarre situation. Under the current government, Canada is the only country in the world where the money saved to stave off poverty in retirement is considered a nuisance.

That impression is so deeply ingrained among government MPs that the following question seems relevant: once the most powerful, the oldest, the most active, the most modern and the most democratic of Canadian unions has lost its right to a defined benefit pension plan, what will happen to the rest of the Canadian population?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is one of the reasons the NDP official opposition is taking this issue so seriously. There is a principle that what happens to one can happen to all. New Democrats believe it is very important on the official opposition side of the House that protecting the rights of workers in every situation is important.

Rights cannot be carved up. Rights either apply to all Canadians or they apply to nobody. It is very important that we recognize that and stand up for these rights, because if this government can unfairly attack the collective bargaining rights of CUPW workers, as has been pointed out by many of my colleagues, they can do it to anybody.

I want to conclude by providing a couple of facts, lest anybody thinks that Canada Post cannot afford this agreement. The Canada Post group recorded its 15th consecutive year of profitability, and its income before taxes in the last year we have figures for, 2009, was $319 million, an increase of $253 million from the previous year. At the bargaining table, of course unions have to be sensitive to the economic situation of the employer, but in this case the employer is on a sound financial footing.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, the debate has been going on for a while and many points have been made and made again. We have talked a great deal in broad generalities, and in order to move this debate ahead we should try to at least throw out some specifics, whether it is suggestions, ideas, or amendments. I know New Democrats have not wanted to go where amendments have gone before, but we should at least be talking about some generalities.

At the outset of the minister's presentation she gave a bit of a chronology, saying the contract lapsed January 31 and she appointed a mediator and she went through the sequence of events through to the tabling of the legislation.

That being said, when does one bring in the arbitrator, and when does one not bring in the arbitrator? We know the NDP has unionized staff, and we know they are currently without a contract. We also know that their last contract was served by arbitration. When is the perfect time to bring in an arbitrator?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

I ask for a little bit of order, please, in the House. This is a difficult issue, but I hope the debate can continue respectfully.

The hon. member for Vancouver—Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the real question is when are the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party going to actually respect their workers that they employ on the Hill here and voluntarily recognize the union to bargain for them to improve their conditions?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

What about you guys?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of cat-calling from the third party behind us, so I will elucidate for them.

The collective agreement that we have expired in March, and we are currently in collective bargaining, if that makes any sense to them. I would just urge them to start collective bargaining with their own employees. That would be a nice start.

What is very interesting as well and what is of interest to Canadians is the comparative price of the postal service in this country. Canadians enjoy one of the lowest prices for mail delivery of any country. To compare by the 20-gram rate in U.S. dollars, the U.S. is at 42¢; Canada is at 52¢; the U.K. is at 72¢; Japan is at 77¢; Germany is at 87¢; France is at 87¢; Austria is at 87¢; Sweden is at 93¢; Italy is at 95¢; and Finland is at $1.11. Canadians know they are getting excellent service at a very reasonable price, and that is because of the hardworking women and men who work for CUPW. Let us treat them respectfully.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.

I listened intently to the hon. member's treatise on labour law in Canada. It was a little bit like going to a labour law 101 lecture, and it was all very interesting. What I did not hear him talk about was what he heard from his constituents during the last general election a few weeks ago. When I went door to door, house after house, day after day, I heard people say “We just went through this terrible recession where lots of people lost their jobs. The economy is starting slowly to come out of the recession. It is fragile, and we need the economy to stay strong and we need you to do something about it.”

I do not hear anything from the other side. All evening I have not heard anything about what they want to do to keep the postal service running for the benefit of all Canadians and our economy--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

We must give the hon. member equal time.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a valid question, and I will tell you what I heard from my constituents who are concerned about the economy. They want good jobs. That is what they want. They want good, family-sustaining jobs. They do not want jobs that have 18% lower wages than currently exist. They do not want jobs where they have to work until they are 70 years old before they can retire. They do not want jobs that have inferior pension plans on which they cannot plan their future. They want good, middle class, sustaining jobs.

By the way, my riding is almost entirely small businesses, and the small businesses in my riding also want good, family-sustaining jobs, because it is those people who come to their stores and buy their goods and services.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise, although it perhaps is not an hour I would have chosen. It is not even prime time in British Columbia anymore.

I will begin by acknowledging that many Canadians go to work every day at this time. I acknowledge those who work as cleaners, those women and men across the country who clean our office buildings and our schools. It is not a very big sacrifice for me to be here at this time. They quite often work a second or third job to support their families.

I also acknowledge those who work in restocking the big box stores and the food stores across the country who often have to struggle to find child care at that time of the night so they can hold down the two or three jobs they need to afford housing and a better future for their children.

I acknowledge the health care workers, the health care professionals, the doctors, the nurses and the other professionals who work around the clock to help all of us enjoy better health. They are often working at this hour of the night.

In particular, I acknowledge the emergency services workers, the police, fire and ambulance, who are working at this hour of the night and quite often dealing with those problems that the rest of us do not deal with during the daytime, those problems of addiction and mental illness that we leave them to deal with at this hour of the night.

I also acknowledge those who serve in our military who work day and night around the clock to keep us safe and are quite often working at this hour.

On a normal day, postal workers would be working at this hour sorting the mail to help keep our economy running, sorting the mail to get it out to those seniors and charities who depend on the mail, and sorting the mail for small businesses in my riding that use Canada Post to deliver their products and make a profit to support their families.

For me, it seems late, but for many of those people, it is a normal time to go to work.

Why are we here tonight? I think there is one thing we share on both sides of this House. We share the importance of Canada Post to this country in so many ways.

I mentioned seniors and the disabled who wait for their cheques in the mail. I mentioned charities. Many workers receive their paycheques through Canada Post. Many small businesses do their business using the services of Canada Post. However, perhaps even more important to many families, they wait for Canada Post to hear from their family members across the country or abroad as a way of keeping in touch, one of the only ways they can afford when they are having trouble making ends meet at the end of the month.

One of the things I wish we would agree on is that Canada Post has done a fine job providing this service as a publicly-owned service that makes a profit on behalf of all Canadians while still delivering an excellent service that would not be delivered to so many communities if it were left to the private sector.

We clearly differ on some things tonight and I will talk about some of those differences.

One area on which we differ is the narrative of this dispute. The government likes to talk about these long negotiations but it leaves out the basic fact of those negotiations, which is that Canada Post was making a profit of $281 million. Where does that profit come from? It comes from the labour of those people who go to work every day and work hard to deliver that quality service that Canadians use. Therefore, when it comes time for collective bargaining, it is time to share some of that profit not just with taxpayers in general but with those people who go to work every day and work hard to ensure Canada Post is a profitable corporation. When they see the CEO being paid nearly half a million dollars, plus a 33% bonus, then it is not hard to understand why workers voted more than 94% for a strike to get their fair share of those profits. They voted for a strike because they are faced with a company that is trying to roll back their wages and roll back their benefits when there is no economic necessity to do so.

The second difference we have is in our understanding of what makes for a successful economy. The government seems committed to moving Canada to a low wage economy and thinking that somehow this will promote growth and prosperity in the future. I would like to remind all members in this House that Canada's greatest period of growth came in the 1950s and 1960s. What was that period in our history? That was our period of greatest equality in this country. It is equality and sharing the wealth that leads to economic growth and progress in the future.

The government's agenda is really something other than the financial health of Canada Post. I think it is to put us firmly on that path of a race to the bottom and a belief that this low-wage economy will somehow make us more competitive with other countries around the world, and that somehow this will produce the miracle of prosperity in the future.

I have heard from small businesses in my riding and they understand when workers do not have enough to make ends meet, do not have enough to go to the corner store to buy bread, do not have enough to pay for child care or do not have enough to buy houses. They know that an economy offering solid wages and providing a good living for families is the best way for small business to prosper as well.

There is a very important work that influenced me greatly over the last year called The Spirit Level , written by two British epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. The book's subtitle, Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, is very interesting.

The authors looked at the scientific evidence in 11 different areas of health and social measures. They looked at physical health, including how long people live and how often they are ill. They looked at mental health and what the frequency of mental health problems were in a society. On drug abuse they studied how high the addiction rates were. They looked at educational achievement and how long people stayed in school and how successful they were. They looked at the rates of imprisonment and how often people fell into conflict with the law. They looked at obesity, an increasing health problem in our own country. They looked at social mobility and how equal was a society and how likely were kids from different economic backgrounds able to succeed. They looked at social trust and whether people could trust their neighbourhood and feel safe in their neighbourhood and in their own homes. They looked at teen pregnancies and they looked at child poverty.

What did they find? They found that the countries that do best on the equality measures do best in every one of those 11 measures of social progress.

Thus, when we look at what is happening with Bill C-6, we see exactly the wrong remedy being applied for a successful society, not just economically but as a place all of us want to live and in which we want our children to live in the future.

The three key mechanisms for achieving equality are: a living wage, sound pension plans and equal access to education and health care. The problem for me with the bill that is before us is that it makes a very direct attack on two of those three key mechanisms.

The first of those mechanisms is obviously a living wage. I have heard people catcalling, which is perhaps the best description used by the hon. member, and asking why workers should earn these high wages and why postal workers earn this much money. They earn these wages because that is what it takes in our society to support a family. Their union has struggled to ensure they receive enough to make ends meet at the end of the month, to set a little bit aside for their retirement and to put some money away for their kids' education. That is what this is really about.

The government has brought in a proposal that suggests lower wages than Canada Post actually had on the table at the beginning of this dispute. This is an attack on a living wage in our society.

We will all do better and we will all be more prosperous when everybody can afford to make ends meet at the end of the month.

The second key mechanism for achieving equality is a sound pension plan. What does this proposal do? It says that we cannot really do anything about the fact that some workers have good pensions and those pensions cannot really be taken away from them. Instead, it could have tried to ensure that all workers enjoy a secure retirement future by doing something that would be very easy, which is to expand the Canada pension plan. The NDP campaigned very hard on that and we found a very broad agreement across the country.

Instead, this legislation proposes taking the new workers and denying them pension security in the future. That is the wrong solution both for economic and for social progress in this country.

I will return to the question of why this is important by telling members a couple of stories. My grandmother was a postal worker and her husband, my grandfather, was a self-employed plumber. When it came time to retire, if it had not been for my grandmother's postal worker pension, they would have had nothing. Why was that? It was because they did not earn enough to save and buy RRSPs and pay fees to Bay Street to manage their wealth. They donated heavily in their community to support very important church and community work in which they were involved. They raised four kids and tried to put through university. At the end of the day, if it had not for my grandmother's postal worker pension, they would have been living in abject poverty. However, because she had a pension, they were able to get by and live with dignity in their retirement. After my grandmother died, my grandfather was able to live, through a survivor benefit, on her pension.

In my family, we know the great importance of these public pension plans. What we had in my family, I very much desire every Canadian family to have, which is a secure retirement for their parents and their grandparents.

My second story is about postal workers in my riding. My letter carrier is Julie. We move rather frequently but we move within the same postal walk. Therefore, no matter where that mail is addressed to, Julie writes on the front, “Please change your address”, and puts it in our box anyway. She has become a great friend of ours over the last four to five years.

I have heard from her colleagues many times today and I want to cite one of them who asked to be named tonight. She said, “I want you to tell the government”, from Sherry Partington of Victoria, “yes, I want to go back to work, but I want to go back to work under a contract that is fair and negotiated and not forced down my throat by the government”.

I want to address another issue because the members on the other side have tried to turn this into a union worker versus a non-union worker kind of dispute. I am very proud to stand and say that I am a member and my dues are still current in my own union as a college instructor.

When I was on the campaign trail, I knocked on a door where a young man said to me, “Well, you're pro-union. What have unions ever done for me?” We talked about what the labour movement has achieved for all Canadians in this country through collective bargaining and through political action and alliance with the NDP. We had a lot to talk about. My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway has already mentioned some of these things, but I asked my constituent if he got sick pay at work. He said that of course he did. I said to him that he was not a union member and asked him where he thought the sick pay came from. I also asked him how many hours he worked a day and he replied that he did not work more than eight hours. I then asked him where he thought that came from and told him that it came from the union movement. I then asked him if he had weekends off and if he liked weekends. I then asked him whether he still thought the union movement never gave him anything.

We then went on to talk about holiday pay, overtime pay, extended health benefits, shift differential, pension plans, health and safety committees, parental leave, and now, many unions are leading the way on childcare, anti-discrimination and anti-harassment in the workplace. By the time we were done, he said that maybe he could vote for me after all because I had given him some important information on the contributions unions have made. He really did not know that history.

Therefore, I am very proud to stand here tonight. I believe we are still discussing the hoist. When other members ask why we are not moving amendments, it is because we are still on a hoist motion and, therefore, it is not the appropriate time to do that. However, I believe it is not too late for a deal here and it is not too late for the government to come to its senses. There are a couple of ways this could be done. If the government does not want to just take the lock off, end the lockout and let postal workers go back to work under the existing contract, as they offered to do, then there may be some other compromises that can be reached in this back to work legislation.

However, this debate is not just about the mail and not just about collective bargaining or union rights. This debate is about the kind of Canada in which we all want to live in the future: the vision we have for ourselves as a community and the vision we have for all of our children and our grandchildren to come.

Unions, particularly the postal workers union, have fought hard for decent pay and benefits to support their members' families. Locking out workers and imposing a contract tramples on those hard-fought gains. It turns back the clock. It sets dangerous precedents. Canada Post belongs to all Canadians and the benefits that go to Canada Post workers, we stand on this side and say, are the kind of benefits we should work to achieve for all workers in our great country.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member opposite in terms of what he was talking about in his riding. In particular, he talked about business and small business and wanting to ensure that they are helped in this process.

I've also heard from my own constituents. In fact, small business people are saying, “Get those guys back to work because we need to have postal service”. They send out invoices to get cheques, but they are not getting those cheques. I also have heard from other people, who are not employed, and they are saying to me that if the postal workers are not happy with $18 an hour they will take those jobs.

We know that the NDP is a very socialist left-wing party. We understand that. In fact, that party wants to ensure that it supports the union because it has a direct line to the unions. So I would ask that member what his party would do for businesses. We know that businesses need to get their cheques in and their invoices out.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I talked to one business person in my riding today by phone. I asked him if he realized that CUPW said it would continue to negotiate under the existing contract, and he said that really changes things, that maybe we do not need back to work legislation and maybe we do not have to stay here all weekend. The government could just let the workers go back to work and let them reach an agreement through free collective bargaining.

I also talked to a woman who runs a small business in Sooke in my riding. She very much depends on being able to mail out the products she produces. She does hand embroidery work and sells it all across the country and around the world. She uses Canada Post for shipping. What she said to me was that she understands why there is a dispute and, she said, “I just want it to get settled”. That does not mean she wants to take sides. She does not want to side with the workers or with Canada Post. She wants to see the process of bargaining go on so that there is a resolution. We all know that could start immediately if Canada Post would open the doors, go back to the table and negotiate in good faith.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was moved by the situation of my colleague's grandmother who used to work for Canada Post, because this brought back memories of my own youth in connection with another economic sector, that of construction, where my dearly departed father used to work.

Unfortunately, for many years in Quebec, given the impossibility of concluding agreements, the Quebec government simply decreed the working conditions that were in effect in the construction sector. This affected our family greatly. I remember that my mother was affected by it, and that it had an impact on her children.

Can my colleague tell me why, ultimately, postal workers are being prevented from negotiating with management?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I promise that in the near future I will be responding in French.

I think there is a misunderstanding among some members on the other side. The last hon. member asked me if the postal workers were not happy with $19 an hour. Let me tell members about $19 an hour in my community. The community social services council members sat down and asked what it would cost in greater Victoria for a single person with one dependent to rent a house, to pay for the basic costs of getting to work and getting a child to school, and to pay for food--nothing else.

Do members know what that costs in my riding? It costs $17.31 an hour, and that leaves nothing to put away for the future, nothing to put away for the kids' education, nothing for savings, nothing for emergencies, and nothing for a vacation. That $19 an hour in my community is not a princely wage.

Most workers in my riding who work for less than that have to work at more than one job, and that's with not just one parent working, but two. Many of them have three jobs between the two parents and very little time with their kids. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that somehow Canada Post workers have achieved some great princely sum of money when all they are getting is the amount that it takes to make sure a family can live a decent life in our society.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments but would like to state that this strike is essentially killing businesses. I would like to talk about one of the notes that I received from one of my constituents. I have it here. I actually received it today as a letter, not an e-mail.

My constituent stated: “I was enquiring to see if there was a need for constituent support for legislating the postal workers back to the job. As the comptroller of a rural business, we rely heavily on the mail system for our operations. The majority of our consumers are sole proprietors living in rural areas. To get invoices to and payments from them requires mail services. Electronic options are limited to the location and demographics of our customers. Without the mail delivery I'm struggling to keep everything balanced. We employ 13 people with well-paying skilled jobs without the option of union contracts, benefits or pension packages. It's frustrating to be held hostage by a powerful union fighting for wages and benefits that from the outside looking in seem already excessive.”

So my question for the member opposite is this. The official opposition has chosen a side in this dispute and it has been clear that it stands in solidarity with CUPW members. Can the member please explain to this House how he can justify his focus on just CUPW as opposed to the rest of the Canadian public, such as the rural folks in my riding of--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

I must give the hon. member equal time.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that perhaps the hon. member was not listening all that carefully to my speech, since I spent very little time actually talking about the union specifically as a union in this dispute.

I find it interesting that she received a letter today. Not many of the rest of us have.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Would the member like to see it? It's right here.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Perhaps it came through one of those private couriers.

I do acknowledge that this dispute is causing--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I am just wondering if my colleague is asking unanimous consent in order to table what she just pointed out in the letter. Is that what she is asking?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank you, but I did not hear the hon. member ask for any kind of unanimous consent. I am sure she understands that she can do that at any time.

The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I would say in response to the member's question is that I do understand that this dispute is causing hardship for many people, not just businesses. There are many other Canadians who depend on Canada Post. What I would say is that it appears that who is holding these people to ransom is the strong, stable, Conservative national government those members like to talk about, because that is who locked out these workers and shut down the postal services.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Very briefly, the hon. member for Saanich--Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to make this brief, but I want to thank my friend from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca for his presentation.

We have had some discussion in this House about the right to strike and the nature of the law in this country. It was a few speeches back, so I ask my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to forgive me for asking him if he can recall the B.C. hospital workers' case at the Supreme Court in the year 2007, which I believe made it very clear that governments cannot interfere in the basic rights of all workers, not just unionized workers. Labour rights are human rights. That is, I believe, the main ratio of that case, and if we recognize that, this legislation may well be illegal. I wonder if the member from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has a view on that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has 40 seconds to respond.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Let us see, Madam Speaker, if I have a 40-second view. What I would say is that I thank the hon. member for her question, and I think the important part of her question is to move the emphasis off this specious argument about right to strike, when what we are talking about is the right to free collective bargaining and the importance of that right in our society.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am looking at the clock, and I do not know whether to say it is 7:25 in the morning, which it would be if I were in England right now, or 11:25, which it would be if I were in B.C. Whichever it is, at this time I want to wish all my colleagues in the House a Bonne Fête nationale.

As we debate this very important issue, I want to take a minute to recap. What is it that we are talking about here today? We are talking about a crown corporation, not some entity that is off on another planet, but a crown corporation of a Canadian government, a crown corporation that makes a profit each year and last year made a very hefty profit of hundreds of millions of dollars that went back to support Canadians in other work. That is okay.

This same crown corporation went into negotiations with its employees as if it was taking a loss. That is what I find hard to understand. That company is making a profit and doing very well, but for the very people who help make that profit, who work 24-7 in shift work, who have given years of service, and who deliver mail to some of the remotest communities and keep our businesses going, what the corporation says when the parties get to the table is, “By the way, we are going to pay new people who start to work here 18% less”. Is that the respect we have for the next generation?

Are we saying to the next generation of workers that they are not going to get jobs with decent pay, that they are going to have to make do with a lot less, that they are not going to be able to afford to own a house, and that they are not going to be able to afford a decent living?

At the same time, that corporation turns to its workers and makes a direct attack on something that is dear to every Canadian: their old age security. It goes after their pensions, and not only theirs, but those of the next generation coming in.

When I was growing up, and I have been growing up for a long time and I'm still waiting to grow up, what I used to hear all the time was that with each generation things get better. That is what our parents worked very hard for. My parents immigrated to the U.K. They arrived there with a very young family. My father worked two or three jobs in order to give us an education and the kind of life that he thought would be better than the life he had had. He belonged to unions, absolutely, and instilled in us the importance of the collective: that when workers stick together, they make gains not only for themselves individually, but they make gains for everybody in society.

He also told me something else. He told me that things were going to get better for me and my children. I have a 13-year-old, although maybe she is a bit older than 13 now. By the way, if I was not here, I would be celebrating my 40th wedding anniversary this weekend. As it is, I could well be celebrating it with everyone here. As I look at my children and a lot of my colleagues in the House, and think of the hundreds and thousands of children I have taught over the years, it saddens me that things are actually getting worse for our youth. It saddens me that in this House the government is choosing to make things worse for our youth by reducing the starting wage, a differentiated wage. Those wages should be going up.

Hon. members have heard about the cost of housing in B.C. from my other colleagues. In the area where I live, the cost of housing is very high. As I went door to door, I met family after family, and these are the things I heard them say. They did not want a Rolls Royce, by the way. They did not ask for limousines. They were not asking for transnational holidays or even going overseas to sit by the beach and read a book. They were asking for decent paying jobs so they could go to work, come home, spend time with their families, support their kids through university and college and, at the same time, help to look after their parents. That is what the average Canadian told me as I went from door to door.

However, they also told me what their day-to-day lives were like. Many of them, by the way, used to have what many people call well-paying union jobs in the health care sector in B.C., but we have had a coalition government in B.C. Some members may know that coalition, because it is made up of Conservatives, Liberals and Social Credit Party members. They call themselves Liberals, but we know who they are, because they also went after working people and stripped their collective agreement and fired thousands and thousands of workers.

Later on, the Supreme Court found that to have been incorrect. It found it to be the wrong thing for the government to have done. Those workers, who used to make a decent wage, now have to work two full-time shifts doing exactly the same work. They get paid $9 to $12 an hour for something they used to get paid $18 to $20 an hour to do.

I heard stories of mothers, fathers and grandmothers who are working these two full-time jobs. They said, “We are getting sick to death of politicians telling us how important family is, because we do not have time to spend with our children”. Is that the way we want all working people in Canada to go? We want to have a race to the bottom, to reduce their hourly wages so they have to work two or three jobs. I really want to believe that not a single parliamentarian would want to do that.

I make a very handsome salary right now and would find it very hard to sit in this House and suggest that others can make do on $18 or less per hour. We are not talking about minimum wage any more, but we all need to talk about a living wage, because we know what the cost of living is like. Those are the kinds of things we need to talk about.

Let me get back to my narrative about this corporation, if my colleagues across the room would just give me a little of their attention. A corporation making a huge profit asked its employees for clawbacks of their rights, salary and old age security. Then in its wisdom, it put forward a salary increase as well. Then, out of the blue, which is the part I find hard to explain to my grandchildren, the government stepped in. It first needed a reason to step in, so Canada Post locked the door on its employees, knowing full well there was a government waiting to step in with legislation. Not only did the government step in with legislation, but it also now says that an arbitrator is going to come in and there will be a final offer. However, even that is not enough for the government.

What Canada Post employees have now been offered is a lower hourly wage increase than they had been offered by Canada Post. How can the government be wanting to move things toward a resolution?

Though it was not supported by the 4.5 million Canadians who voted for this side of the House, this is a government that wants to use its majority to smack working people on the head by saying, yes, the corporation is making a profit and, yes, we benefit from that as Canadians but, no, the workers have to pay the price because we need to extract more profits.

I just do not see how that is the right or fair thing to do. I also wonder what productivity is going to be like in that corporation when there is a settlement.

There is one truth, by the way, that I have learned in my lifetime, that whenever there is strike between labour and management, there is going to be a settlement at some time. There will be a settlement.

When a settlement is imposed externally by legislation, I can say from personal experience that the impact on the workers and on productivity is huge.

I am a teacher. I also come from B.C. I am used to being legislated by government, not once, but twice by a coalition Liberal-Conservative government. I know the impact it had on teachers in that province, what it did to morale, what it did to people who were not able to teach and the impact it had on students' learning.

This week a report was released that said a very high percentage of Canadian workers are depressed at their workplace. If the Conservative government believes it has found an antidote to depression, this legislation is not it. I would really urge the government to go and have another consultation to see what that would look like.

Once again, if we want to have employees who are productive, happy at their work and who will give their all, let them negotiate their own collective agreements. By imposing a collective agreement on this group of employees, what the government is doing is taking away one of their fundamental rights, their right to negotiate their own labour.

Surely that is not too much to ask for. It is not too late for the government to see daylight, which will soon be upon us. It is not too late for it to say to Canada Post, “Take off the lock. Let the workers go back to work”. They have agreed and will work under the contract. Furthermore, “Go back to the negotiating table. If need be, call in a mediator”. Let the two sides negotiate an agreement.

That is all it would take from the government, which would send a huge signal to working people in this country that they actually had a government that respected working people and a government that believed in free collective bargaining.

We hear a lot from the government about the free market. Let us use those same principles in this bargain. Let the bargain take place without any government interference.

I will tell a small story about a young man I used to teach. He would come into my class. He had a family background that was very heavily into business in the north end of Nanaimo. His parents were very business-centred and had no time for unions and said “You are going to be teaching this unit about unions to our kids, and we really do not want our son to learn anything about the union movement because he is not going to be a worker. He is going to move into the business world”. I discussed this with them and said if that were so, their son had nothing to lose by learning about the union movement.

I spent about three months going over the industrial revolution and the reasons the unions were formed. I mentioned that it was to make a level playing field, so that employers would not abuse employees and people would not get killed on the job, or work 20 hours a day, and so that kids would not be sent into the mines. It was for all of those reasons.

When we had finished that unit, the parents came to the school. They came into my classroom and said they wanted to thank me. I asked what I had done, and they said they wanted to thank me because their son came home and they had a conversation about how to grow their business and what they had to do and how they had to look after the needs of working people as well, the people they employed.

That young man went on to manage his family business and I am still in touch with him and he still tells me that it was an amazing unit that he did.

I wish my colleagues across the room would also realize that we do not have to demonize unions. What we need to do is to celebrate people who work collectively, people who realize that to build a strong Canada, to build our health care system and our education system and to have decent pensions, we must stand as a collective.

Whether we are unionized or not, this is about the rights of working people to earn a decent wage. This is about average Canadians and their right to live in Canada in a way they can support their families and not have to go to food banks. This is about our youth having a future that will be a little rosier than it looks right now. If not for ourselves, let us please think of our children and grandchildren.

I ran in this election because I wanted to help build a better Canada than we have today, where health care is stronger, education is stronger and old age security is stronger.

I read a book a long time ago that said this: “One judges a society by how well it looks after its young, its old, its sick, its disadvantaged”.

Colleagues, I would say that the CUPW discussions are about exactly that. As Canadians and parliamentarians, we cannot fail our children, our grandchildren and our working people, so I ask everyone to stand with us.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, the members opposite and this member have been talking about the need for workers to have high quality, high paying jobs. That is precisely what our government has been doing over the last 30 months. In fact, we have had the best economic job-creating engine in the developed world.

Do not take it just from me. Take it from the latest release from the labour force survey of June 10, some two weeks ago, from Statistics Canada. It says that over the past 12 months, full-time employment rose by 224,000 jobs while part-time employment was up 50,000 jobs. In other words, for every one part-time job the Canadian economy created in the last 12 months, we created five full-time jobs.

These are not just low quality, low paying jobs. These are good jobs. On May 9, CIBC released its economics report by Benjamin Tal. I will just quote from that.

It says:

More than 60% of the full-time jobs created since April of last year have been high-paying positions.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will say this. I live in Newton—North Delta and if these jobs exist, I wish many of them were in Newton—North Delta. I have talked to many of my other colleagues from around the country, and they do not find them there either.

I have told the House stories of women and men in my riding working two full-time jobs, eight hour shifts, and working at $9 to $12 an hour. That is the kind of jobs they are working at.

Nobody has denied that this strike led to a lockout. Nobody has denied that it was a rotating strike that led to a lockout.

The lockout is about reducing wages for people who are working, for current jobs. No matter how often we are told that the job market has grown in Canada, I want to know where those jobs are.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the hon. member speaks with great sincerity. I know of her from British Columbia. I listened to her speech and in fact I have sat here and listened to a lot of the speeches made by the hon. members of the New Democratic Party. They are sincere and I know that they believe in what they say.

I want to ask a question though. The question is simply this. I am a physician. As far as I am concerned, what is done must result in a positive outcome and one that will change the status quo. I do not understand standing in the House and repeating those same things over and over. The point is made.

We in the Liberal Party actually agree with everything that the NDP is saying. It is not only its members who have any sort of hold and great ambition for the workers. The Liberals also believe that workers need their rights. We believe that the government has been extremely intrusive and heavy-handed in this piece of legislation. It has intervened itself at the table and it has set some restrictions on arbitration or on bargaining that are unfair.

We agree and want the outcome to be a win-win. I am listening to a lot of discussion here that in the end will change nothing. It will be a lose-lose. I would like to suggest that if all of us really do care about a win-win answer, one that will support the needs of Canadians and that will also support the rights of the workers, then we should do something about it.

The Liberal Party has some amendments here. I would like to see us go to the amendments. They are solutions. If the government says that it has goodwill, then let us see it listen and change its mind and show goodwill by listening to those amendments. Let us get to a resolution instead of the talk.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really glad that my Liberal colleagues agree with everything the NDP is saying.

However, I do want to say that it has been a Liberal-Conservative coalition in B.C. that has time and time again gone in and stripped collective agreements and forced workers back to work with back-to-work legislation.

We are here today, and I can tell members that I am not wasting my time. I am here today even though it is my 40th wedding anniversary and my husband's 60th birthday, because I absolutely believe that the rights of all working people, and not just unionized working people, have to be defended.

We are going to continue to speak and advocate for as long as we have breath. We will continue to do so. This is not an inconvenience. This is a necessity, folks.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find this debate wholesome and informative, and I intend to stay here until the end of this debate.

I also appreciated the speech and comments by my colleague. I do not have a labour union background. My family is not from labour unions. For a short time I was in a labour union.

I am wondering if my colleague could tell me about the effect that a lockout has on workers and on morale within companies.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot about letters arriving by pigeon or somehow. I have also heard about people getting emails and tweets and Facebook messages. I have actually been receiving emails as well.

I have been receiving emails from postal workers who are asking me to speak up for them. They want me to be their voice, and to not let the government do this while I remain silent. They are counting on me.

All of us are getting emails very similar to that. I will say that when I hear people talking about the inconvenience, asking why we are here, it actually saddens me.

Standing up for rights, whether it is for ourselves or others, is an absolute honour and privilege. As an NDPer, I feel absolutely privileged to have the opportunity to speak up for the rights of workers who are being legislated back to work by government legislation that absolutely disrespects collective bargaining and disrespects even the deal offered by the employer. The government has gone in and been intrusive in a way that is way beyond what is acceptable in a free and democratic society.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, also from my home province of British Columbia, seems to have a selective memory.

The NDP government also legislated union workers back to work, just as it did to the British Columbia Teachers' Federation.

Why is it that when the NDP government is in power it uses legislation to put union workers back to work and that is acceptable to the NDP, but it is not acceptable when it is in opposition? Why does the NDP have a double standard?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend over there for that wonderful question. I really do want to thank him.

The member knows my history and has heard me speak many times before. When an NDP government legislated, I stood out there and spoke. I was on television and radio, and I went out publicly and I spoke out because it was the wrong thing to do then, and as far as I am concerned workers need to be allowed to work out negotiations between the two parties. I believe in that today as well, and that is what I am sticking up for.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I would first like to say, as a Hamiltonian facing a similar situation in which workers are being locked out, I just wish the government were as quick to take on U.S. Steel as it is to take on the workers at Canada Post, and that it would order that company back to the bargaining table and put almost 1,000 workers back to work who have been locked out because of the policies of the government. I wish the government would start with Hamilton before talking about improvements it thinks it is making.

Next, I want to state a couple of things I think are important here. First, Canada Post is profitable: $281 million. Yes, some of that is due to management decisions. However, one cannot deny that the workers who work at Canada Post have played a significant role in ensuring that Canada Post is profitable for the Canadian people. The workers have contributed to the profitability of Canada Post and now the government uses economics as an argument to say it has to bring in this legislation. It has been said over and over that this is a lockout, and I say to the government members that they are going to hear it a lot more over the next 10 to 20 days.

The fact is that the union began rotating strikes. That is a tactic that is meant to put pressure on management at the bargaining table. It is not meant to cripple the organization. Before the government introduced its legislation, the union offered to end its rotating action and to go back to work while negotiations continued, and all it asked was that the management continue to enforce the current collective agreement. Had that happened, the rotating strikes would have ended, the management and union would be at the bargaining table, and we would not need to be here dealing with this mean-spirited legislation.

One of my colleagues over here talks about eight months. That is just about the same length of time the U.S. Steel workers have been out too. Why is it okay that after eight months of negotiation, while Canada Post is still working, the government has to bring in legislation but those steelworkers and their families are out there without a paycheque for over eight months? That is okay somehow. They can stay out there. The government is not worried about the economic damage to them and their families in my community in Hamilton.

It is also interesting that the company or the government or management, which are pretty much all the same in this circumstance, wants to reduce the amount that the workers were offered in free and fair collective bargaining, saying that it has to constrain costs. Yet, it is okay to pay the CEO over $661,000. The Conservatives are going to go after the workers at Canada Post for nickels and dimes and pennies and anything else they can possibly get. It is okay for the CEO to make that kind of money but not for the people who are actually out there doing the work everyday. That is just not right.

Let us also keep in mind that we have legislation here that would reduce the amount of money that is already on the bargaining table. That alone justifies our being here and holding up this legislation for as long as we possibly can. How can that be right?

How can it be right that there is a negotiated agreement on a wage piece, and the government takes the opportunity to bring in back-to-work legislation and in that same legislation reduces the amount that was offered? That is not fair, and everybody knows that it is not fair. That is another good reason for us to be here and to stand firm with the workers at Canada Post.

There has been some talk that maybe the government is getting ready to soften up the company to sell it and privatize it. There is actually evidence that it has already started. It has already started.

Here come the facts. I hear one of the members asking for facts, and I appreciate that.

We all know that Canada Post has a very difficult job in terms of providing the same level of service to the far reaches of our country for the same price one pays if a letter or envelope is going only halfway across a city. That is not easy to do. It is a big country in terms of providing service.

The legislation mandates that Canada Post has to be financially self-sufficient. A number of years ago, some private entities decided that they were going to horn in on that business, because there was money to be made. It was the issue of remailing. I will not get into what that is, but postal workers know what that is. It is an important component of what Canada Post does.

Canada Post, at that time, still defended the fact that all that work belonged to it and that it needed the profitable pieces to pay for the parts of Canada Post that were not profitable, because it has to deliver to the far locales we have in Canada. Canada Post took these small companies to court saying that they were infringing on its business, that it had a legal mandate to do all this work, and that the other companies were doing it. Canada Post asked the court to please stop them. The lower court agreed.

Being the fine citizens they were, the private entities that lost the case appealed to the appeal courts. The appeal courts, guess what, supported the fact that Canada Post is entitled to all of the work it does, if for no other reason than because of the economic aspect of having to be financially self-sustaining. In the beginning, the minister defended it and said that this work should not be done by anyone other than Canada Post and that the government would continue to pursue that policy. Then it changed.

We suspect that the lobbying started big time, because all of a sudden, government policy changed. To their credit, the Liberals were on the same page at that time and supported Canada Post. The Conservatives continued that when they came to power. When it changed, it was a huge change.

What did the government do to these companies that were taking away the lawful work of Canada Post? It introduced a bill that would legalize what they were doing. It would legalize the work it had been fighting in the courts to keep at Canada Post. The government brought in a bill, after it flip-flopped, that would make the work that was taken from Canada Post legal. The Liberals supported that legislation, but the bill died, because there was either a prorogation or an election.

The Conservatives introduced another bill to make it legal, and the Liberals supported that bill, too.

They then ran into another storm, and we in the NDP were part of that storm and fought to defend Canada Post in maintaining the work it needed to have to be financially self-sustaining. When they ran into that storm, do members know what they did? It was rather typical of the government. They stuffed it into a budget bill so that it would not be a stand-alone bill any more and would not get the attention of the Canadian people. The opposition parties could not point to it and say that the government was privatizing Canada Post already, because, quite frankly, in the context of a broader budget, it was one piece.

Now, as we debate this today, it is lawful for that work to have been taken from Canada Post, which makes it that much more difficult for Canada Post to remain financially viable.

When we raise the issue of the government not really caring about Canada Post and its services, we think there is darn good evidence to support that, up to and including the legislation here today that is taking away wages that were already properly and fairly negotiated at the bargaining table. That is the kind of government we have here. That is the kind of attitude it has towards Canada Post, and that is the kind of attitude it has towards working people who are just trying to get a decent collective agreement and go on with their lives. That is all they are looking for.

We were saying earlier that we thought others may need to keep their eyes open, because the government is coming after them. Talk to my friend from Sudbury about what went on at Vale Inco and the damage that was done there and the economic harm that was done to those workers and their families and the community of Sudbury. It was all because the government refused to stand up for the community and the workers at the time and allowed the takeover. It was not much different from what happened with U.S. Steel.

Here we have a government in the early days saying that people do not need to worry, that they are not scary, that people do not have to worry about them, and that they are not hard right wing. Yet here they are, at three o'clock in the morning, trying to defend not just back-to-work legislation, which in and of itself is always problematic, but a vicious attack on those workers and their negotiating rights.

I cannot get past the fact that there is a government that would stand up and say that it is okay to take away, through legislation, something that barely was dry on the page in terms of negotiating. Why would the government do that? The answer we get from the Prime Minister is that it has to make sure that everything is in line with the rest of the public sector. The difficulty there is that Canada Post is part of the government. The government sets out the parameters for all of government.

The mandate was there. The people at the head of Canada Post know where the government is at and what its thinking is. They also know that they are sitting on at least $281 million in profit. They offered what they thought was, I would assume, a fair offer of a wage settlement, and it was agreed to. That is not the whole contract. Things can change. I have been in bargaining too. However, that is what happened. They had an agreement. They understood the mandate.

For the government to come around now and say that it cannot live by what Canada Post has negotiated does not make any sense. It makes about as much sense as the government saying that the main reason it is bringing in this legislation is because of the economic damage being done by Canada Post not being at full service, while it is the one that locked the door. Come along. If the government wants to get Canada Post working again, open the door. The workers will be there.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I suspect that the days will go on, and we will be here for a while.

[An hon. member]

How many days will it be?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I hear one of the members asking how many days it will be. I do not know exactly how many days it will be. I just know that 102 other New Democrat MPs and I are prepared to stay here and hold this up as long as we possibly can, night and day and weekend. We will do all we can, because it is just so wrong.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think we are finding some unity in the House. I am not sure that it is what I was attempting to do, but if that is what happens, we could use some unity around here.

The fact is that what we are really worried about is the tenor that is being set in this country as employers see what is happening here.

We all know about the fights going on to save pensions and to save defined benefits. We are losing that battle. It breaks my heart to say it. I believe that there are a lot of working people and working families out there who are moving from defined benefit to defined contribution plans, and their dignity in retirement is predicated on whether they are good at stock market management and guessing.

How many people here did not feel the pain of seniors when the tech bubble burst in 2000? Those people were 69 years old, and by law, they had to convert their RRSPs. They were forced to turn them into annuities, and those annuities were worth about half of what they were just six months before. Why did those people lose half their income for retirement? What is the answer? There is none. There is none as long as the stock market decides.

We are so much better off as a country when we have defined benefits. Yes, leave it to the corporations. They can hire the best advisors and all the best brokers and analysts, who, by the way, do not get it right. How can Canadians be expected to guarantee that they will have $1 million or three-quarters of a million dollars in their portfolios, when people who make half a million dollars a year doing it get it wrong? That is not right.

Our worry on this issue is that working people in this country are going to lose a little more ground. We will not see it in a few weeks or a few months and probably not even in a few years. However, in five, 10, 15, or 20 years, as people begin to retire, particularly the younger boomers, who were affected by the switch from defined benefits to defined contributions, and begin to cash in their RRSPs when they are close to 70 years old, they will find out that even though they worked longer, maybe 50 years, the dignity they thought they should have in retirement, that they could have had, that they are entitled to, is not there, because the stock market crashed at a bad time for them.

Who do they blame? Where do they take that anger? Where do they take the fact that they cannot have the standard of living they are entitled to as retirees? Where do they go? Because there is no answer to where they can go, the best we can do is make sure that we are here, in the people's place, taking on these fights as best we can and start turning things around so that people have hope for the future, not despair. They can think that maybe there is a government that is on their side or is at the very least not their enemy.

We can do so much better as a country in terms of the approach we are taking towards public service, towards our public institutions, and certainly towards those Canadians who work in those public institutions.

I am proud to be here tonight. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with every one of my NDP colleagues as we take on the government and this bad, vicious legislation.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend's comments, which ebbed and flowed like the great tides. He spoke with tremendous passion. I give him that.

To be quite frank, we have heard a number of comments about vicious attacks on individuals. I heard several references to hating working people. There is no need to delve into that kind of rhetoric in this discussion.

We have heard about who is being hurt. Reference has been made to seniors by members on all sides. We have heard about small businesses, in rural communities in particular, that are predominantly dependent on mail, because there are a lot of places in the country that still do not have access to high-speed Internet.

However, there is another group that is being hurt, and I believe that I will be forgiven for mentioning them here tonight. They are the men and women of the Canadian Forces, who receive cards and letters from loved ones, such as their children, their spouses, and their support back in Canada. I would like the hon. member to address this quite specifically. It is a very serious question.

During a break in the action, mail is perhaps the one thing they look forward to at the end of a long day when they have been out on patrol. They come back to their forward operating bases with the hope that they might have a letter from home. That ceases when the mail is not flowing.

I would ask my hon. friend to say something about the Canadian Forces who are serving us overseas as we approach Canada Day, hoping that they might receive a letter from home. If that is not reason enough to bring this debate back to a serious level, then I can think of nothing that will.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I thank the hon. minister for the tone of the question and the substance of it. I am pleased to provide the best answer I can because I agree it is serious. Believe me, there is not an MP in the House who is not riveted and focused 100% on the best interests of the Canadian armed forces.

First, the government has the key. Unlock the door, the workers will go back to work and everyone will get their mail.

Second, though there could be disagreement on this and I accept that, though I suspect maybe not, I believe those fellow Canadians are there because they love our country and they are patriots. How could one be more patriotic than putting one's life on the line, particularly if leaving a family behind and putting oneself at that risk?

I believe that most of those soldiers in Canadian uniform are there fighting for the kinds of principles we are talking about this evening and for the kind of democracy they want Canada to be. Though I stand to be corrected, I believe most of them would understand, because a lot of them are working people, that fellow working people are just doing the best they can to have a decent income and to have a fair collective agreement.

Again, I thank the hon. minister for the tone of his question, which we have not had a lot of tonight and it was appreciated.

My third point is that after World War II, it was the soldiers who came back and found there were no jobs for them, there was no housing for them and the things they needed to raise their families and to be a part of the community were not there. It was that generation of soldiers that came back during the 1940s and 1950s and went out on the picket line and put everything on the line to create the unions we are here tonight defending.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really struggling tonight. This is a very polarized debate tonight. One side feels it is right and the other feels it is wrong. When there is a polarized debate, we end up hurting those we are trying to help.

I have also learned a lot about my new colleagues and their history, even about their grandparents, which is nice to learn. However, we need to focus on solutions.

My background is as a scientist. We look for solutions. I am hearing about history instead of hearing solutions regarding a living wage, pensions and improving well-being. I would like to hear real, evidence-based solutions from the hon. member rather than the polarization.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the tone of the question, too.

The evidence is there. The leader of our party committed that we were prepared to do work. It is not a secret that there have been discussion going on in the background. People of goodwill are trying to find a way through this. However, in the absence of that solution, we, on these benches, have two choices. We can either fold and collapse and give up and let this go through, or we can do what we are doing, which is standing up and fighting.

There is still hope that there will be an agreement either between the government and the opposition in some way that we could resolve where we are right now, or even better, if we could get an agreement from the management of Canada Post and the union representing the workers because there would be no need for this debate in either of those two cases.

With the greatest respect, in the absence of either of those two negotiated settlements, even in a democracy sometimes one has to stand up and fight to defend what is right.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I turn to the question that was put earlier to the hon. member, and to the tone of my colleague across the floor to our party generally, about the kind of approach we would take in making decision if we were in government. What troubles me is the government does not seem to be taking into consideration the people who are hurt by this legislation and by previous government decisions.

I sat in the House in the last Parliament and heard colleague after colleague say that their rural post offices were being shut down. In my constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona, Canada Post is threatening to reduce the hours of the post office, closing it at 5:00 p.m. Workers cannot get to the post office by then. The government talks about seniors being able to mail a letter or seniors who have to go back to work. How will they get to the post office to mail their letters and buy their stamps? Could the member speak to the bigger issue of public interest?

I come from a province where this is an ongoing debate, and the debate is becoming quite serious. When the government makes decisions in the public interest, of whom is it really thinking?

One has to think about the ramifications of a decision like locking out the postal workers in a situation when some of the complaints by the postal workers are hours of work being reduced and post offices being shut down so there will be less work. It is not just a case of wages and pensions, they are seriously concerned about the continued delivery of this public service.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the two words that jumped out at me was “public interest”. I was a former critic for the post office, so I am familiar with the closures, cutbacks and implications for communities.

I will say this as sincerely as I can within this context. One of the things that would make a huge difference would be if Canada Post did a lot more outreach and consultation with communities. I know it does some and has some formula, but the union does not feel it has been given an opportunity to have a say. The union will not make the decision, management will, but it would like to have some input. The workers are the experts. They are the ones out there doing the job every day. Communities are affected.

The reason we hear it as a complaint in anger is because it is always after the fact. People go to their local post office and suddenly it is closed or there is a notice that it will close. Their cousins who work at the local post offices have been cut back in hours and laid off and there is not as much service. Everybody wants to know what happened, what is going on, especially when they see the corporation is still making $281 million a year.

Therefore, there should be a little more consultation and an understanding that Canada Post is a public interest as much as it is a tool to carry out business. There is a huge public interest here and there needs to be more consultation with the people for whom this corporation exists.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think everyone in the House knows that we are currently debating a hoist motion on Bill C-6. The hoist motion goes back to Westminster. It has been around for about 150 or 160 years. When the Leader of the Opposition moved the motion yesterday evening, it was done advisedly.

The hoist motion is specifically designed to deal with legislation that is either premature, irresponsible in its nature, or just plain bad legislation. It is a motion that should not take up the time of the House for any one of those three reasons. Bill C-6 meets all three requirements. It is premature, it is grossly irresponsible and it is plain bad legislation. Again, I say that advisedly.

Today is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. We and the members of the Bloc Québécois have tried on several occasions to convince the government to adjourn today so that the members, especially those from the province of Quebec, could return to their ridings to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. But the government refused.

It is irresponsible on the government's part to do that. It is a national holiday for the francophone community in Quebec and across the country. Bringing the bill forward at this period of time shows that the government does not know what it is doing. The government believed it could shove this down our throats. Because Saint-Jean-Baptiste is June 24, it thought we would buckle and give in to that intimidation. That is also a typical bullying tactic for which the government is well known.

This is a bad bill, so the hoist motion should proceed successfully, I would urge. It is a very clear interference by a government in the collective bargaining process.

The NDP has a long history of opposing this type of legislation. We recognize that there are times when this will come forward. Even by those standards, using the standards of the Conservative government or a Liberal government, this bill is premature.

It is also incredibly naive on the part of the government. It shows a serious lack of understanding of how the collective bargaining process works. It so clearly and blatantly takes one side, not only on this bill, but on the bill that was before us last week with regard to Air Canada. A very clear signal goes out to the management side. It should not worry about bargaining in good faith. It should not worry about performing its job on the management side, of engaging their employees in proper collective bargaining. All it has to do is create either the appearance of, which is usual in these two cases, a crisis or create an actual crisis by its conduct. If management does that, it knows the government will step in. Not only will it step in, it will step in and take management's side. There is no other message from the government that one could take, based on these two pieces of legislation in these last two weeks.

The government has made it very clear, both from the bill we saw last week with regard to Air Canada, and Bill C-6 this week with regard to Canada Post. There were clauses in the bill last week, and I say this as a lawyer who has looked at a lot of collective agreements over the years, that could very easily have been written by the management side. There are clauses in Bill C-6 that similarly could easily have been written by Canada Post, entirely in its interest and entirely against the interest of its employees.

We have heard repeatedly this evening of the clause. It gets back to the intimidation the government uses all the time. It is saying to the workers that since they did not take what was offered to them on June 9, they will get less now.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

You should've signed the deal.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That heckle is typical of the attitude of the government. It is typical of the ignorance that t shows. Members opposite say on this one that they should have signed the agreement, but what about the other clauses that are very much against the interest of the union membership.

From a profitable corporation they are asking for clawbacks of a significant nature, changing the collective bargaining arrangement that has some clauses that have been in place for over 20 years, and over a series of collective agreements during that period of time. In spite of their profitability the government is saying it is going to take that away and they are going to lose some of the benefits.

We could go down the list. There are a number of them that Canada Post has asked that of.

I want to deal with another issue with regard to the bill and why it is just bad legislation. This bill, as opposed to using the traditional mediation-arbitration clauses as contained in most back-to-work legislation, has completely done away with that in Bill C-6 and replaced it with final offer selection.

In the last two to five years in Canada and in the United States, we could go back and find studies, decisions by labour boards and decisions by courts that have said that the use of final offer selection works fine when you have a professional athlete, when you have a very small workforce. It does not work, and it has been shown repeatedly, when there is a large workforce and a complex collective agreement.

That is what the government is trying to force on the parties with this legislation. Final offer selection almost always works to the benefit of the management side. The government knows that. It has decided that as a policy. In all back-to-work legislation we are going to see from the government it is going to enforce that in every single one of them, in spite of those decisions from the labour boards and our courts.

The hoist motion is very appropriate here. I would urge all members of the House to support it when it comes to a vote some time in the next 24 hours.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I was certainly encouraged to hear the member talking about evidence-based solutions. We are hearing this now in the wee hours of the night. When we ask that question of the NDP opposition, it is only going to be their solutions that are satisfying to them.

We heard much earlier in the evening about talking from the heart, and new members of Parliament being here. I, as a new member of Parliament, would rather talk from my heart and not from scripted notes that we had a feverish debate on earlier.

I would like to say that back in 1910, Inspector Fitzgerald of the RCMP led a group of RCMP officers from Fort McPherson to Dawson City to deliver the mail. That became famously known as the Lost Patrol. That issue, that commitment to deliver the mail, was done because they understood the needs of communication and commerce in the north. They did so on December 21, four days from Christmas.

They were not battling pensions. They were not worrying about wages. They were doing this because they understood how important commerce and communication was to the north and to the people of Canada.

Can the member please tell us, where have we lost that idea that this service to the north is so important? What is so wrong with a Conservative government trying to protect that and re-instill that for Canadian people?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know he is a new member of the House, and it is probably not fair for me to say this to him so I will say it to the two ministers who are here.

I would suggest to the member that he walk across the chamber and tell those two ministers to do their job. He should ask them to go to the Prime Minister and tell him to pick up the phone, call the CEO of Canada Post, and tell him to unlock the doors, honour the collective agreement, and go back to the negotiating table. If he wants to get something done and he wants it done right now and he wants to get those workers back to work who want to work, that is what he should do.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the intimidation theme referenced by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and, also, to come back to a question from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands earlier.

It strikes me that the legislation is probably unconstitutional. It strikes me, also, that my friends across the aisle would not be particularly concerned about it because they are going to have this collective agreement enforced long before the courts will be in a position to judge the constitutionality of the legislation.

Given the member's expertise in this area, I would invite his comments on my observations with respect to the constitutionality and whether it matters to those proposing the bill.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the House, and anybody out there who is watching, that I am not allowed to give opinions any more. The Law Society of Upper Canada has told people like myself who have withdrawn from practice not to give opinions.

Having said that, the reality though is that I do not think the current law would be unconstitutional. In the case of the decision that came out of British Columbia, the government there was tearing up a contract. There is no contract here. That is obvious. It has expired. That is the difference in that case.

I do not see a constitutional argument here at all or a Charter of Rights and Freedoms argument.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today, this evening, tonight, to debate a bill that is totally premature. It is truly our duty, as the opposition, to object strenuously to this piece of legislation.

I live in a lovely riding far from Ottawa. We have many extremely proud residents. We have fishermen and artists. We have aboriginal communities, the Mi'kmaq in particular. We are independent, but we also stand united. Because of our remoteness from large urban centres, we understand what solidarity truly means. We depend on our neighbours, on our business people. Each of them has a place, and each of them makes an invaluable contribution.

When a member of our community is wronged, we all lose. We depend on their services; we depend on every taxpayer and every public servant. We depend on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The closure of the rescue centres in Quebec City and Newfoundland and Labrador will cost us dearly. The government seems to be saying that those who live in the regions are less important.

In the regions, we depend on our port infrastructure. It worries us when the government tries to convince municipalities to assume responsibility for ports, when they cannot afford to maintain or even improve them. We depend on Environment Canada. We expect the minister to fulfill his role when public health is at risk, when outside companies come in to exploit our natural resources without seeking the consensus of our communities.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that we are debating Bill C-6 this morning. I did not realize that it would maybe turn into a Friday free-for-all. The member has not yet mentioned the bill in question that we are debating in his presentation. Perhaps he could get to the subject at hand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would urge the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep his remarks to the motion before the House.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker. I began by speaking about Bill C-6 and I will continue to speak about it. I am trying to provide some context.

I was saying that this same spirit leads us to support letter carriers in their demands. We are a united people. Post offices are the cornerstones of our communities in the regions. They are indispensable for communication between communities. We depend on them for affordable communications, to communicate amongst ourselves and to communicate with other Quebeckers and other Canadians. It is an essential service and the daily prejudice that we are subject to is intolerable.

The letter carriers in our communities understand that we depend on their services. They have never failed to give us excellent service. Throughout their negotiations with Canada Post, they continued to sort and deliver our mail. It is easy to understand why. These people are part of our community. They are our brothers, sisters and neighbours. They are just as much a part of our community as our other constituents. They know that, without them, we all lose.

Right now families cannot communicate with one another. Small and medium-sized businesses are having a hard time getting paid for services they have provided. Seniors are not receiving their benefits. Unemployed people are having a hard time receiving their benefits. The workers are not the ones preventing the mail from being delivered. During the negotiations, they made sure that the mail was delivered. It was the employer, Canada Post, that declared a lockout. The Conservative government is the one trying to force them back to work. Canada Post Corporation—a crown corporation—and our government seem to have forgotten that the workers offered to go back to work. What is worse, the bill before us would impose a lower salary offer.

I want to quote a statement from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers:

The bill legislates wage increases that fall significantly below Canada Post’s last offer of 1.9% in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and 2.0 % in 2014. The law includes increases of 1.75 % in 2011, 1.5% in 2012, 2% in 2013 and 2% in 2014. This would take $875.50 out of the pockets of an average full-time postal worker during the four years of the agreement. It represents a theft of $35 million from postal workers and their families.

It is shameful. Postal workers work hard to guarantee a good, reliable, profitable service, a crown corporation service that generates a profit for the Canadian government. It is a corporation that provides an essential service, and that is able to do so reliably and even generate a profit. Should we not rather get the workers involved, motivate them, and show them we appreciate them by giving them an appropriate salary that reflects their contribution? We should also protect their pensions. Questions must be asked.

Our Canada Post Corporation employees in the regions provide exceptional service. They know us and we know them. They want to do their best to help us but the government wants to decrease their salaries and reduce the services.

I will quote the Canadian Union of Postal Workers once again:

On Saturday, September 12, 2009, the federal Conservatives quietly announced a Canadian Postal Service Charter that outlines the government’s expectations for Canada Post in regard to service standards and other matters.

The Charter largely reiterates existing policy and includes an expectation that Canada Post will maintain “the moratorium on the closure of rural post offices.”

The Charter also acknowledges that providing postal services to rural areas is an integral part of universal postal service.

While it’s a good start, the Charter isn’t altogether reasonable.

Retirement, illness, death, or the corporation's infrastructure—for example, the termination of a lease or even a fire—“may, nevertheless, affect the ongoing operation of a post office.”

Rural post offices are threatened. The post offices of , Quebec's Gaspé region have a long history. I would like to share some facts provided by Daniel Arpin, a philatelist. In 1705, in the territory we now call Canada, a postal service between Quebec City, Trois-Rivières and Montreal was established by the French regime. That same year, a postal service was established in New Carlisle—in my riding—in the Gaspé. In 1763, the service fell under the control of the British Empire and was managed by Benjamin Franklin. In February 1851, the New Carlisle postmaster created his own stamp, an unauthorized stamp, one that is much sought after by stamp collectors.

All that to say that the postal service has a long history in Canada and the Gaspé. Postal services are vital to our communities, but they are continually being whittled away. Rural mailboxes are being replaced by superboxes. Increasingly, we find ourselves collecting the mail on the side of the road, in places that could be dangerous. We are distancing ourselves from the rural post office that serves a community meeting place, and which is often the only place that flies the Canadian flag. It is considered a cultural symbol representing Canada in the region.

The new philosophy is no longer based on providing service, and services are now being curtailed and eliminated.This philosophy leads to the reduction of services in communities and the erosion of workers' rights. It makes life difficult for my constituents, for small and medium-sized businesses. We must support our fellow workers against attacks by this intolerable bill. We will do all we can to oppose it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debates most of the night. I think it may be time to put the sequence of events into a little bit of context.

We know we have a lockout. We know we have disruption of the postal service. However, when the negotiations started it went on for some time with no resolve. As a result, it was the union that decided to start some rotating strikes in order to get the attention of Canada Post, and that is what they did.

Although rotating strikes may sound fairly neutral in their effect, in fact they really disrupt the postal service across Canada. The corporation does not know where it is going to happen next and it cannot prepare for it.

That had happened, and it was the union that started the rotating strikes. The post office said that did not work for it so it would lock the workers out and maybe that would get some results. That has not happened.

I understand the NDP's allegiance to the unions. They are their biggest supporters. The NDP always has to side with them. But let us put into context the sequence of events as they happened.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I would like to thank the member for his comments. I really did not hear any questions, however.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It was a comment.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the comment is concerned, I am pleased that the member is able to present a certain sequence of events. I think the important one there is that the employees have been locked out. The government has taken note of this.

I think it is very important that we recognize that postal services have come to a complete and utter stop. Until collective bargaining is put back into place so that the two parties can come to a proper solution between the two of them and we and the government can go back to our respective homes, and we in Quebec can actually celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste, we have to sit here and debate a law project that we should never have been presented with in the first place.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a very interesting speech by my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, a part of the country that I visited four years ago.

I found it particularly interesting that he spoke about the small isolated communities with great distances between them. That is a very important aspect of life in those communities. He spoke specifically about small villages where the post office used to occupy a central position. We are talking about bargaining and reaching an agreement. What about the impact of a decent wage and a worthwhile retirement in the future?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, which is a matter of great concern for us outside the urban centres.

In those areas, a wage and a pension are essential. People outside urban centres are often disadvantaged, when compared to others. These are not big cities, and the economy does not develop at the same rate as in the major urban centres. People depend to a very large extent on each family member who has a job and the opportunity to have a pension and a good life after working at their job for many years. It is essential for us that all our jobs and our workers be protected and that we make sure that wages are commensurate with the need and the contribution made.

The bill that is before us is a disastrous and draconian step backwards and we will not tolerate it.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about solutions again. That is what Canadians who are involved in the lockout and those who are looking for a resumption of service need.

What could be done to address the most controversial elements? What overtures have the postal workers made? What action could government take to find new ways to improve the relationship between labour and management in the 21^st century in terms of looking for solutions?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I certainly think the first step would be to stop defining a lockout as a strike. We should definitely be looking at realities as plain as day.

We are attacking workers for having attempted to exercise their legal right to strike and their legal right to put pressure on their employer. I do not think that is a tactic that should be lost in the 21^st century. It is a right that is enshrined in our Constitution. The Constitution is something that we are going to continue to defend, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, at this rare hour it is my first opportunity to debate in this new Parliament. I am not pleased that I have to debate this particular issue, but I am happy that Parliament is making the effort to look at this issue. It is a very serious and important issue to many people across the country, especially in my riding in the Northwest Territories, where postal service has been an essential part of the communications system for far-flung communities over thousands of miles.

As my colleague mentioned in his case in Quebec, community post offices are very important and serve a function that in many ways goes beyond simply business service and becomes part of the culture of the community. Many join with their friends at the post office because there is no door-to-door delivery in the Northwest Territories. People go to post offices to get mail from their mailboxes. It is an experience that brings people together.

In many respects, many of these communities absolutely need the service. There was a case in Colville Lake last Christmas. The chief of Colville Lake was working with me to try to get COD service for his community so that people could acquire gifts for their children after buying them online. Those types of services for northern communities are limited but extremely important. What happens with the post office means a lot to northerners.

Let us look at this move by the government and what it means. The Government of Canada really is the boss of the post office and through its crown corporation runs the post office. We have heard the Prime Minister say in question period that he wants to offer a wage settlement to the postal workers in the same way it was offered to other public servants. The government knows that its responsibility for the postal service is quite large.

What has the government done in the north in the last number of years in terms of policy with Canada Post? One thing it has done, which has turned out to be an abysmal failure, is the revision of the food mail program. The food mail program was an essential public service to northerners across this vast land. People needed it to provide them with the basic essentials of life.

With the Conservatives having privatized this service to select businesses, there is a situation where the opportunities for people to take advantage of food mail have been severely curtailed. Protests have gone up around the north. The Conservatives' policy changes to privatize an essential part of the northern service of Canada Post has been nothing short of abysmal.

Northerners do not have a system that works now and it is essential that this be changed. People are going hungry. People are not getting the proper food. This is not working. When changes are made to the postal service and the kinds of things that it provides, there are sometimes very serious results.

When we talk about the relationship between the postal corporation and its employees, we are talking about a very serious matter that can affect many of the things that go on in this country. I really do not want the postal service denigrated to any greater extent than it already has been for the people in isolated communities right across this country.

Are these people simply a drain on the public purse? No.

Quite clearly, the resources which are driving the recovery that we see in the country come from the isolated regions. Our regions are important to the future of Canada. We need good services. We need services that work for us. We need public services that are fair.

My concern with the actions of the government early in the term of its first majority is that it is trying to take on this essential public service and force it down, to take the wind out of its sails and change this into something else, as it did with the food mail with an incredible result.

When I first came to Parliament, the Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister, had a great friend in John Howard. The Conservatives brought him here and he spoke in Parliament. It was clear that the Prime Minister liked Mr. Howard a lot. In fact, he liked him so much that he took some of his speeches and gave them in other places. That was quite entertaining for many of us who could recognize the problem he had with his great friendship with John Howard.

The Howard government took on workers in its country very successfully at the start. It was very successful at the start. This is a word of caution to the Conservative government. The Howard government was very successful at taking little bites at the rights of workers. Then, toward the end of its time, it took too big a bite.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Was it a megabyte?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It was a bigger bite than he could chew and now Mr. Howard is enjoying a forced retirement. He is out of government and he has been replaced.

For the Conservative government which is starting off its majority by taking this rather draconian action against the workers of the country, take this as notice. If this is the members' start on the Howard road, we will be after them throughout this Parliament, and when it comes to the next election, if they continue down this road, they will end up in the same place as John Howard, in the dustbin of politics.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sitting here after 4 a.m. is always a bit of a surprise.

I listened quite closely to what the hon. member had to say and I know he represents a very large rural area. He visited the beautiful Thousand Islands in my riding of Leeds—Grenville last summer.

In a news report just a couple of days ago, the local CUPW union representative said: “We want to deliver the mail especially in a small town like Gananoque where there are a lot of elderly residents and small businesses that rely on us for their mail”. She also went on to say that she had hoped the labour minister's legislative motion to put them back to work would be passed.

The hon. member mentioned in his presentation how important the mail is in rural ridings. Are those important considerations and does he believe that unions are always correct?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, do I think unions are always correct? No, I do not.

However, do I think that the process of collective bargaining, where two bodies have the opportunity to interact, is a good process? Yes, I do. That is the process we use in this country.

We did not see much impact from the rotating work action that was taken by the union. It did not upset our service in the Northwest Territories. What we have seen though, with the lockout, is obviously a major disruption. Emails and complaints have flowed to me since the lockout. People were not too concerned about the rotating work actions that the union took because those were reasonable steps.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member talked about the importance of the mail being delivered to the north. As well, he talks about the union members as if they are the only workers. I am a business owner as are many of my friends and we hire bookkeepers, receptionists, groundskeepers and cleaners. These are all people who are average workers. We depend on the mail. Our businesses depend on the mail. What is the member going to say to these average workers when they cannot get paid any longer and they lose their jobs because our businesses are going under?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would tell them to look at the Conservative government that would not tell the postal corporation not to have a lockout.

What is wrong with the government? Why was it silent in this regard? That is what I would say to people.

When it comes to the importance of Canada Post, yes, I do not think we have had one disagreement in this Parliament about the importance of Canada Post, but what we have had is a major disagreement about the failure of the government to stand up and tell management it cannot act in this rather ridiculous fashion.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the north on his expression of how important postal service is to our northern communities and remote communities. I have had the chance to work with him on the food mail file and I would like to hear how he sees what happened when the government unilaterally took away the food mail contract and gave it to the northern stores. Does he feel that action and others against Canada Post may be part of a more general pattern or direction along with the draconian legislation that we have before us here, a direction that leads only to privatization?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development wrote an excellent report on the food mail and I hope the government looks at it because the situation with food mail has to change. We cannot simply go on with the policy the way it has been outlined. It is not working.

If we do not have changes, we will have problems. I appeal to the government to get busy and change that policy. It is not working.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling the House and everyone who is listening how very proud I am to see my party standing up so unswervingly and with such determination for the rights of workers. I am honoured to stand in the House and speak for the workers who live in my riding, and for all Canadians from sea to sea.

I find it very hard to accept a government that is turning back the clock on the quality of life for workers and their families, a government that is turning the clock back significantly for our society, with such archaic and quite simply irresponsible measures.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, without exception, is being penalized by this lockout at present. Yes, it is a lockout, not a strike, because, let us remember, the Canada Post employees themselves were prepared to return to work. The union has acted completely responsibly. It offered to end the strike if Canada Post agreed to keep the old contract while bargaining continued. Canada Post refused. Let us also remember that urgent mail was being delivered during the rotating strike. It was the employer, and no one else, that decided to lock the employees out and simply put a padlock on the postal service doors. That is easier than bargaining. That is the real explanation for why Canadian individuals and businesses are no longer getting their mail.

The government is truly acting in bad faith. All it wants to do is impose a labour contract on employees, which I find completely unacceptable. That is not at all a government's responsibility. A government should instead be concerned about the quality of life of its citizens. But that is clearly not the case here. What the government is doing does not give both sides an opportunity to reach an agreement.

The government is once again siding with the employer and with the CEO of Canada Post, who made $497,000 in 2010, not to mention a 33% bonus. What a perfect example of just how similar the Conservatives are to their Republican counterparts in the Tea Party in the U.S.

Employees are simply asking for better working conditions for a better quality of life for themselves and, by extension, their families. They are fighting for more job security, an entirely legitimate demand. They are fighting for a decent wage for all so that everyone can pay their bills, feed their families and enjoy life. They, too, have the right to enjoy life.

They are fighting for the right to retire with dignity. Everyone deserves a rest, especially after working for many years. Nothing could be more irresponsible than the unilateral legislation being proposed by the government. The government is flouting the right to negotiate a collective agreement and, furthermore, is proposing even lower wages than Canada Post's offer.

Is that really the kind of country we want? Do we really want a government that flouts the rights of workers? If we let the government behave this way with Canada Post workers, what will happen next? Whose rights will be violated? Children? Women? The elderly? Aboriginals? People with disabilities? Which rights will be next?

Personally, I find this extremely troubling. This debate is not just about mail carriers, it is also about safeguarding workers' rights to negotiate a collective agreement, an entirely legitimate demand. A negotiation is between two parties. In this case, however, only the union has behaved responsibly. Canadians have fought too long and too hard for a fair and equitable working environment. They fought tirelessly for adequate wages and benefits so they could support their families. The government must stop meddling in this situation and telling workers to take even more steps backward.

It is important to keep in mind that Canada Post belongs to all Canadians. We share a collective responsibility to ensure that our workers are treated fairly, because Canada Post has a mandate to provide postal service across the country. Everyone needs those services: citizens, small businesses and community agencies. We are lucky to have the best postal service in the world. The elderly need to receive their pension cheques so they can live. Small businesses need to send out their invoices so they can continue to operate.

Organizations must continue to receive their grant funding so they can continue to deliver services and pay employees. The government is looking to dismantle and privatize this service. That decision would have serious consequences for all Canadians. There is no—I repeat—no solution where the private sector could fulfill the mandate of Canada Post. On the contrary, we would pay much more for inferior service.

In Germany, for instance, citizens pay 77¢ to send a letter. In Austria, they pay 88¢. Why? Both countries have a privatized mail system. Here, where it costs just 59¢ to send a letter, the public option is far and away the best solution.

This is a government that opposes public postal service for purely ideological reasons. Its true motive is clear: maximize corporate profits, at the expense of workers yet again.

The employer argues that it cannot afford to agree to the workers' demands. They are too costly, too expensive. That is odd, especially given that Canada Post generated revenues in the neighbourhood of $281 million last year. It makes you think.

In closing, I would ask you to think about this and to ask yourselves some questions. Where are we headed with a government that is not even able to protect the interests of workers or their families? Where are we headed with a government that does not care about giving Canadians a better quality of life? Where are we headed with a government that puts profits above all else? Where are we headed with a government that scoffs at democracy when it is convenient? My fellow Canadians, is that really what you want? Is that the future of your country, our country? I say no. You deserve better, a lot better.

We, the NDP, will not give up. We will fight for the rights of workers, so they can have a decent wage, so they can have a safe working environment and so they can retire with dignity.

We will fight for a country where no one—I repeat, no one—is left by the wayside.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here this evening working on behalf my constituents.

I stand with 165 members of the strong, stable, national Conservative majority government who ran on a pledge to be here for Canada, and here we are defending the rights of every Canadian worker. Is that not interesting?

It seems, from what I am hearing from the NDP this evening, that working families have a union card and everyone else does not work. That seems to be what I am hearing. What I seem to be hearing is to heck with small business; we are not worried about them. To heck with the economy; if that stops, it does not matter. Let us just be irresponsible. Let us take our marching orders from the big union bosses who will not even allow a vote from their membership. The tyranny, the intimidation--women working at Canada Post are afraid to say anything other than, “I will fall in line. Sure, I will follow the big union boss who will not allow me to vote on contract offers.”

That is what she is fighting for. Is she proud of it?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I would remind you that it was the employer who locked out the employees and shut down postal service; it was not the employees who decided to stop delivering the mail.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

I would like to thank my constituents for re-electing me in Nepean—Carleton. I know they are all watching me right now, at 4:20 in the morning, as we debate this important subject.

The member talked about the importance of pensions for Canada Post workers. I have here the portfolio of the Canada Post pension fund. The top 10 holdings of that pension fund are Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Canadian National Railway, and Talisman Energy. All of these companies' profits belong to the shareholders of those companies, in this case the employees of Canada Post.

Now when the NDP talks about raising taxes on these very businesses, they take a bite out of the money that flows from those businesses directly into the pension fund of the workers. Why is it that the NDP wants to raise taxes on the pension fund of the workers at Canada Post?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that question was asked earlier this evening. We have never called for higher taxes on pension funds, either during the campaign or at any other time. So the member's question is not pertinent.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

Two days ago, I was in Montreal with union members on the picket line. A number of people were there, and they told me that Canada Post management wanted to impose orphan clauses. Could the hon. member tell us what an orphan clause is and what she thinks about such a clause being imposed?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert when it comes to strikes or lockouts. I have no idea about the question the hon. member just asked. I apologize, but I am not able to answer the hon. member's question.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the opposition.

The union voted 94% in favour of a strike vote, which it has every right to do, and I applaud it for that. My question is this. Would the member and her party support the union on a free vote on the offer put before it, rather than following what it is being told to do by the bargaining committee?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in response to the hon. member is that going on strike is a right and that workers have the right to negotiate their collective agreement. That is all I have to say in response to the hon. member's question.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House, along with our NDP team, and bring forward the voices of the people in northern Manitoba, to stand up for the workers who build our communities and who have built our country. Standing in the House I also feel, in a way, that I am living history.

As a 28-year-old young woman who was born and grew up in Canada, I am seeing the Canada that I grew up to believe in fade away. It was a Canada where people enjoyed one of the best qualities of life, the best health care, some of the best education, some of the safest workplaces, and some of the most stable futures. Yet with this kind of legislation, that Canada is being chipped away.

Canada is being chipped away because the people who have built it, the working people of Canada, are having their rights rolled back. Number one is the right to collective bargaining, which is all that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has asked for. It has asked to go through an enshrined right, a process that working Canadians go through in many workplaces, to say, “This isn't fair”, or, “Times are changing, things are getting more expensive, and there are more challenges up ahead, so let us find ways to keep wages, benefits, and pensions in line with a Canada that is moving forward.

Instead of having a partner with whom they could negotiate, they were locked out. When that partner locked them out, just a few days later, the government, which has control over crown corporations, came around and did not just agree with what was presented by Canada Post, it went even further. The government proposed wages that were lower than what Canada Post, the employer, proposed to their employees. With this legislation in front of us today, the government has gone further and silenced the very people who hold up our communities, the very people who are asking for nothing less than dignity and fairness.

But that Canada is also fading away because of the specific attack on my generation. It is my generation that will have a double standard in the kinds of pensions that are proposed as a result of the Canada Post program. These are the kinds of pensions that have already been largely taken away in the private sector.

I come from a proud mining community. Vale, a foreign-owned company, has put out the workers, our brothers and sisters in Sudbury, for over a year because they were asking for a proper pension, a defined benefit pension, so that they would know that their money--their deferred wages--was not going into a black hole to be played with by the markets, which we have seen cause great havoc with people's savings, but that it was locked up somewhere secure, because that is their money, that is our money.

Now we are seeing a new page. We are seeing a crown corporation, which is controlled by government, take that very same approach and say that because you are young and new, you do not deserve the wages and pensions of those who have gone before you. What will result from that? It will result in a generation, my generation, being less well off than our parents. That is not just in an individual sense; it is in the kinds of communities we live in.

I think of my community of Thompson, one of the youngest regions in Canada. Rhonda, who delivers my mail, and Jen and Ian, good friends of mine, are people just like the rest of us. They want to buy a home, build a family, maybe buy a vehicle, and maybe once in a while take a holiday from one of the coldest parts in Canada. But they know they will not be able to make the same plans as their co-workers who are nearing retirement or their parents who have retired.

That double standard also applies to people who live in rural areas of the country like the one I live in. Much has been said about the challenges people face in rural areas.

I really wonder how so many of the members opposite, elected from the same region of Canada in which I was elected, representing rural areas like the one I was elected from, can stand here and say that what Canada Post has been doing is okay. Not only has there been an attack on working people in general, but the kinds of allocations and terms of funding that Canada Post has made have far prioritized urban centres rather than investing in rural areas. The postal service in rural areas is not a luxury. It is absolutely integral, integral in not only communications and entrepreneurship but communication between people.

Most recently Canada Post took care of the food mail program that serviced some of the poorest people in our country, aboriginal people in the regions like the one I live in and represent. These are regions that are isolated, and this program allowed them to access healthy foods. Now that has been taken away.

Much was said about the $2 billion Canada Post committed to the modernization projects. I saw a fancy PowerPoint presentation about the new vehicles people would get. Those vehicles do not work in places like the one I come from. But I do know from people like Barb and Lorna and Bertha, who I talked to in Flin Flon today, that the permanent workers who are retiring are leaving empty spots that are not being filled up. There is increasing hiring of casual workers. When they bring forward challenges they are facing with rural postal delivery, Canada Post is reticent to respond to those concerns.

The hypocrisy in having a government that claims to stand for rural Canada or western Canada, that claims to stand for the future, leaves behind not just rural areas with this legislation but also begins the chipping away of the foundations that would help hold up my generation.

This type of approach is not singular here with Canada Post. We have heard that very question: Who is going to be next? What about those institutions where we all belong and come together to find ways for all of us to be better off?

The Canadian Wheat Board is another one, the single desk marketer of a very important product that comes out of my part of Canada.

What about our other crown corporations? Which one will be attacked next? We already know their funding has been challenged and cut. But how about the workers who work for these crown corporations?

It doesn't have to be this way. Our leader of the official opposition put forward the statement that it does not have to be this way. What we ask from the government is to get Canada Post to take that lock off the door and allow the two parties to come to the table and find a resolution in terms of the challenges that workers are facing on the ground and to recognize that these workers are the people who hold up our communities. These workers are raising children who are going to grow up in a world that is going to be increasingly more challenging.

The role of government, if nothing else, is to stand up for its people. That is why our fight today is not just for the workers of Canada Post but for every worker in Canada and every Canadian who deserves dignity in a country as wealthy as ours.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard today over and over again from members of the opposition talking about the rights of the union. It is the only thing we seem to hear about.

What we have here is that postal delivery and postal services are not happening. That is not what we are talking about. Strike or lockout does not matter as there is no postal delivery. The refusal to support our back to work legislation is causing real harm.

Here is one example. A constituent emailed me yesterday that she has lost her key to her postal mailbox. Her CPP cheque is in that mailbox. Canada Post told her it would take three to four weeks to get her a new key. Her rent is due on June 28th. Why is the opposition choosing to support its union friends instead of supporting a Canadian senior like this lady? I want an answer.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond with another question. Why is the government not standing up for Canadian working people who are asking for nothing more than a fair wage, a fair pension and dignity in the workplace? That dignity is something that will contribute to the communities in which seniors live with such great challenges ahead of them and in which young people are growing up. These are the fights of not just Canada Post workers but all of us, and we ask to see leadership from the government in standing up for a brighter future for Canadian people, instead of rolling back their rights and making their futures a lot more uncertain.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but get into the debate. My colleague from the Conservatives said that Canada Post tells the seniors that they are going to get the key in four weeks. I am failing to see how a postal worker will be part and parcel of ensuring that the lady in his riding will get the key in four weeks. That is management.

We are having difficulty between the management and the postal workers' union. My question to my colleague from Manitoba is: Should the government not order them back to the negotiating table, without interfering, and should the government not allow the two parties to come to a conclusion? That is where our party has put amendments. I just wonder if my colleague will encourage her party to follow our amendments in order to ensure this is concluded, fairly, quickly—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to stop the hon. member there to allow the member for Churchill a chance to respond.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that, just as the government has interfered with the process here, it ought to reverse that act, tell Canada Post to remove the lock from the door and allow the parties to come to the table.

Canada Post employees have been saying for quite some time that they want to work, but they want to work with a fair, negotiated agreement.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I follow up on a question from my hon. colleague from the Conservative side who referred to us as supporting the union as if the union is some sort of inanimate object divorced from the people who actually make it up. Having worked for a union for 16 years, I know that a union is nothing more than a collective grouping of the men and women who work at a particular place of employment. It is a very democratic organization in which people vote to become certified. They vote whether or not they decide to join a union. They vote on their strike votes. They vote on whether a collective agreement is ratified or not. In my experience, it is one of the most democratic organizations in Canadian society.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I hear some jeering from the other side. I do not know that they have spent any time in a union, but I spent 16 years of my life in one.

What does my hon. colleague have to say about the men and women who make up the union? Does she share the opinion that the union is something to be disparaged as the Conservatives are doing?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to come from a community that enjoys the quality of life it does because of the hard work of unions like the steelworkers, UFCW, CUPE and CUPW that are out there because they fight for all of us. They ensure our wages are fair and that we have safe workplaces. They ensure we have health benefits and they ensure our communities are better off.

I am concerned by the negative, aggressive attacks on what is a basic right of unionization. This, to me, is language that I hear from the U.S., from the Republican Party, from the Tea Party. This is not the inclusive, tolerant language that—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have spent the day in the House. I spoke this afternoon. This evening, I have two comments to make. I am a new parliamentarian, a new member. I am starting, as everyone has done. My eyes are wide open. I look at these people and I admire them all, because I think we are doing everything we can to pull Canada out of a bad situation and to improve things, both for the workers and for the country as a whole.

This evening, a Conservative member rose on a point of order and made a comment about reading from a prepared text. We are starting out here and we are being told not to work from a prepared text. That is how I understood his comment this evening; it struck a chord with me. So we will put the texts away and proceed differently.

After that, a Liberal member behind me rose to say that we should be talking about real issues. It is true that we should be talking about real issues: the people are suffering, too. I experienced a six-month lockout. People lost their homes; they were unable to buy groceries. The union fixed their appliances and bought them groceries. That is the reality when people are not working and when no paycheque arrives on Thursday. That is what we need to be looking at here in the House.

I am part of the labour movement; I am a factory worker. When we talk about unions in the House, I can feel the contempt people have for workers and unions. That is not normal in a country like ours. It is not normal, and I can feel that contempt.

I have negotiated collective agreements. In 1992, I spent 14 months negotiating. A conciliator was brought in; there was no strike and we signed our agreement and got back to work. In 1976, I was locked out and in 1979 we chose to go on strike.

In 2006, I was the spokesperson at the bargaining table with Alcan. In one month we managed to negotiate a $1.2 billion contract to build a new factory with new technology. We did that in one month: a team of eight people worked night and day for one month. We had a deadline and we met it. Anything can be done in this world. Anything can happen when both parties are willing.

I urge the Conservative government to bring these two parties together in the same room and force them to find a solution. That is the only way this is going to be resolved.

In any case, I am a bit disappointed. This is my first time and I would have liked to read my speech, but I will not. I have spoken from my heart. It will not be more than five minutes, but I can say one thing: we need to start taking care of people, the people around us. I spoke on behalf of people who are not even unionized. I defended them. I defended people who wanted to have a home. That was not my job; I was the union representative.

The unions helped create progress in both Quebec and Canada. We contributed to Quebec's occupational health and safety legislation. We participated in the arbitration panel and all these things. People in unions are not so bad. We are not all some kind of insect. For example, today we have FTQ and CSN investment funds. We participate in society. Other people must stop holding unions in contempt.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again engage in some questions with hon. members from across the floor.

A number of members across the floor talked about Canada Post as being an “essential service”. Essential services in Canada often have special rules that apply to them, including—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

No lockout.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

And no strikes, Mr. Speaker. The member is right: no lockouts, no strikes.

Would the member be in favour of listing Canada Post as an essential service? If so, does he think it would be a good idea that the workers would not be able to strike or be locked out in the future? Would he support that?

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said it this afternoon and I am going to say it again: we can force the parties to sit down and find a solution. It has been done. I have seen it happen. It involves setting deadlines and assigning the right people to the right places. It happens when everyone acts in good faith.

If everyone is not acting in good faith, an agreement will never be reached. The union, management and the government all have to put some water in their wine. I call on the government to ask that the doors be unlocked and that the employees return to work. People are prepared to work under the former collective agreement while finding a solution for the future. That is what is important. That is how I see the situation.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, l want to tell my honoured colleague how much I appreciated his passion, especially at this time of the morning. He has probably been up for about 23 hours and he still has that passion because it comes from his deep belief system.

What action does he think the government needs to take to put an end to the fiasco that is happening this morning?

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know; I am not a miracle worker, but I believe it can be done. In fact, I worked in the labour movement with management and with big multinationals. It is not easy dealing with big multinationals either, but we found solutions. Why? I would like to give an example. In the last negotiations, we put five issues on the table, the company added others and then we had to work on them. Of course, we sometimes had to make painful choices, but that is how you get to the end and get something out of it.

Canada Post, as well as the union, will have to compromise. They need to sit down and do it the right way. If they all go back to work and are forced to sit down with either a conciliator or a mediator—it does not matter which one—to reach a solution, they should find common ground. At any rate, we know that if the employees are forced to return to work after a lockout, the work environment will be intolerable for everyone. I have experienced this situation in factories.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot relate to the member's experiences in 1976, because at that time I was three years old.

My generation are first-time homebuyers. My generation are young parents and owners of small businesses. My generation and constituents are northern, rural, and vast, and my generation is pleading, “I hope this strike ends somehow, soon, because it's killing small businesses like mine”.

The key to ending this strike is not a key held by anybody but the opposition, and it is by supporting this legislation.

I ask the member to stop fighting the legislation and to support it so that Canadians can get their businesses running again and get back to work.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The member for Jonquière—Alma has 30 seconds left.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing to be done tomorrow morning is to unlock the doors, bring everyone back in, sit them down and make them negotiate. They will deliver the mail, everything will get back to normal and the parties will negotiate and find a solution. That is the first thing to be done tomorrow.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here at this time, and I am going on my 22nd hour today, to discuss this unfair back-to-work legislation.

Before I came here for midnight, I quickly wrote my speech. I am going to be reading from the notes I made before I came here, if the House will accept that.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is rising on a point of order?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, twice now I have heard members ask, in essence, whether or not they could read their notes. And I do not think it is right that the person advising them told them it was not acceptable to read from their notes in the House of Commons. Ministers are not even able to answer the questions put to them in question period without their notes. It is well recognized here in the House of Commons that members are fully entitled to read their documents and they should not be embarrassed to do so. Those are their documents. I invite the member to read her document; she is welcome to do so in the House of Commons.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for clearing that up for me.

We are here to discuss the unfair back-to-work legislation. The Canada Post Corporation decided to lock the doors and not allow in the 48,000 postal workers who want to work.

To defend the rights of all workers, I stand in solidarity with my sisters and brothers in the CUPW who want to work but cannot, with my colleagues here in this caucus, and with thousands of members of my community and other Canadian communities.

The postal workers started a legal rotating strike on June 3. When exercising their legal right to strike as part of the collective bargaining process, they made sure that it did not stop the mail delivery so many Canadians depend on. Actually, it was only after Canada Post shut the doors and locked the workers out on June 15 that we started to notice that the mail service had been interrupted. This past week, the government chose to interfere with the collective bargaining process and institute back-to-work legislation.

The government's proper role in this process is not to interfere, but rather to tell its own crown corporation to get back to the negotiating table and to work out a fair and equitable collective agreement. The government's role is not to aid the corporation to achieve its bargaining goals through back-to-work legislation. This legislation removes all incentive for Canada Post to come back to the negotiating table and relieves Canada Post of its obligation to bargain, never mind bargaining in good faith.

This act by the Minister of Labour is undermining the collective bargaining process that many women and men have struggled, sacrificed, and fought for over the course of many years. When I was a conciliator with the provincial labour board, we pushed for all parties to come to a negotiated settlement on their own.

The strength of those who came before us and defended the right to collective bargaining created benefits for all Canadians. Today's young women and men who are entering the workforce are able to do so knowing that they will be able to enjoy benefits such as the eight-hour workday—of course, I do not have this but most Canadians do—the concept of a weekend, standards and measures to ensure safe working conditions, parental leave, and many others.

Basically, we all have an improved standard of living because of the work that the union movement and workers have accomplished over the years. It is also important to note that the workers of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the CUPW, have themselves been responsible for many advancements over the years.

As a young woman, I would like to outline a few of them.

In 1974, the CUPW members stood in solidarity with the mostly female workforce of the coder machine operators. These workers went on an illegal strike to defend the need for equality for the women who were in the low-paid coder classification.

In 1981, the CUPW workers went on strike and won paid maternity leave. This allowed many young women the freedom not to have to choose between raising a family and following and building a career. We women now know that we will not have to worry about financial barriers to taking care of our newborns, and that we will have a job to return to after maternity leave.

In 1985, the CUPW organized and obtained a collective agreement representing cleaning staff in Toronto, one of the first bargaining units in the private sector, many of whom were women.

The union movement and CUPW in particular have a strong history of standing up and fighting for the struggles that led to workers' rights and increased equality for women.

As women, young workers, workers of all ages and community members with a conscience, we cannot sit idly by as the rights of all workers are taken away and deteriorate.

Postal workers are our neighbours and friends. They are everyday Canadians who deserve decent wages, benefits and good working conditions.

They provide vital services to my constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River and to all Canadians alike, including single parents who depend on the monthly child tax benefit cheque, seniors receiving payments through their GIS or OAS who do not have direct deposit, Canadians who depend on the CPP disability benefit payments, low-income Canadians waiting on a tax return cheque, individuals waiting for their passports and newcomer families who use the mail service for their family sponsorship applications to be reunited with their loved ones. These neighbours across the country are waiting on Canada Post to unlock the doors and unseal the red mail boxes so their lives can return to normal.

The postal workers are asking for the same thing my neighbours are asking for: to go back to work and continue to deliver the millions of pieces of mail every single day.

Through this back-to-work legislation the government has decided to punish the workers by imposing a contract with wage increases much lower than Canada Post's last offer. Let me outline some of the details.

Canada Post's offer was 1.9% in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and 2% in 2014, well below the 3.3% rate of inflation.

The government's legislation, however, would offer something much lower than that. It offers 1.75% in 2011, only 1.5% in 2012 and 2% in 2013 and 2014. This is despite the fact that Canada Post is profitable, earning $281 million last year alone. Its CEO, as we have heard, earned an incredible $497,000 plus a 33% bonus, whereas the offer on the table offers a two-tiered wage system discriminating against young workers because Canada Post wants to roll back the starting salaries for young workers.

This proposal is unfair and unwarranted against young workers.

As Paul Moist said, “There are no such things as two-tier rent or mortgages: young and new workers don't get a discount on utility or grocery bills”.

I agree with him. I never got an opportunity to pay a discounted rent because I was a student working a part-time job. This is an outrageous—

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

You were staying at home.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Sorry, I actually lived away from home for nine years, seven years when I was in university and after that as well. I did not have the luxury of staying at home in the way one of the hecklers just mentioned.

It is outrageous to say that young workers do not deserve the same wages that other workers do. Women are still fighting for equal pay for equal work, and along the same lines, young workers deserve equal pay for equal work. This legislation is eliminating the right of public sector workers to negotiate collectively.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the debate. It is almost five o'clock in the morning and we have all been up 22 or 23 hours.

I am amazed by the rhetoric I am hearing from the opposition members. I have heard that we are operating in bad faith, that we do not care about workers, that we are battering the rights of workers, and it is amazing to me that when the opposition talks about workers, it is only talking about unionized workers, specifically the 50,000 unionized workers in this dispute.

The truth is that over these last eight months our government tried to facilitate and help the parties to come to a negotiated agreement. Negotiation is just that. Until there is a settlement, it is just negotiation. Nobody is taking anything away from anyone when we put these measures forward.

I would ask the member opposite, when she speaks of the rights of workers and specifically women workers, of which I am one, why there is no concern about the over 33 million Canadians who rely on the postal service and all the workers who are not—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are speaking to the bill that is in front of us, so I speak of the current situation where 48,000 unionized workers are locked out of their workplace. That is why I am speaking of currently unionized workers.

The actions of the government have caused a deterioration in the quality of the rights that workers have obtained over the many years of the labour and civil rights movements in Canada. This attack on the unionized workers who are members of CUPW is a direct affront to all workers in Canada.

Today I stand with my New Democratic Party colleagues in solidarity with all workers in Canada to preserve all of their rights.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what practical solution would my hon. colleague recommend to reduce the polarization that is occurring?

I would ask that we refocus the debate on what really matters, and that is Canadians, Canadians who want to work and who cannot, and Canadians who want a resumption of the postal service.

What three things would the hon. member recommend to reduce the polarization?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question that has been answered time and time again tonight. What must happen to bring about resumption of the mail service wanted by so many million Canadians is that Canada Post needs to unlock the doors and allow the workers to--

[An hon. member]

Unlock the doors.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little confused by the heckles. Canada Post needs to unlock the doors and allow the workers who want to work to go back to work and to deliver the millions of pieces of mail they deliver on a daily basis.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is 5 a.m. on June 24, and it is Quebec's national holiday. This is a great day. I am very sorry that we could not get unanimity to adjourn so that we could go and celebrate with Quebeckers. That being said, I nevertheless want to rise in order to wish all of Quebec a happy national holiday, and I extend the same wishes to the members from that province who are in the House.

Last Monday I was on a picket line in Montreal and I met a number of workers. They were very angry, disappointed and indignant. In fact they gave me this handsome cap because they wanted me to show it off in the House of Commons.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would ask the hon. member to remove the prop. There is a standing order against the use of props in the House, so I would ask her to respect that.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the word “disguise”. I would not say it this is a disguise, but perhaps the translation was inaccurate.

In the House, several other members also have headgear. The workers talked to me and gave me this cap and this tee-shirt which says “The struggle continues”. These people are outraged because they do not feel respected given today's events. This is not going to help things in future nor improve labour relations. That is what they told me.

In its 2009 annual report, Canada Post confirmed that for a fifteenth consecutive year it had a consolidated profit and net benefit of $281 million, out of $7.3 billion in revenues. Moreover, Canada Post is still not releasing—in case people do not know this—its financial statement for 2010. A bare minimum of transparency would require that it release its accounts for the past year. We don't know how many million or billion dollars it made.

I would like to remind parliamentarians and those at home watching us today that the Canada Post Corporation Act establishes that this public service must be financially self-sustaining, not that it must seek profit at any price, such as no longer offering equitable service throughout the country, particularly in smaller communities. Subsection 5(2) of the Canada Post Corporation Act states the following:

While maintaining basic customary postal service, the Corporation...shall have regard to

(b) the need to conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis while providing a standard of service that will meet the needs of the people of Canada and that is similar with respect to communities of the same size;

The Canada Post Corporation Act mentions self-sustaining finances in a global sense; it does not target specific operations. It makes sense that certain aspects of Canada Post are profitable, even very profitable. Those services should finance the necessary operations that run at a deficit in order to develop and maintain services in communities. We know full well that it is difficult to maintain service in some small towns.

From the beginning of this labour dispute, the federal government should have clearly instructed Canada Post management to make an offer to the postal workers that would respect the spirit of the act.

I asked a question in the House and requested that the government allow us to resolve this dispute not with special legislation, as it is doing now, but with a clear message to Canada Post management that they need to sit down and resolve this dispute in a respectful manner.

Instead, the government introduced a bill stating—at least this is how we interpreted it—that if the employer's overall offer is not accepted, the workers will be given a salary that is lower than the employer's last offer. That is unfair, shameful and unacceptable. This bill will take $875.50 from full-time workers during the four-year agreement. In total, the government would deprive these people and their families of $35 million. That is truly unacceptable. And this is all in a context where Canada Post itself decided to declare a lockout and deprive people of their mail.

The union represents men and women who enrich our society. These people responsibly decided to hold a rotating strike rather than a general strike. That is called being responsible. However, Canada Post decided to close the doors and prevent everyone from coming in. We are seeing the purpose of this action today: a special bill to force people back to work in unacceptable conditions.

When I asked the question, the Conservative ministers said what they are still saying and that is that Canada Post is an independent entity and that they are not getting involved. However, in actual fact, this government was a full, silent partner in Canada Post's actions. The government is now the key player in this labour dispute and calling all the shots. The government got involved, not as a mediator of justice and equality, but as the organization's true employer, and not even a good employer but a dictatorial one that imposes its rules by force. It is a shame and the government is bringing shame to Canada. It is a bit difficult for me, as a sovereignist, to say this, but I am going to say it anyway: this is a shameful thing for Canada.

One of the most important issues in this dispute, and what the workers have been telling me, is that Canada Post wants to impose orphan clauses. As a result, the salaries and benefits of new employees, in particular their pension and vacation plans would be subject to clauses providing for different treatment, known as orphan clauses. That means that, once these clauses come into force, any new people who are hired will not receive the same starting salaries and benefits as those who were hired previously. This creates two classes of workers within the same institution, which is unacceptable. In Quebec, significant measures have been taken to ensure that these infamous orphan clauses cannot be applied systematically.

This is quite a dark day as a result of this bill. In my opinion, the government decided to leave its mark of inequity, lack of respect, discrimination and injustice on the labour relations that will prevail at Canada Post. That is too bad because, according to Brand Finance Canada in 2009, Canada Post employees made this organization the most iconic brand in Canada. In addition, Corporate Knights Magazine considers Canada Post to be one of the best 50 corporate citizens in Canada, and all that—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember over the years when the member for Ahuntsic was a member of the Bloc Party, which is not recognized here anymore, she and her colleagues would constantly demand that the federal government become more and more involved in the affairs of Quebec by way of sending more funding for this, more help for that. They wanted the involvement of the federal government. Now the federal government, through this legislation, wants to get involved in a way that will be for the good of all Canadians and end this postal strike. The member cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other.

It is curious. The member said that Canada Post must unlock the doors. Well, if Canada Post were to unlock the doors tomorrow, would the postal workers go back to full delivery and get back to the negotiating table with the promise of no more rotating strikes until an agreement has been worked out? Has the postal union said that it would do that? I have not heard that mentioned at all tonight during the debate.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind my colleague that I am still a Bloc Québécois MP; that has not changed. Second, I would like to remind my colleague that, for many years, the Bloc Québécois always fought against federal government involvement in provincial jurisdictions. When he says that we rose more than once to ask the federal government to intervene, I swear that I do not know what he is talking about.

We are asking that the federal government give Quebec what it is owed, whether it is the $2.2 billion we asked for and received—and hurrah, it was a victory—or the right to also work in French in federal institutions in Quebec. We will continue to put forward demands.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member posed a question to the Bloc Québécois member. He asked her if the postal workers would be prepared to return to work with no more rotating strikes, to deliver the mail and to negotiate a collective agreement.

Does the Bloc Québécois member recall the question I asked the Minister of Labour last week in the House of Commons? I informed the minister that the union had asked for that on one condition, which is in the legislation we are discussing: that Canada Post honour the expired collective agreement and that it restore the drug and disability benefits. If that were put in place, the union would return to the bargaining table and the workers would return to Canada Post offices to deliver the mail to Canadians.

Does the member recall that the question was asked in the House of Commons and that there was the assurance that everyone would return to the bargaining table?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. That is also what the unionized workers were telling me. They are acting in good faith and they are willing to return to the bargaining table. They would like to see the old collective agreement prevail until negotiations on a new one are complete. Unfortunately—and I want to say so in their presence—the government has taken advantage of the lockout by Canada Post to table this special statute. The workers feel insulted by all of this, because they were acting in good faith. Deciding to hold rotating strikes is a right; it is legitimate. People have the right to go on strike. They have the right to organize rotating strikes. However, the Conservatives waited for Canada Post to impose a lockout to do precisely what they are doing today.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at this time of the morning a few months ago, I would have finished delivering a little over half of my newspapers to my clients. I used to deliver Le Soleil; yes, I was a paperboy before I being elected to the House of Commons. At the time, I had 160 clients. However, I want to point out that today would have been a holiday for me. Delivering newspapers to 160 people, in all kinds of weather, year in, year out, makes me feel particularly qualified to understand the working conditions of our letter carriers. This makes me all the happier to be here in the House, despite the fact that we are celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day today. I have to mention that I am missing the celebrations on the Plains of Abraham, to which I was invited this year.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about unions, about their operating principles and their democratic principles, it is important to put things in their proper perspective and understand what they represent. Regarding the back-to-work legislation and the negotiations around it, there has been a lot of confusion and shortcuts and simplification, if not simplistic speeches made in the House. This prevents us from seeing the real situation for all postal workers, and the impact that the lockout and the threat of forcing workers back to their jobs may have on the Canadian population.

We have to start by understanding clearly that the union bargaining unit represents tens of thousands of people. When we look at an organization the size of the postal employees’ union, we have to understand clearly that these tens of thousands of employees are not all sitting at the bargaining table with management. Quite the opposite. The basic starting principle is several tens of thousands of members who organize locally, who delegate powers to an executive body, which itself delegates powers to higher bodies and then instructs a bargaining committee. This is a basic principle that we see in all kinds of organizations. These are widely accepted principles, operating methods that have been tried and tested, and rules that the postal union members apply and follow today. So there is no reason now to show them no respect by pointing a gun at their head to force them back to work without allowing them to bargain as equals with the management of the corporation.

Unfortunately, as we know, unions have a bad image among a certain segment of the public, among certain groups of people. We might even say certain elites who would like, at all costs, for them to disappear. After all, the freedom to organize and come together to achieve a common goal is a very widespread principle and operating method in our society.

Take the example of a large corporation, a company that is listed on the stock exchange, in which there are a number of shareholders, equivalent to the members of a union who have decided to pursue a common goal, and they delegate certain powers to a board of directors and to the management, to operate the organization I am describing. The difference, with a union, is simply in the details. The goals and the roles within a company are obviously different, but the basic principles are the same, and they are largely adhered to and accepted. I assume they are also largely adhered to and accepted by all members of this House.

We can look at this from another perspective. My late father, whom I talked about yesterday, was a member of a senior citizens’ club. There too, this is an organization with a democratic structure that is composed of its members and delegates certain powers. I remember very well how my father would give us reports at home about internal disputes, disagreements that happened. It is a very healthy sign that an organization is operating democratically when among all the members, people can say that they do not agree with how things are working and they would prefer them to work differently. Unanimity would actually be unhealthy. At its worst, it would be a sign of dictatorship.

We hear in the House that out of several tens of thousands of people, some union members are apparently complaining about the present situation and are almost calling for back to work legislation. I am sure that is so, but I hope someone will be able to produce concrete evidence of it rather than telling us things anonymously and secretly.

I feel I can say that because I have been a member of several democratic organizations. I have held various positions; I was treasurer, chair and secretary. For two years I was chairman of the parents' committee of the Commission scolaire de la Capitale. Somewhat like in the House, sometimes I heard outrageous statements and exaggerations, but I understood that in an emotional debate where the stakes are high and people have different opinions and different interests, sometimes things get out of hand. However, this absolutely does not discredit the union model, whose democratic functioning has been amply demonstrated. No one, absolutely no one, has been able to show the House a shred of evidence that a union structure is not a functional one or does not respect those principles just as well as a large corporation trading on the stock market, or a seniors' organization.

The fact that unionized postal workers gave their negotiating team a mandate to sit down with management in no way constitutes a problem, and it is totally incomprehensible that this government is so obstinately pursuing its efforts to introduce back-to-work legislation. All the more so since there is another principle that is very important to our freedom and to Canadian society, and that is freedom of association. In this debate we are holding right now in the House, these stakes are important for our society, as the decision that will be taken in the House is going to have an impact on our collective future. Indeed, if we deprive unionized postal workers of the right to negotiate, what is the next step? Are we going to deny them the right to associate freely, to defend their interests and to defend the need to deliver collective services?

In summary, it is very important that this bill not be passed, in order, at the very least, to allow our society to maintain forever the right to freedom of association and the right to negotiate. That is fundamental.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to again engage in this debate with the members of the opposition.

It is interesting that the NDP keeps making the case that this is unheard of, that we are breaking new ground. In fact the history of Canada Post indicates that sometimes the government has had to get involved when the parties have not been able to agree.

It is always a last resort. There have been eight months of negotiations. There was more than three months of work with a conciliator and more than a month with a mediator, and they have not been able to come to an agreement.

The last time this happened, in 1997, the then-Liberal government did bring a bill that set in place the wage rates moving forward. This bill has followed that structure. That is what we have done.

We want to bring stability. There are raises and there are protections for the workers. There is an opportunity for them to put forward their position to a mediator who will then select the offer from Canada Post or the workers, one or the other. That is what the government has put in place.

What we want is stability. We want the mail to flow. We do not want more rotating strikes. We do not want more harm to our community. We want to stand up for all 33 million Canadians, including those at Canada Post.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not want to approve of or comment on the past actions of the Liberal government. If the Conservative government chooses to learn a lesson there, that is their business, but I believe that we need to get back to the bargaining table. I would urge the government to stop pointing a gun at the union's head.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I am focusing on solutions.

Recently there have been challenges for organized labour in Canada, with Air Canada, Canada Post. In Greece, there have been demonstrations against cutbacks. In Spain, government officials are meeting to discuss labour reforms.

I am wondering what role the hon. member thinks globalization has to play in the challenges that unions face today and what actions the government might take to address this issue.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

There is an opportunity to be had here and bridges to be built. Various countries around the world have very different practices. Union coverage and membership rates vary greatly. It would be very interesting to take the time to study it, to see what works best and to consequently make a proposal in partnership with the union members themselves.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is recognized that workers have the right to negotiate their labour contracts. Canada's courts have also recognized the workers' right to join with other workers to ensure that their rights and labour contracts are respected.

If draconian measures are imposed on the workers, what will the consequences be when these people want to ensure that their right to negotiate better working conditions is respected?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member.

There will be consequences. It is a question of taking away their right to speak freely, to make demands, to hold talks and to truly join forces for a common goal. We cannot back down on this if we want to keep our society from irreparable harm.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members in the House are tired at this point, but it is our duty to be here to speak on behalf of our constituents regardless of our opinion.

As this is my first moment in the House to be giving a brief speech, I want to thank the constituents of Edmonton--Strathcona for re-electing me and for having the confidence in me to represent their interests in the House.

As have all of my colleagues in the House, I too have received quite a few emails, and some letters too. I do not know if those came by passenger pigeon; I thought those went via the way of the dodo.

As members on both sides of the House have said, our constituents are deeply concerned that they are not receiving their pension cheques, their old age security cheques, their provincial welfare cheques, disability assistance cheques and so forth. We all share that concern.

And we all share the concerns of the various non-governmental organizations that our communities depend on. They depend on government cheques for grants and donations and the campaigns they run in order to gather funding.

I am gratified by some of my constituents who have raised concerns about the impact of the strike on their businesses but nonetheless they have congratulated me on my re-election. They respect my determination and principles, wish me luck and tell me to keep up the great work.

Those are the kinds of constituents I have in Edmonton--Strathcona. They understand that we deal with difficult issues. They understand that there are pushes and pulls between employers, employees and unions. There are those who are not necessarily for unions and would like to strike the unions down.

One of the things that has troubled me in this debate is the suggestion by members on the other side of the House that somehow we are doing something importune by continuing this debate into the wee hours. Let us remember that it is the government that is trying to force this legislation through in a rushed manner. We were forced to resort to mechanisms to represent our constituents and those who are going to be impacted by this repressive legislation.

I too share, with my colleagues from Jonquière—Alma and Scarborough—Rouge River, the concern about the suggestion that we on this side of the House only care about people who work in unions. There is a bit of hypocrisy there. There have been complaints that my fellow caucus members are not speaking to the subject of the legislation. At the same time they accuse us of only representing the interests of union workers. They cannot have it both ways.

As some members have reminded the House, we are talking about legislation that is going to affect the rights and privileges of union members, particularly union members who are postal workers. Therefore it is logical that if members are speaking to the bill then that is what they would address.

In no way does that mean that our members, or any member in the House, do not care about people who work in any place of employment, whether they are sole proprietors, lawyers in a law firm, surgeons or dentists, working in a corner grocery store or a large corporation, or they are miners or farmers. Surely all Canadians have rights and privileges, and we have the responsibility to protect those rights and privileges.

I would remind the House that we are discussing a particular piece of legislation that the government has tabled in the House. By the way, it was at the last minute and just before we were about to adjourn.

I am also deeply troubled by the suggestion that we are either for seniors or for private entrepreneurs, or we are for union workers. Surely our responsibility as elected members is to represent every Canadian equally and to make sure their rights and interests are protected.

I heard a lot of discussion in the House about protecting the rights of various members who run businesses themselves, but I have not heard a lot about the people who are working for those businesses and whether provisions are in place to protect the rights and interests of those workers.

As a number of members on my side of the House have mentioned, it is through the organized labour movement that we have the right to practise what some members in this House call family values.

What are family values? Surely it is the right for people to have time off from employment to spend with their children, with elderly parents, to visit them in their retirement homes, to travel across the country and visit cousins.

That is what these workers are fighting for: the right to have extended time off. It is my understanding that what is being proposed is to limit the time off from work. That does not sound like family values to me.

We have heard in the House over the past week about the reports of rising family debt. Yet, the proposal in the government legislation is to reduce the salary levels below even what the employer was offering. The result down the line is that we will have even more family debt. Surely every Canadian should have the right to a liveable wage.

If we do not ensure that the employers are providing a liveable wage, somewhere down the line the taxpayers will have to supplement that. That is why we fight for a liveable wage. People prefer to work hard and earn that liveable wage. They do not want to have to turn to one order of government or another to supplement them, or to turn to a food bank.

We have heard the discussions by some hon. members that even some of our veterans, who have served valiantly overseas in defending the freedoms of our country or other countries, are now having to turn to food banks. We need to make sure that all workers, our armed forces, RCMP, police officers, postal workers, nurses, have a liveable wage.

It troubles me very deeply. I am getting the sense that some employees should have rights and that some employees do not deserve those rights.

I want to give hon. members a concrete example of where unions have stood up for the kinds of workers that the government has been promoting: temporary foreign workers. In the province I come from there were tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers brought in. Who was looking after their interests? It was the unions that stood up and came to the forefront. They offered free legal assistance to these workers where the governments had dropped the ball.

Both orders of government dropped the ball on that. Who was looking after the interests of workers who were working for private businesses and big corporations? The government was not there for them; it was the unions that stepped up to the plate.

The unions had no interest in protecting foreign workers who could potentially replace their own members' employment, but they fought for proper inspections to ensure the rights of the temporary foreign workers were being respected. That is the value of the unions.

I have never been a member of a union. I have not done union work or labour work in my practice. That does not mean that I do not respect the work of my colleagues. I have great respect for my colleagues who have done this work. It is tough, hard, arduous work to be at those negotiation tables. It is a very valuable role to play, whether one is on the management side or the employee side. I think we should respect the advances that have been made in this country.

I have had the honour and privilege of working overseas in countries where we trade, and these rights and privileges do not exist. These are the kinds of countries where we are exporting products like asbestos. Daily I would go to my work and I would see the workers in bare feet going to construction sites. They were not provided with boots. They had no helmets, no proper clothing, no proper way to wash and no union protections. In fact in most cases, if they tried to unionize, they would be beaten.

We are very fortunate in this country. We are very fortunate that a lot of those who work in the unions have freely been offering their assistance to other nations to make sure they have the same rights and opportunities.

Why is that important? It is very important to an operation, whether it is a mine, a petrochemical industry or an agricultural operation, to have proper working conditions and health and safety. An organization has to maintain a healthy workforce in order to deliver its product.

We should be honouring these workers who are willing to stand up against a major employer. It is not easy to stand up to against a major employer.

I have to say that I find--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The member may know, despite some signals, that she has run out of time.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is not a union member but I appreciate her candour in what she said.

We have heard from a lot of union members and union leaders here tonight. We have heard from the member for Hamilton Centre , who was a union leader of the Canadian Auto Workers. We have heard from the member for Vancouver East, who was a hospital employees' union worker and leader. We have heard from the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who was a trade union representative.

We have heard from several union leaders. We will also hear from another union member because I have been a member of a union for 20 years as a professional educator. We have heard a lot about the democracy of the union and how members get together and vote and choose legislation. I want to challenge some of that. Many people who are members of unions are forced to join the union. To be a professional teacher in the public school system, I had to become a member of a union.

If unions are so democratic, why do they feel the need to force people to join? Who is standing up for the rights of the workers who do not want to join a union but are obliged to do so to work in their profession?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. A number of speakers here are worried that the agenda is much larger than the legislation may suggest. In reply, I would have to say that this may well be evidence of that.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can stand and say that I am a union member because I negotiated collective bargaining agreements for the doctors, so I understand all about this. We were emergency workers so we could not go on strike. We had a difficult time negotiating. I understand the need to have a fair process but I have a suggestion.

We Liberals have been getting up and asking certain questions about coming to solutions, and it is not because we mind the time. I am a doctor. Staying up for 48 hours is not a big deal for me. This is something I have done all my life. I am not worried about the time spent here.

What I am concerned about is that I do not know where we are going. I would like some resolution. For instance, we, as Liberals, would like to support this process. We believe the government's bill is draconian and we agree with the NDP on what they need, but we do not want to hear all the spinning and the rhetoric. We would like to find a solution and we have solutions. I would like to see us get this done.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat what many before me have said. We have put forward the solution, which is to end the lockout.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members of Parliament are saying that some people did not vote to join a union, that they were forced to join. Could the member explain the difference between that and the present situation in the House of Commons where the Conservatives have a majority with only 40% of public support and plans to pass a bill that 60% of Canadians do not want?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is the ongoing dilemma, which is why we are here until the wee hours of the morning. Our responsibility is to oppose the government when we think that it is proposing legislation that goes against the interests of the broader public.

The big issue here is what the public interest is. Is the public interest to protect an employer against the employees? Is it to protect some people who are discouraged at not receiving their mail? Is it the right to a fair wage? What is the public interest? Surely we have a responsibility to think of all people in Canada.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I spent the whole night wondering what I am doing here. Yes, there is Bill C-6, but what is really keeping us here is an ideological barrier, and this barrier is not created only by this side, by a fanatical group of unionists. Personally, I have never been part of a union. Unions defend perfectly legitimate rights. I do not understand why we are discussing this.

When a very sincere young woman stated her point of view with some emotion, I saw some of the members opposite laughing. To me, this is serious. If this were really a serious issue for them, they would not be laughing. If they want to make people laugh, they are already off to a good start. Look at what they did when things were not working at Canada Post: they closed the doors. If the statistics are not good, they eliminate the survey. It is raining in Saskatchewan, so they fire the weatherman. That is the type of logic we are seeing.

I am from Quebec and I should be at home celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, but I believe in one thing. The reason why I ran for a federal party is that I believed that it was possible to do something positive with the rest of Canada. I told myself that, in this great country, there were certainly a sufficient number of people who were interested in doing something positive. However, what I am finding out from seeing the members opposite turning around and talking to each other, is that they are ignoring the members on this side of the House. If they do not want to listen to me, then they should listen to Laurence Cannon, who was the only Conservative member who had anything intelligent to say the night of the most recent election. He realized that his party had become a regional party. If the Conservatives do not know what a regional party is, they need only look in the corner of the other side of the House and they will see two members of regional parties.

There is an expression that says, “He who laughs last laughs best.” They can continue to laugh for four years but things may not seem as funny to them then.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about honouring the process. We have been honouring the process for eight months. We have been trying to get a resolution, encouraging a resolution, offering conciliation and mediation services, but we also on this side of the House believe in honouring all Canadians.

We have a strong mandate to protect Canada's fragile economy by continuing forward with our recovery plan that was voted for by all regions of Canada on May 2.

Canada Post estimates that it is losing $25 million per day during this work stoppage. Since opposition members are not okay with bringing workers back to work through legislation, should we assume then that they are okay with taxpayers covering the cost of the losses of this crown corporation for an undetermined amount of time?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

There is unanimity in this place about the seriousness of the interruption in postal services. We are all suffering because of it. We are waiting for important mail from our constituents, personal bills, and so forth. Some people are waiting for cheques that they need to survive. Everyone agrees that we must find a solution. However, we must agree to reflect on and listen to viewpoints that are different from our own. It is in this way that we will move forward and find solutions.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague why tensions have been rising at the bargaining table. Does he think it is globalization, pension shortfalls or the sluggish economy that have put pressure on employers to cut costs? I wonder whether he thinks these factors will cause lasting problems for unions and, if so, what might be done. I am trying to focus on solutions now and in the future.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we should not reintroduce globalization into this matter.

What is happening is that the government is taking rather radical action that will have very serious repercussions. It must be doing this for a reason, but obviously it will not tell us why. However, it will make excuses. Excuses are made to justify one's actions, whereas reasons are kept hidden until the end. That is the difference.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that these measures against Canada Post workers are part of a broader agenda, an agenda leading to privatization, an agenda that could affect not just Canada Post, but also essential services and other crown corporations in our country?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that some parts of Canada are very right-leaning.

I advise my friends opposite to monitor the situation. Perhaps one day their party may be called the Wildrose Alliance of Conservatives, or something like that.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you might indulge me for one moment, this is my first time rising to speak on a debate, so I would like to thank the good members of my riding of Burnaby—Douglas for electing me to this place. I would also like to thank my family, who supported me all the way through the election, as well as my lovely wife Jeanette, who has been by my side right through and still may be watching me on CPAC from B.C.

I would also, if I could, beg your indulgence for one more moment. My brother-in-law is very ill, and my thoughts are with him tonight. So if I am a little rattled, I am thinking about him.

I found this debate over the course of last night and this morning fascinating. I am not from a union family. I have been a short time in a union. However, to hear the passion that has been spoken on both sides of the House I think is a credit to the House. It is fantastic that we can come to a place like this, that we can express our opinions and debate each other, most of the time in a civil way. I think the decorum that has come to this House is really something we should all be proud of, and I hope we can keep it up, even though we are dog-tired.

As I said, I am not from a union family at all. In fact, my father is a management consultant. He has worked for very large companies, such as IBM, Westinghouse, and a lot of others. My own experience in life has been through private and public sector work.

One thing that is of great concern to me is what events like this do to the morale of large companies, of large organizations. I am very concerned that the tug, the pull, the struggle between the workers and the management is going to cause long-term damage to a very important Canadian institution, whatever the outcome. I hope that comes into the conversation at some point, the long-term impacts this will have.

I am not from a union family. I am not in the private sector. I am in the public sector, a university professor. What I do, essentially, is public policy analysis. That is my thing. So I feel a little over my head when I hear all the terms and phrases, conditions and ideas that are being used here. However, I have learned a lot, thanks to the contributions from both sides of the House.

What I am trying to figure out is what the problem is here. In public policy analysis, what we do is try to identify a problem first, work through a number of options, come up with viable solutions, and then try to implement those solutions.

Fom what I can see here, the problem that is facing the government, and indeed the whole House, is the problem that workers have been locked out from Canada Post.

This has been a gradual escalation. There have been tensions between the workers and the management. This has gone on for some time. There were rotating strikes. From what I can understand, there was not a full strike. Then the management decided to lock out the workers.

There has been some dispute in the House as to whether it has been a strike or whether it has been a lockout. So just to make sure of my facts, I decided to go through the various news sources to figure out whether it is a strike or a lockout.

I started with my favourite source, which is the National Post business section. It does say, indeed, that this is a lockout, that the employer has indeed locked out the employees.

I went to the business section of The Globe and Mail, and it indeed says it is a lockout as well.

I went to the CTV News website. It says it is a lockout.

I went to CBC News, both radio and television. They are saying it is a lockout.

So from what I can understand, the problem that is facing the government is that a crown corporation, which is at arm's length from the government, has locked out its employees.

I was struggling for a while. I thought maybe it was a strike and maybe the government is portraying the facts as they should be. I thought maybe this is a strike and this is the problem why the government is moving so quickly to force this measure through the House. But indeed it is not a strike. It is a lockout. I think this side of the House has tried to make that point time and time again. I think it is time we should recognize that this is what we are facing here, and that is indeed the core of the problem that is facing both the government and us here on this side of the House.

What we are debating here this morning is Bill C-6, an act to provide for the resumption of postal services, restoring mail delivery. There is a lockout at Canada Post, and the government has decided to force the workers back to work. That is the government's policy solution.

I have been puzzling through the discussions that have been going on in this House. I have been puzzling through the explanations as to why this is occurring, the effects this is having, and trying to decide whether indeed this is the best solution.

In public policy, there are essentially nine instruments that any government can use, or perhaps a combination of these instruments, in any kind of policy situation. They can be put in any kind of order, but how I like to organize them is in order of coercion. I like to organize them in a sense of how much muscle the government has to use to get its will through.

The first thing that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I realize, members, that there may be a changing of the guard happening at the moment, but there is an awful lot of noise in the chamber. I wonder if we could let the member for Burnaby—Douglas continue with his remarks.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In public policy we have essentially nine instruments that any government can use to solve any policy problem. Sometimes a combination of the instruments is used. I will just walk through these, because it is really what the government should be considering as it goes through any policy problem, including this one.

The first instrument that the other side of the House would probably favour in most circumstances is a market solution. It is the least coercive solution, where the government is hands-off and lets the parties solve things.

The second has a little bit more coercion. It is something called the symbolic gesture. The government might strike a commission to look into the situation, and the commission might make a report that is non-binding. The government is making some kind of expenditure, but it is not binding in any kind of way.

The third is exhortation, or asking people to do things publicly. The government could have asked the two sides to come together and make a solution for the good of Canada. Again, it is expending money, but it is not actually doing anything forceful at this point.

The two next ones would be tax expenditure. The government could kind of give people a break on taxes. I do not think that is applicable in this situation. You could do public spending: you might be able to supplement one of the sides to make up for the problems they are having.

Another instrument might be regulation. Again, that is a non-forceful way of regulating how the two bodies would talk together.

Another solution might be taxation.

Public ownership would be to totally reabsorb Canada Post back into the government.

The last one, of course, is a state of emergency. A state of emergency is perhaps the most draconian thing a government can do. What they can do is basically force parties back to the table in this situation.

What is strange to me is that a government that professes to be non-coercive and professes to say that market solutions are the way forward in most situations in fact has gone to the other end of the scale and used the most coercive measure possible to try to end this lockout.

I am quite puzzled by that. I do not understand why this has been the policy instrument the government has chosen to use in this situation. Perhaps it would have been better to leave the parties to work these things out on their own. Not forcing them back to work would definitely be preferable to the current Bill C-6 that is before us.

In closing, I have enjoyed the debate. I look forward to future debate on this. It is a great pleasure to stand and speak in this House.

Thank you very much.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do have to make a couple of observations.

The member talked about the nine ways in which these kinds of things can be solved. I will not list them all, but it seems to me that the government has utilized about eight out of nine. The only one that we have not used is a commission. Maybe their answer to everything is a royal commission.

The member talked about solving it quickly. Well, it seems to me that we have been doing this for at least eight months. So I am not sure what his definition of quickly is either.

The member talked about what events like this do to the morale of companies, large and small, or people. What I would suggest it does is it undermines the confidence of companies, it undermines the confidence of business in Canada. It seems to me that in the current situation we are facing, with the economic recovery and so on, what we need most of all is confidence.

I would like to ask my honourable colleague to address the impact of what is going on right now on the confidence of companies, big and small, the confidence of Canadians to know that government, or somebody, is standing up for their future in solving these kinds of things, using eight out of nine of the instruments that the member mentioned. When does this end? We need to move forward. We need to get on with this, because it is having an impact on companies, large and small, and Canadians of all stripes.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

There is another thing that has been puzzling me through the debate that is related to the question. Canada Post is a crown corporation. It is supposed to be at arm's length from the government, yet there is this kind of grey area. We are not sure when the government is involved in running Canada Post and when it is not involved.

We have heard that the government has been trying for eight months to strike a settlement to try to get the two parties together. We have not heard much detail on how that has been done.

With regard to the morale of the corporation, Canadians are going to be worried that the government is so quick to move to draconian measures. There would be much more confidence and better morale in Canada Post and in other organizations, in their own organizations where people are working, if the government were not so quick to go to this measure. It might be necessary if this dragged out for years and years, but it seems too quick at this point.

I would suggest another measure.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member's speech. As a professor, he knows all of these issues very well with regard to solutions. In fact, I am sure he knows what I am going to refer to. It is a book I had to read when I was going to do negotiations. It is a Harvard tome called Getting to Yes, which talks about a win-win situation.

I am glad the hon. member talked about solutions, because what I wanted to say is we know that the postal workers want to go back to work if we stop the lockout. Let them go back to work, let them negotiate for a limited period of time with a timeline and then go to mediation or arbitration. What the bill will do is not allow that to happen, because it is going to set complete limits on any arbitrator trying to come up with some way to facilitate an agreement. That is what should stop.

We should make sure that they take away the piece that talks about future collective bargaining agreements for this particular group. If we did that, and if we could go to these Liberal amendments on the table, the government would then have to show that it means what it says and that it really wants a solution and is prepared to bend a bit and to come to a win-win situation.

What does the member think of that?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I thank the hon. member for the question. I enjoy being with her in the House here.

My point is that the government has gone to this too quickly. There is still time for negotiation, and it was indeed the crown corporation that locked out the workers. The government does owe it to the workers and the managers of Canada Post to try to work this out. Forcing people back to work this quickly sends a bad signal. We talk about market signals all the time. This is a bad signal to other companies and to other crown corporations that this is going to be the answer to every labour problem: that we will not work through various solutions, we will go right to the hammer.

That is unfortunate, because it does not leave anything in reserve. If you use the hammer all the time, nobody ever sees the feather.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk a little about what is really going on here, about this totally trumped-up lockout. It's not just happenstance that the postal union is the target of such a massive attack. You have to know the history. In the history of this country, postal services, either as a department or as a crown corporation, have always been subject to political authority. No one will make me believe that the director of the Canada Post Corporation imposed a lockout without first getting permission from the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister reacted favourably to this lockout. Then the Prime Minister introduced a special bill, saying that there was a lockout and that he had to act. But if he had not agreed, there would have been no lockout.

This union, which has been in existence since 1911, is exemplary on any number of levels: democratically, socially, and as an institution. When it was part of the public service, it professionalized the public service and made it non-partisan. The members of this union have always delivered quality service. The Canadian postal services have always provided the services expected of them.

Over time, this union negotiated some important improvements, such as salary increases and job security. Then it obtained a pension fund. The first pension funds were perhaps not extraordinary, but at a certain point the union obtained a defined benefit pension plan. It made sure that this defined benefit plan was indexed and that it included survivor benefits. The union even obtained the acceptance of same-sex survivor benefits. As institutions go, the union has a good pension plan. And that is the problem. This issue is at the heart of all of the collective agreement negotiations. Salaries are not the issue, as they have already been settled. The union signed a salary agreement with management. The problem is not compensation, nor is it the normative provisions, as they too have already been agreed upon.

The problem is management’s desire to reconsider the pension system. That is nothing new; it is the same problem as at Air Canada. It is no accident that in both cases there was speedy intervention by the government. In the case of Air Canada, the pension fund deficit is $2.1 billion. If the private entrepreneur that owns Air Canada, which is in fact a speculative venture, is able to reduce that to $500 million, it will have gained a $1.5 billion asset in one fell swoop, with the help of the politicians in this government. That is the problem.

In the case of the postal union, what can it be accused of? Wanting to defend a system that guarantees its retirees that they will not be reduced to poverty? Essentially, they are having a gun held to their head and being asked to agree to be poor when they reach the age of 65. No, they do not agree to that. That is why they have used pressure tactics, to which the Prime Minister responded with a lockout.

If someone here tries to make Canadians believe that the Prime Minister did not authorize the president of a crown corporation to impose a lockout that was going to damage the Canadian economy, I think they have not read the same Constitution as I have. I also think they do not know their Prime Minister. On this side of the House, we know perfectly well that he and he alone makes the important decisions. That is the problem. The Conservatives have got to the point of attacking the largest and oldest Canadian union.

If they succeed, they are going to be able to get their hands on private pension funds. All union funds will become private funds. For the next 35 years alone, that represents $1 trillion in Canada. That is the problem: greed. The people on the side opposite are defending greed. We are not going to allow something as essential to the social and economic life of this country as pension funds to disappear. We will not agree to turn a blind eye to the fact that two or three generations of Canadians will be condemned to poverty when they reach retirement age.

I will also point out to my colleagues that at present, in spite of the economic exploits the Conservatives boast of, the poverty rate in Canada has been rising for five years. That is nothing to brag about.

The people on the side opposite are preparing for another Walkerton. People will remember that little Ontario municipality. The government had assigned the water testing to its friends in private enterprise, who supposedly did everything better and more cheaply. They walked off with the cash and left a mess. If they had only left a mess for the government, no one would have complained, but the problem was that people died because of it. The Conservatives are making exactly the same mistake all over again. This is the same mistake the Americans made not so long ago: giving the public’s money to the private sector. What a great bargain: commissions and bonuses. The devil is in the house and they are the ones who let him in.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start by offering my sincere congratulations to the workers at the Toyota plant in my riding of Cambridge and North Dumfries. The Toyota auto-worker plant has been named the number one automotive plant in the world.

Speaking of the automotive industry, I would like to remind the member it was this Conservative government that put forward an agreement, a package, that saved 52,000 auto worker jobs in Ontario alone. We did not just do it for auto workers, but for the forestry workers, miners, students and seniors. Why? It is because as a government, we are responsible for all Canadians, not just one sector, like the socialist party fighting for the unions.

It is no surprise that the socialist party has been for the unions, but what about the students in the member's riding? What about the seniors who are not getting their cheques? What about the small businesses that will suffer if the members do not agree to this legislation and take the locks off that door now?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only do I know these people, but I can say that the cheques they are receiving do not cover their rent, let alone their groceries. And that is the government's fault because it ignored our budget proposals. A word to the wise.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if the government's current attitude reminds him of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. He decided to lock out all of the air traffic controllers in the United States because they were using pressure tactics.

Since the Conservatives have gotten their majority—which was not that long ago, just since May 2—we have come to recognize their ways. We had our suspicions. We were worried. And now it has become reality. We saw it with Air Canada, and now we are seeing it with Canada Post. Special legislation was quickly put in place. It did not take long. We have our suspicions, and I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks, as I do, that with Canada Post, it was a prepared script, which included the threat of special legislation immediately after the lockout. And the special legislation imposes employer-friendly conditions on the workers. It is scandalous.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the country is run by the Prime Minister of Canada, not the head of a crown corporation, it is clear that the 55,000 Canada Post employees were ambushed in an attack that was planned and directed by the Prime Minister's Office.

Unfortunately for them, the more we talk about it, the sooner people will understand that it makes no sense that the Prime Minister imposed a lockout and then brought in special legislation with the excuse that there was a lockout.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is rising on a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a point of debate, but the hon. member has made several insinuations about the Prime Minister. Because I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I know what he is saying is absolutely incorrect. However, if he has any evidence, he should table it. Otherwise, he should withdraw those remarks and apologize to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of this country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on the same point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see my colleagues over there are probably tired and grumpy after staying up all night. I think they are starting to be a little delusional. I think they just need to calm down and engage in some respectful debate and stop interrupting. It was a very interesting speech, and I find that what I am hearing from across the way is starting to sound rather delusional. I would say, have a little cup of Ovaltine and everything will be fine.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think we have heard a couple of interventions on this. In all honesty, we need to get on with debate. Members should know that while the point speaks to the substance of the comments, the substance of the comments are part of debate.

I would say that members should recall that they should address their comments to the Chair when they are in the midst of directing their remarks or comments. That is always a good idea.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear last night, when the labour minister was speaking in terms of the Conservatives' little narrative they are trying to set up and their attack on unions and the NDP for defending the rights of people to have pensions, that the labour minister said it was obvious the NDP had a direct line to labour leaders.

I would think that any labour minister with any sense of responsibility would also have a direct line to labour leaders, because if she did she would not have stood up in this House and given us this drivel about how the Conservatives were not taking sides and how they wanted to get people back to work. If she had a direct line to the labour leaders, she would have known that the lockout was engineered, that the workers are ready to go back to work and will be delivering the pension cheques.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the labour minister has no direct line to labour union leaders and so has no idea of what is actually happening in this debate.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, she is not in contact with the union representatives because she is in contact only with management. She is not doing her job. It is clear that the postal workers have been ambushed.

If anyone here thinks that the Prime Minister of Canada was not informed that there was going to be a lockout, they are about as broad-minded as a skinhead and they are not too bright either.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would first like to take this opportunity to greet the people of my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. Many of them are celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day today. I will not be with them and I would like to express my great disappointment that the Prime Minister refused the leader of the official opposition's proposal to suspend the sitting of the House for today. We therefore cannot celebrate with our constituents.

That being said, I rise today in this House to do my duty and carry out the mandate that was given to me when I was elected. My constituents gave me the mandate of defending workers. It is a question of principle. Workers and the public should not be punished for Canada Post's bad faith.

Forgive me, but I am starting to feel a little bit tired since I have been here since yesterday morning. I listened carefully to what was said during the debate last night. I am concerned about the fact that the hon. members are not listening to each other.

I would like to speak a little bit about the effect that these events will have on our communities.

The union we are discussing this morning is a responsible union, one which took moderate job action so as to accelerate the negotiations without stopping mail delivery. It is the employer, Canada Post, a crown corporation under the government's responsibility, that decided to reduce and then stop mail delivery entirely by locking out all of its employees. We have debated this a great deal and I think that that is clear as can be.

It is unreasonable for the government to impose wages that are lower than those in the previous proposals, to make workers pay for the employer's bad faith and to try to turn the Canadian people against postal workers.

Even though the people of my riding, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, want to get their mail, they understand the difference between a lockout and a strike. The people in my riding understand very well that the postal workers want to distribute the mail as quickly as possible. However, they cannot agree to sacrifice their pensions, their health, their job security and the working conditions of the newer workers.

Small businesses in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel know that in order to be able to depend on quality service from Canada Post, its workers have to feel they are valued.

All of the workers in my riding support this, because they know that small communities cannot be sustained when members of the community cannot support themselves.

We are talking here—tonight, this morning, and over the weekend if necessary—about giving people the means to defend themselves. This is a matter of respect for workers and the dignity of workers.

I would point out that it is thanks to the workers who were in the vanguard that parental leave, paid for by employers, was won. I think this is something extremely important, since it represents equality. It was the trade union movement that gave us this. These women and men, these workers, simply want to be able to preserve their standing in our society and not become second-class workers.

The work done by postal employees is extremely important to all Canadians and Quebeckers, but it is obviously not valued by this government.

I hope that Canada Post will return to the bargaining table to negotiate a fair and equitable agreement.

I will be here day and night, if need be, to stand up for the right of all Canadians to collectively bargain the right of everyone to a job that enables them to support their family and their community, so that all Canadians are able to retire with security and dignity.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for getting up and making that speech. It is good for her to stand and talk in the House of Commons. It is a right and privilege that we all have.

When I was first a member I had to remember who put me here. I had to remember that it was the constituents who were my priority. I wonder if the member would tell her union bosses that they are fired. She no longer represents her union bosses. Now she represents her constituents. My constituents, just like her constituents, would be telling them to get back to work.

When will she tell her union bosses that they are fired and that she works for her constituents?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I think the point my colleagues and I have been trying to make tonight is that we have to value our workers. Our communities need every member of the community to be able to live in dignity. It is upsetting to me that the members on the other side have not quite realized that this is not about specific groups of Canadians but about our communities as a whole.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her thoughtful comments.

Like many others, I have not been part of a union. In fact, in my previous life I negotiated many collective agreements on behalf of management. While we always approached those negotiations with an attitude of a win-win for both sides, we realized that after negotiations, we still had to maintain good relations. We had to have faith in one another. We had to build morale on both sides, for the employer and the employee.

Last night I received a letter from a CUPW member, George, who asked me to see if there was any possible way he could get back to work right away, have the doors unlocked and resume the mail for all people, for businesses and residents who deserved to receive it.

I wonder if the member could speak about the merit of letting everybody go back to work, resuming their former positions, and going through a normal mediation and arbitration process rather than going through the terms imposed by this legislation.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the workers just want to go back to work with a fair negotiated agreement.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech in the House of Commons this morning. I think it is important we recognize, as she has, that what is happening right now is connected to the issue of community. There is no doubt that Canadian postal workers are very much a part of the community, as is the case, for example, in Windsor West, in Sandwich Towne.

I hear some heckling in the background, but I will ignore that for the moment, just as that member has often been ignored in the House of Commons.

However, I think it is important we recognize that community is very much a part of the postal services.

In my riding there was a threat with regards to closing the postal outlet in Sandwich Towne. We stopped that closing, the first one to be stopped across Canada, because it affected the businesses, residents, seniors, students and so forth.

I would ask the member to expand upon that connection to community. It is very important, because it is not just about the individual workers here but about the best service at the end of the day. This is a very important postal service that is recognized and renowned worldwide.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that communities are interconnected networks of people, and a standard for everybody should be maintained such that the community can function well.

At this point, I think we will probably be elaborating more over the weekend, but I am a bit too tired to keep going right now.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have risen in this House, but it is the first time I have made a speech. First, I would like to thank the voters of Chambly—Borduas for electing me to this position. Speaking of them, I also want to point out that like all my colleagues from Quebec, I will unfortunately not be able to take part in activities marking our national holiday in Quebec with my constituents. I do wish them a wonderful holiday, however. I want them to know that I am very disappointed not to be there.

What is happening is worthwhile, though, because it has given me an opportunity, on this national holiday, to put things in perspective. I would like to take a step back for a moment. I assure you that what I have to say is relevant and relates to the bill we have before us.

One of the activities I was going to take part in today was a performance put on by students at Osias-Leduc secondary school, entitled Je me souviens. All Quebeckers—and many Canadians—know that the motto Je me souviens appears on our licence plates in Quebec. But those words mean much more.

For one, they remind us to think about important historic events, such as the asbestos strike in 1949, which I think is relevant to this situation. I am not bringing this up to upset the member for Winnipeg Centre. The town is called Asbestos. We will not talk about the asbestos issue. One all-nighter is enough. Perhaps another time.

In all seriousness, I want to talk about the asbestos strike because, at that time, there was a serious issue in the labour dispute. It had to do with the language of work. People had no say. At that time, they literally had no say because management and workers did not speak the same language. Now, 60 years later, we find ourselves in the same situation: the workers have no say.

Responsibility for the lockout does not lie with Canada Post. It lies with the government, which wants to force a return to work and impose previously determined conditions that have been set out in the bill we are debating. I find it very problematic and very disappointing that, after 60 years, we are still in a similar situation, even though the circumstances have changed.

I would also like to tell a story about a woman in my riding who is a teacher. Last night, the Minister of Labour spoke about the 45,000 Canada Post workers, who, it seems, are less important than the rest of the Canadian public. However, we must not forget the big picture. My constituent was right to bring this up. She and her colleagues are constantly fighting for their fair share. Yes, I know what the members on the other side are thinking. They are going to give me a lesson. They are going to tell me that education is under provincial jurisdiction. I know that.

I am bringing up this example because the government needs to lead by example and show people that they can have a say, that they have a role to play in society. Be it through a union or some other means, they all have a right to their fair share in society.

This teacher, when she spoke to me about this, told me that she was worried that this bill would pass. Why? Because from that point forward she would be living in a society in which she did not even know whether she would be able to fight for her rights. She did not even know whether she could defend her right to have an acceptable collective agreement, get her pension, and so on.

This is all very relevant for me as a young person. With all due respect to our seniors, it is not only them we are thinking about and whom we have to think about when it comes to pensions. We must also think about young people. As young people, we do not even know if we will have pensions. Without unions or organizations that allow us to have a forum in which to speak, we cannot guarantee the security of these things, the security of pension plans.

That being said, this teacher certainly took notice of what the 308 members of this House wanted. Yes, we want the mail to be delivered again.

However, she said it very clearly. We can spend the whole night, as we have done, taking out our BlackBerrys and saying that we have received an email from some person or another saying that the workers should go back to work or that they should not and that we are doing the right thing. However, the fact remains that the letter carriers, Canada Post employees, were delivering the mail. It was management that decided to declare a lockout, not the workers. People, including those from Quebec, know this. It strikes at the very core of the community values we hold in Quebec.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity, with all due respect to the people in the rest of the country, to note that today is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. It is indeed important to remember. We need to be able to say “Je me souviens”, I remember this important event and the fact that, 60 years later, we are still fighting for the same thing. That being said, this is why we must oppose Bill C-6.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate and others with some interest. At some point, people need to be legislated back to work. This legislation provides how that might be done and gives some guidelines to the arbiter. One of those guidelines is to ensure the short and long-term economic viability of Canada Post. What does the member have against that principle. Does Canada Post not have to be viable if it wants to protect its workers?

It also talks about maintaining the health and safety of its workers, and that is pretty important, and ensures the sustainability of its pension plan. In order for workers to benefit from a pension plan, does it not have to be sustainable?

Would the member not agree with me those guiding principles are reasonable?

At some point, people must come to a place where someone other than the parties bring the matter to a resolution. There are third parties involved, Canadians, who are suffering economically and need to have this brought to a conclusion. It is costing them a significant number of dollars, and that is right across the country.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the problem with this way of thinking is, as I mentioned, that we can no longer hear the workers' voice in all of this. Are the workers not also Canadians who are negatively affected by certain circumstances, as the member opposite said? Yes, we understand the importance of the economy, but workers are also part of the economy.

I would like to say—as we have said throughout the night and will continue to say this weekend—that things were going well at Canada Post until management decided to lock out the employees. There is no reason to prevent workers from expressing themselves and having a voice at the bargaining table.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was born in Asbestos. An entire generation of workers have talked to me about the conflict that took place under a government that was in power in a period that we call the great darkness in Quebec. We will see how history will depict the government opposite.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas what will be the social cost of a collective agreement that is not negotiated, a bogus agreement. Once again, the gap between rich and poor is growing and is greater than ever before.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am happy to have the opportunity to reply to a question from a colleague who is from the area I was referring to.

In fact, that event I referred to does for some mark the beginning of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. To answer the question, if this bill is passed, if we silence workers in this way, we will be losing ground and going back to that era known as the great darkness.

As I mentioned in my speech, this is very important because it is going to create a precedent. The time to act is now. We have four years to go and in my opinion, this is not a very good message to send at the beginning of a mandate.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member had beautiful speech in the House, especially when he says that it is his first speech. He was very thoughtful. The sense of history he brings to the debate today is very important.

He mentioned that postal workers had no voice. That is a very pertinent comment because they have been locked out. They want to do nothing more than get back to the bargaining table.

It was very surprising to us last night to hear the minister talk about the strike. She did not seem to know the difference. Could the member comment on what a lockout is and what took place?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple, but it is crucial to this debate.

The rotating strikes the workers were holding allowed them to serve Canadians anyway and to perform their duties, even in a less-than-perfect way. However, when there is a lockout, there are two things to consider. Firstly, people are deprived of service. The other factor, which is even more important, is that management makes this decision and workers pay the price, without being able to make their voices heard, voices that my colleague and I deem to be important, but that are being jeopardized by this debate.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I salute the hon. member opposite for presenting her comments with great dramatic flair. I salute her energy, but I now want to go to the content of the message.

This is becoming less about Canada Post and its workers and more about the members opposite, who are now holding Canadians to ransom. That is exactly what is happening. They are holding Canadian businesses and the public to ransom.

I had a note the other day from Scouter Tim. It is from London, Ontario, the 10th largest city in Canada. He said that he was having a jamboree, but he could not get the crests that his scouts used for trading because members opposite were blocking the legislation. Canadians now have that same sense. It is no longer Canada Post and its workers; it is members opposite who are saying that they are unable to deliver.

What does the member opposite she say to Canadians—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While listening to the debate through night, I noticed the members were always calling on these emails they had received from various constituents.

I find it shocking that Scouter Tim would have said days ago that the members of the other party were holding up the debate. Would the member table the email from Scouter Tim so we could see what it actually says?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member will know that members are not obliged to table documents in this particular manner. If the member has a question, he can certainly rise on questions and comments.

The hon. member for London West.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me just read that, because I think that is a fair comment. He wrote, “I'm a scout leader with the 68th London scouts group. We have a group of scouts that will be attending a jamboree in B.C. this July 9th through 16th. One of the big events for scouts is the trading of crests. Unfortunately, the crests that have been designed and made specifically for this jamboree are being held up in a Canada Post depot. The youth have saved money through fundraising in order to purchase the crests and now there's a good chance that they will attend this once in a lifetime event and not have the crests they were going to trade.”

Members opposite should know that after all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done, and that is very disappointing.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member took the time to read it.

I certainly support the scout movement. However, it is clear that scouter Tim did not blame the members opposite. The member did, and I would ask that he withdraw his statement.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. That is a matter of debate.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Langley is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just days ago we had a promise from members opposite that decorum would be returned to this House. As my colleague was trying to answer questions, there was a great degree of heckling from the other side. That is not what was promised, so we need the return of decorum in this House.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Conservative Party might have noticed, as we all did, that the version read before did not correspond to the version he actually received. That is what we call something not adjacent to the truth. We were just trying to get to the part of the email he said he was quoting, but unfortunately it is not in the email. He was making it up.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have received sufficient interventions on this point. These are points of debate and I would encourage members to use their time during questions and comments to put questions to previous speakers.

The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the calendar on the table says June 23. That should be corrected since today is June 24. Last night, few francophone members spoke but some will this morning. I will speak in French from start to finish. I would appreciate it if questions were asked in French given that this is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

We remain optimistic about the resolution of the dispute but, as the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said earlier, both parties must demonstrate goodwill. When both parties are present, they must frankly discuss the problem and resolve it.

For several weeks and a few days, the government has been wanting to violate the fundamental rights of Canadian workers, not just those who are unionized but also those who are not. The working class's battle to have its rights respected is not something new. Unfortunately, with this Conservative government, it is an ongoing battle.

The government is quick to attack fundamental rights such as the right of association and freedom of expression, which are guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as, by extension, the right to peacefully negotiate working conditions in accordance with the fundamental principle of labour relations—industrial peace. We wonder how far the government will go. All night long, the Conservatives have been nasty, arrogant and sarcastic and have shown a total lack of respect for human rights. That is what this is all about.

Freedom of association is the freedom to combine together for the pursuit of a common purpose. This fundamental freedom, along with freedom of opinion and expression, come within the realm of civil and political human rights, which find affirmation in the Constitution. The government must respect this right and can only infringe it by a rule of law, within limits that are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. These are not my words, but those of Justice Bastarache, in Dunmore v. Ontario.

It is mind-boggling. I have been awake for 24 hours. Furthermore, I am somewhat intimidated by the quality of the interventions by all these people around me. This is my first speech. I would like to say hello to the members of my fans club who, I am sure, are watching me at 7 a.m. on CPAC.

Yesterday, I listened to the hon. member for Beauce try to give us a crash course in economics and quote such outdated and utopian theorists that you would think we were back in the 19th century. I get the impression that his colleague, the labour minister, attended the same university, because she wants to take us straight back to the 18th century when it comes to labour relations. It might be time for the members opposite to come up to speed by studying more pragmatic theorists given that modern civilization has evolved. Extreme capitalism is dead. That is what started the economic crisis. They are going backwards.

When a bill is introduced to dictate working conditions that are less favourable than those previously negotiated, and without acknowledging this fact and claiming the contrary, it makes us wonder where the government has been these past few weeks. Is there a pilot on board? That is how I would summarize the past few days.

We are moving towards an abyss, the suffering of the working class. The gap between the ruling class and the working class is widening once again. What will happen? Which services will be privatized in the coming weeks and months? What is this government's hidden agenda? Will it be honest with us?

Through no fault of their own, postal workers are often seen as spoiled public servants. I would like to challenge a government member to do the work of the letter carriers, day after day. Perhaps then they would understand the frustration of these workers, who do not deserve what is being imposed on them.

Yesterday, while listening to the leader of the official opposition, I said to myself that it was a great speech by a great democrat. I am proud to be a member of this party, which defends the interests of all Canadians. Is there anyone opposite who will rise and say that today they wish to stand up for the working class or the middle class and all the interests of Canadians?

I am a little nervous, and I will end on that note. Thank you for listening. This is what this is all about.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind the hon. member that there are two official languages in Canada and we can ask questions and give our answers in whichever of the languages we are most comfortable with. I listened intently to every word the member said. I realize he is tired, but we are quite refreshed on this side.

There were no solutions raised. There was no talk about how to solve the problem. We can continue this debate for four or five days. After today, I will be back on Monday. We can keep right on going and still be here on July 1. What are the solutions? We can stand here and talk about ideology all we want, but what are the solutions to the problem we are having, on behalf of the 33 million Canadians, including the 55,000 postal workers?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. The solution is at the bargaining table. Let us remove the locks and make the parties sit down with one another.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks of the fact that the government wants the workers to return to work when there is a lockout. Does he think that it would make more sense to have the employer allow the workers to work?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said repeatedly during the night, the workers are ready to go back to work. It is that simple. They are ready to negotiate an agreement peacefully, as equals.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, my colleague from Compton—Stanstead has experience in labour law. That is what I believe I understood in my chats with him since this session began.

When he took a look at the bill, he saw that the government was imposing salaries on postal workers that were in fact less generous than the previous Canada Post Corporation offers had been. By imposing such a salary reduction—another measure in the bill that is unfair to workers—will the government not create a conflict when people go back to work and create an absolutely poisonous job atmosphere until the expiry of the collective agreement?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his question.

All this is going to do is poison working conditions and relations. Moreover, the imposition of an “orphan clause” will make things even worse by creating two salary scales. This provision was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a judgment involving the Sherbrooke municipal police force and the City of Sherbrooke, which had created a second salary scale. This is no way to settle the conflict and bring about labour peace.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicates that the parties should get back to the negotiating table, but they have been at the negotiating table since October of 2010.

Conciliators and others have helped the mediators, but at some point there needs to be a solution, as was suggested in one of the faxes I received. It said: “Personally, I believe in the right of union members to negotiate and strike under unfair labour practices. However, when negotiations drag on to the point they threaten the livelihood of Canadians or the good health of Canadians, then we need a government that will legislate and provide a solution.”

What about Canadians? He is looking at one party or the other, but there are more parties involved than just the two at the table. If they cannot resolve their differences, there must be a means by which that can happen. This is that means and he should get behind it and support it.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people have to start by showing goodwill at the negotiating table. That is the essential principle on which any good negotiation rests. It may take 6, 8 or 18 months. The letter carriers guaranteed that they would provide services during negotiations in good faith between the two parties.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks, I have to say that I have been sitting in this House for more than five years and that I am extremely proud of my new colleagues. I congratulate them.

I have kept abreast of the Canada Post situation for a long time. I have learned a lot by speaking to workers, to the union and to representatives of management. This is what I have learned. Under its mandate, Canada Post must make a profit each year. We have learned that, in 2009 I believe, the profit was $281 million. But that is not all. The corporation must also give part of that income to the federal government. In other words, Canada Post is a way for the government to make money, to get a guaranteed income. To make this profit possible, management wants the crown corporation to become more efficient. And to do so, it must make cuts.

I have noticed this in my communities. We forget this when we are talking in this debate today, but draconian measures were instituted by the former CEO of Canada Post, Moya Greene.

In my letter to her on February 9, 2010, I outlined how the restructuring of, for example, the Trail and Castlegar post offices was creating staffing problems, with such things as part-time employees with years of seniority receiving fewer hours than casual term employees, and two fully-trained wicket clerks being transferred to a night shift position in another community. Our Castlegar post office is now one wicket clerk short, which means more lineups, and one nighttime position has been eliminated.

All of this of course decreases the service to the community.

I also understood, in talking with representatives of CUPW and others, that prior to her coming to Canada Post, there were relatively good labour relations and the work climate was better. So I believe the background to this conflict is a climate that has been fostered by this crown corporation and that is not conducive to good labour relations.

My constituency assistant, Laurel Walton, yesterday spoke to a member of CUPW on the picket line. This person was wondering if this legislation included benefits that were ripped away on June 2, such as sick leave and medical and extended health care.

I know that the employer arbitrarily reduced hours for full-time clerks and letter carriers without consultation with the union. They are asking if their regular hours are going to be restored, if the minimums in the collective agreement are going to be restored, and if five-day delivery will be restored. These are questions that are being asked by CUPW workers on the picket lines.

I am proud to report that my local retired teachers association in Grand Forks is rallying at the picket line to support postal workers. In fact, now more than ever, it is time to get support for all those who value fairness and justice. It is simply unacceptable for the federal government to legislate workers back to work, to offer less in wages than the employer, and in fact to lock out the workers.

Canadians must understand that this is just a start. As part of its cutting and slashing, Canada Post has cut back hours and positions in my province in approximately 72 rural British Columbia communities. One time, a postal worker contacted me almost in tears. She was working seven part-time hours a week and this was cut back to three hours. She was just making ends meet and working to support her disabled husband in the process. This kind of policy is hurting rural communities especially.

Prior to writing my letter to the CEO of Canada Post, I consulted with the president of CUPW in Trail. He mentioned to me that he and his colleagues were willing, before the discussions started in regard to this lockout, to sit down with Canada Post to work out a solution. They had some creative ideas about how the corporation could sell to new customers and increase revenue at the local level. In fact, I was told that relations deteriorated when the new CEO took over.

Subsequent to my letter to the CEO, I communicated with her successor. I mentioned to him in my letter of December 17 that certain staffing positions are not being filled upon retirement. This has placed additional stress on those workers, as well the public they serve.

The pattern is there. It is clear. Canada Post is embarking on a streamlining of its operations by going as far as it can go on the backs of the workers.

After the Canadian Union of Postal Workers started a series of rotating strikes, it offered to end them if Canada Post would agree to keep the previous agreement in effect while negotiations continued. But the corporation refused.

We are being asked a number of questions about what is happening and what is being done. My answer is that Canada Post imposed the lockout. The workers wanted to keep working during the negotiations. So this is not a strike by the workers, it is a lockout imposed by management. The government is now imposing a contract that is not a fair collective agreement. It is not appropriate for the government to intervene and to impose a contract on the workers.

We still remain optimistic that the dispute can be settled, but goodwill has to be shown on both sides. The government must stop interfering in the process. The management of Canada Post and the government have discussed nothing. They imposed a lockout right away and introduced a bill. It is wrong to say that the government did not make the decision. They both did.

In a communiqué by Dennis Lemelin, the president of CUPW, he said that the government’s heavy-handed intervention will damage labour relations for years to come. As I said earlier on, there had been good relations until we started these kinds of draconian measures.

The last time the federal government imposed back to work legislation, in 1997, it included a provision to ensure that the mediator/arbitrator consider the importance of good labour-management relations. The current legislation contains no such provision.

I would like to quote from my response to constituents who are concerned about this lockout. What we are seeing in this current lockout is a snapshot of things to come. There is a concentrated effort by the current federal government and others to take away the rights and benefits that Canadian workers have fought for over the years. This will eventually affect all of us, especially in our rural communities. Fewer jobs with less pay means that less money will trickle down to our small businesses. I believe, as former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said so well, that a strong economy needs a strong middle class.

If our postal workers are subjected to these cuts, loss of wages, benefits and pensions in other sectors will surely follow. There are no two ways about it. Local economies depend on well-paid jobs. Fewer jobs and less pay will mean that less money will trickle down to our small businesses.

Let us support our postal workers. Let us ensure that the government tells Canada Post to take the lockout away so they can continue negotiating and come to a reasonable solution for all.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome all of our viewers who are tuning in. This may seem a little unique to people who are tuning in, but at the House of Commons this is still actually Thursday, even though in the rest of the world it is Friday, which will explain to some of the viewers why many of the patriotic members, all members around here, are not yet wearing red. It is “wear red for the troops” Friday, and I know that many hon. members will be putting on red ties and so forth later on--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that on the fête nationale the member would say we should be wearing red for the troops on Friday. We all respect our troops, but he does not even take a moment to recognize that this is the fête nationale and for the Quebec--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. This is a point of debate. I would remind hon. members that these points of order do indeed take time away from legitimate questions and comments that members may have for the previous speaker.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do wish everyone a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I was just putting in a small, friendly preamble to give my colleague a moment to catch his breath.

My understanding of the legislation, while I'll admit that I may not have read it in the detail that my hon. colleague has, is that it fundamentally comes down to a few basic things. What has been agreed to by the various parties will be part of the agreement. There are very small, modest changes in the wages they have agreed to, which, frankly, after a week's worth of a strike would not be much different, and then there is final settlement arbitration, which can go in favour of either management or the union.

Does not my hon. colleague think and understand that with final offer arbitration being put on the table there is a potential for both the union and management to lose their best positions and thus a certain degree of incentive for them to get to a reasonable compromise?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I would like to thank my colleague for his preamble to let me get my thoughts in order.

I would like to quote from the CUPW bulletin of June 5. In it they say that what management is not saying is that they are demanding an end to sick leave for all employees and the imposition of a short-term disability plan that provides inadequate coverage for short-term illnesses and that threatens medical privacy. It says that they have been attempting to reduce service in rural areas and that they have not responded to the union's proposal to extend door-to-door delivery service to seniors and persons with mobility restrictions. They have rejected proposals to follow the example of other postal administrations and diversify into financial and banking services, and they are demanding a starting wage that is 22% less than the current starting rate.

These are not conditions, so how can they be accepted when in negotiations?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am noticing something about the government opposite.

In negotiations—I do not know whether the hon. member can comment on this—my union experience always leads me to say that negotiations go on year in, year out. That is what we call communicating with the employer to make sure that possibilities always exist. And it costs absolutely nothing. This government seems to be saying that it had to impose a lockout because of the lengthy negotiations.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comment.

The odd thing is that negotiations were under way and they were supposed to continue. The union was saying that it would continue to deliver the mail during negotiations. But then, all of a sudden, a lockout was imposed. In my view, that does not reflect a willingness to try to solve the problem. Both sides must be willing to do so.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me also wish all Quebeckers and francophones a happy national holiday. I would especially like to extend my wishes for a happy national holiday to my constituents in Hull—Aylmer.

The current Conservative government is using all available means to restrict and destroy the right to collective bargaining. This government is in support of an employer locking out its employees, and finds it acceptable. This government is basically refusing to recognize the right to collective bargaining, a right that these workers and workers in Canada and even abroad have fought hard for.

Over the past 100 years, workers have demanded rights, such as reasonable working hours, health and safety laws that protect them, maternity and paternity leave, and decent pensions. That was only accomplished through sacrifices and struggles.

Yesterday, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism tried to teach us an Economics 101 course, but today, I would like to take the opportunity that we trade unionists finally have to talk about the battles that unions have fought and the gains they have won from employers and from successive governments. I think especially of the battles waged by the women in trade unions. The result is that, today, we in the NDP have 42 women members, and I am very proud of that.

In the world of labour, these rights, such as the right to a pension, are very important to us. They are rights that this employer and this government want to scoff at, such as the right to present demands, the right to negotiate, the right to decent wages and the right to work in the language of one's choice.

At this point, I would like to provide some examples of the battles waged by the men, and certainly by the women, who have worked for Canada Post. I will be going back some way, because I believe it is very important for us as trade unionists to do so when we talk about the union movement, about where we came from, and about the way in which we have won those rights that the current government, the government of Canada, and the employer want to treat with contempt.

Let us go back to 1880, when a royal commission recommended hiring women into the public service because they would be happy with low wages. That is a long way from equal pay for work of equal value. In 1884, the postal service had more women as third-class clerks than any other department.

In 1918, the wives of strikers were in the front lines of a major demonstration in the streets of Toronto, a demonstration organized in their support by several other unions.

Through the 1950s and 1960s, many female postal workers were hired. Those women worked part-time or as casuals, once more for a pittance.

In 1955 came the abolition of the ban on married women, who had previously been denied work in the public service.

In 1981, CUPW, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, went on strike for paid maternity leave, and won.

In 1986, the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers was established. Most of its members were women.

In 2000, the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers mobilized to improve conditions for those women workers.

In 2004, finally, rural route and suburban mail carriers won a collective agreement. As a result, finally, a host of women workers obtained access to pensions, employee benefits and other protections.

It is important to talk about this to show all the gains that have been made by women and workers in the federal public service and the postal service. This is what we have won and that is what the government wants to take away from us.

I would also like to talk about another example where workers have fought some battles. Let us remember back to May 15, 1919, in Winnipeg, a day that some people refer to as “Bloody Saturday”.

That day is remembered by those of us who did the honourable thing by taking part in the battle for the rights of wealth producers. It is remembered by the sons and daughters of those participants whose stories they heard at family evening gatherings. But today, family gatherings are no longer what they used to be.

Closer to us, here in Buckingham, there is a monument erected in memory of the workers killed in a labour dispute at the beginning of the 1900s. Those two examples show the courage of the workers who fought for the right to collective bargaining. And the current government and Canada Post are trying to destroy these very fundamental rights. Postal workers have made a significant contribution to the improvement of the living and working conditions of society as a whole. I would like to thank them on behalf of all Canadians.

As a woman who has been active in these movements, I am very proud of having trained in trade unionism and made a career for myself. I am equally proud to be able to share this story with hon. members and to share the pride that they too must feel from fighting together to benefit members of parliament, women and society as a whole. If it had not been for trade unions, we would not be here today, and women would not be as far ahead as they are today. Many women of my generation well remember the time when paid maternity leave did not exist. The term “pay equity” was unheard of.

Let us also not forget the public sector myths that Canada Post is trying to spread. Canada Post is supposed to be a drain on public funds. In fact, the public postal service and its workers cost the public treasury nothing.

In the last 15 years, Canada Post has earned profits of $1.7 billion and has contributed $1.2 billion to the federal government in dividends and taxes. Yet they are now trying to tell us that there are problems, that public services are too much, and that they have to be privatized or destroyed.

They talk about low participation and low productivity in the public service and in Canada Post. On the contrary, Canada Post is very productive. Unlike a great number of companies, it has seen strong growth in productivity in the last two years. It is important to note, for example, that productivity in processing transactional mail has increased by 6.7%.

I would also like to mention something that postal workers once did that has been forgotten over the years. In large cities, postal workers played a very significant role in the community. When delivering mail to the door, they often noticed when elderly people had not picked up their mail for five or six days. They then called the police or people in the community who found out whether those people were all right. This value, this need, this action, which was so important in a community, has been lost. Now we often see elderly people left on their own. We have heard of situations where elderly people have been found in the community after several days.

Once again, I deplore the attitude of the government and the employer that have colluded and agreed to a lockout, refusing the right to collective bargaining that is fair and equitable to all workers. This means that, in the future, these same workers and society as a whole will be losing their rights and losing ground.

I hope they will go back to the negotiating table and the government will listen to reason.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, the media is reporting that 70% of Canadians are in support of the back-to-work legislation because of the difficulties it is causing a lot of Canadians, especially in rural Canada, where there has been a huge impact, even though they are not on strike.

For many people who count of day-to-day mail service, it actually has not been good for quite a while, I must say.

I guess I should backtrack and say that this was an election issue for me in Saskatoon. Briarwood is an area that should be quite well served. It is an urban area. Briarwood residents were only receiving mail three days a week, so they do not really notice the interruption and are not quite as upset about the service that has been suspended.

There have to be two sides to this story. I wonder if the member has had people asking about supporting the legislation the government has put forward.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like a number of hon. members, I have been hearing that, since 1991, the Conservative government and the Liberal government in office at the time have denied the rights of workers and have overused back-to-work legislation to prevent workers from having the right to fair and equitable collective bargaining.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have been sitting here listening to speeches, I have been struck by this being a metaphor for an ideological warfare. It seems to be two-by-fours at two sword lengths between the warring parties. How else could we explain a government putting forward legislation that it knows will be toxic to the unions, putting forward legislation that is actually less than the employer provided for in the collective process thus far, and simultaneously, a party and a union being unable to come to grips with the reality that the demand for their services has actually declined over time and in fact is looking for a place to continue to exist?

I have heard a lot of rhetoric from both sides. I have not heard a great deal of solution. I anticipate this ideological warfare will go on for quite a number of hours, if not days. I would be interested in the hon. member's solution to how this matter gets back to some bargaining.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments and questions about solutions. We have said it many times and I repeat it: Go back to the table. Let the process of collective bargaining go on. That is what we are asking for.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to my colleague who just spoke.

Concerning the maternity leave benefits that were put in place by this union in 1981, how has that impacted Canadian society in general, and what is the good that has come from that?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Yes, the right of women to stay in the labour market, the right to work, had a significant impact. As I mentioned, women in my generation had to leave the workforce when they were pregnant. Today, women finally have the fundamental right to work, to have children and to raise a family. As a result, they receive salaries and benefits, and thereby can also contribute to the economy of their regions and of their communities, which is very important for everyone.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in opposition to Bill C-6.

I would like to take us back to what we are talking about here in terms of our postal service.

A country with as vast a geographic scale as Canada obviously needs excellent communication. From the very earliest days of our country, we have placed a real priority on our mail service. The first paid mail delivery in Canada was back in 1693, hundreds of years ago. We have had a federal mail service since Confederation, since 1867.

It is logical, with Canada's vast land mass, that we have efficient, punctual and affordable mail service that works for all Canadians. It would be easy to design a mail service that works in the major urban centres and leaves behind the huge number of Canadians who live across this vast geography. What we have with Canada Post is a service that works for Canadians, whether they live in Inuvik, Vancouver Island, St. John's, Toronto or Montreal. That is the principle on which Canada Post was founded. This system, even to this day, works incredibly well.

Every single business day Canada Post handles 40 million pieces of mail. As a Canadian, I can send a letter to anywhere in this vast country for the princely sum of 59¢. That is a pretty good bargain. In countries such as Germany and Austria, which have a much smaller geography and have perhaps privatized their postal service, it costs 77¢ and 88¢ respectively to send a letter across much shorter geographic distances than we have in Canada.

Our postal service is not just something we should sneeze at. It was built into the fabric of this country. It was designed to help Canadians communicate with each other. It was designed to bring our country together across this vast geography. Of course it has a personal and an economic role but it also has a nation-building role.

Our postal service is a success story. We have a modern, efficient postal service, which is making a profit for Canadians. This money gets ploughed back into our coffers to the tune of $281 million a year. It is actually a money-maker for Canadians. It is a system that works quite well for us.

What we are seeing in this latest round of negotiations is a bit of a public relations war. Of course there are Canadians who are upset since Canada Post has locked out and shut the doors on its workforce. I am getting emails from small businesses in my constituency that want the mail service to resume, and I agree with them. We should have our mail service resume. This would be easily achieved if the government and Canada Post took the locks off the doors of our post offices right across this country and allowed postal workers to get back to work and resume sorting and delivering the mail right across Canada. Would that not be a good thing to have happen?

I have had constituents, including small businesses, tell me they are hearing that the bill the government has put forward would actually impose terms and conditions on Canada Post workers that are worse than the terms and conditions Canada Post is negotiating at the bargaining table. It would roll back the clock on their working conditions and on their pay and benefits.

Those same people, not all but some, have said they just want the parties to go back to the table and keep negotiating, not send them back saying they have to accept even worse terms and conditions than Canada Post was willing to pay at the bargaining table. How ridiculous is that?

What is the role of the government in deciding what the terms and conditions are going to be that would undercut even what the employer was willing to pay? I do not think that is what Canadians want to sign up for. That is not about getting the mail going. That is about imposing a labour relations regime in this country and rolling back the basic rights of Canadians, not just at Canada Post.

Let us think about it. That is telling employers across this country that they can get a better deal through the government and that they do not have to bargain with the union. They can get a better deal by going to the government and, rather than the government using the fine tools of labour relations to do the difficult work of negotiating a collective agreement or fostering the negotiation of a collective agreement between employers and employees, the government will take a sledgehammer and impose terms and conditions that will give employers a much better deal than they would ever have to fairly negotiate at the bargaining table.

What would that mean? It would mean that young people would be hired for lower wages than people have been hired in the past, almost 20% less than new hires were getting paid at Canada Post. It would mean lower wage rates, poorer benefits and the loss of the ability to get a pension. I do not think Canadians want this kind of intergenerational betrayal to be imposed by their government on working people in this country. They want a fair, efficient, functional postal service that will serve them, their communities and their businesses. What they do not want is this sledgehammer approach that rolls back the clock and betrays young people and their job opportunities for the future.

What do we say to our children and grandchildren about their job prospects? What do we say when they ask if they are going to have security throughout their working lives and in their retirement years? What kind of betrayal is that? What message is the government sending?

New Democrats do not think the sledgehammer approach is the way to go. We think the difficult work of rolling up sleeves, communicating effectively with both sides and fostering a negotiated settlement is the way to go, but Canadians do not have to wait until that is achieved. The government and Canada Post could take the locks off our postal system today, open the doors, allow postal workers to return to work, get the mail moving and then get back to negotiating a fair collective agreement.

Canadians understand clearly that this is not a strike that we are seeing. This is a lockout by the employer, clearly with the approval of the government. Canadians want it to end but they want it to end fairly. They do not want it to end by betraying young people and future generations or the service that has had such an important nation-building role in our country.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member provided very thoughtful comments. One of the very positive parts of this debate is the enormous amount of labour history we are learning about, what it is that affects working people in this country and the role unions have played in flighting for better working conditions, hours of work, health and safety and better wages that lifts everybody up in this country. That has been a very interesting part of this debate.

I know the member has many decades of service in the labour movement and has been part of negotiations. One thing that is very interesting for us to hear, which the member for Hull—Aylmer also talked about, is the impact of women and the changes that have taken place, whether it is on pay equity, parental leave or equal pay for work of equal value. These are very important wins by unions and the labour movement.

I wonder if the member could relate that to the situation we are now facing, of these workers being locked out. All they want is to go back to the table and get a fair deal for their members and for the rights of all workers in this country. How does that relate to equality for women in this country?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is an employer in the federal jurisdiction and a crown corporation. It is an employer where today we will see large numbers of women employed. At Canada Post it is probably around 50-50, if I am not mistaken. We will see provisions around maternity and parental leave that were pioneered at Canada Post.

However, I dare say Canada Post did not just wake up one morning and ask what they could do for working women. It was because the workers got together, through the legitimate voice of their union, to organize and to press for gains like better maternity benefits and better opportunities for women, including pay equity.

Therefore, all Canadian women owe a real debt of gratitude to CUPW and the women who work at Canada Post.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member, who worked so long with her former union boss, Ken Lewenza, has no faith in the union's ability to win final offer selection.

This is actually a fair situation if we look at it from the workers' perspective. They get a guaranteed pay increase for four years when others do not. They get to go back under the current agreement, which is exactly what they have been asking for anyway. They get an improved pension trajectory, which is mandatory in terms of the final offer. They are going to have to get an improved pension solvency.

All matters that have previously been settled are not going to be reopened. They are settled. In terms of the outstanding issues, what remains is that the union gets to put forward its offer and the company gets to put forward its offer.

Is the member saying that she has no confidence in the union's ability to put forward a competitive bid that will be in the interest of workers and actually win the final offer selection?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in the member's previous life as an auto worker it was the union that bargained the excellent wages, benefits, and working conditions that allowed him and his family to prosper in the community of Windsor.

I have enormous faith in the ability of the union to negotiate a fair settlement. Final offer selection is a bit of a sledgehammer approach. It would be much better if there were a mediated arbitration. That would allow both sides to negotiate and tailor a solution instead of the winner-take-all approach that the government is favouring.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to take this opportunity to correct my colleague on the other side of the House, the Minister of State for Science and Technology. He mentioned that his riding had received good financial assistance from the federal government to help the automotive industry. I am very happy for his constituents. However, he said that through the same package, the government had provided strong support for the forestry industry. I worked in the forestry industry for a very long time and honestly, this government did nothing. During the economic crisis, it provided assistance in the form of $10 billion in loan guarantees to the automotive industry—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology on a point of order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of State for Science and Technology, I know exactly what I said. The member was not here, so I can forgive him for misquoting me. I will give the member the opportunity to stand up and apologize for again misleading Canadians. That is not what I said.

I said that this government has helped the automotive sector, as well as the forestry sector, as well as mining, as well as seniors and students. We did that because as the government we are responsible for all Canadians in all sectors and not, unlike the socialist party, just the unions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

On the same point of order, the hon. opposition House leader.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I just want to make sure that when this happens it does not affect the time of the members of the loyal opposition who are speaking. That was obviously not a point of order. It was a point of debate.

The member was also signalling that in his opinion someone was absent from the House. That is another breach of the regulations governing our debates. I would have hoped that this would have been pointed out to the member. I ask that particular attention be paid to that type of intervention. It was definitely not a point of order. It breached another rule of the House.

As the parliamentary House leader of the official opposition, I ask for confirmation that this type of intervention does not negatively affect the time allotted to the members of the opposition for speaking.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate the advice offered to the chair from the hon. members of the chamber.

I would encourage all members to refrain from using points of order as opportunities to engage in debate and to take away from speakers. I have just come back to the chair. It is actually morning to me rather than late night. I do not know what has happened to this point. In this case, the clock has been stopped during this process. This will not infringe on the time allocated to the member speaking.

I appreciate that many members have strong views on this subject. I would appreciate the cooperation of all hon. members. I hope they will show their colleagues the respect they are due.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said because there may have been an interpretation problem. I was acknowledging that the federal government provided assistance to the automotive industry in the form of $10 billion in loan guarantees. That said, it is unacceptable to say that the government helped the forestry industry, which is larger than the automotive sector in terms of percentage of GDP, when it received only $170 million to help it out of the crisis. I simply wanted to correct what my colleague opposite had said.

I also want to say that I am proud to represent the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Like many of my colleagues, I want to express my regrets that I am not there with my constituents today to celebrate Quebec's national holiday.

I would like to say to the various members who have made speeches, and particularly the members on the government side, that my goal is to represent all of my constituents, both the postal workers and those who use postal services.

My colleagues know that this is my first term as an MP. Some of them have been here longer, but it seems that my colleagues are having some trouble properly responding to the correspondence they are receiving from their constituents. So I would like to help them out. If they have a pencil and a sheet of paper, they can take some notes.

To the people who are writing to them to say that they are having difficulty, that their small business will not survive if service does not resume or that they are waiting for services, various goods, medications and so on, they can say that there is currently a conflict at Canada Post and that the employees responded to that conflict with a rotating strike in light of what they felt were unacceptable offers from Canada Post. That rotating strike allowed Canadians to receive their mail, their parcels, and so on.

The Minister of Labour said that she would not step in to put an end to the rotating strike since service was not being interrupted, but that if service was interrupted, she would seriously consider the possibility of passing special legislation. So Canada Post locked out the employees.

Given that the government has a weak majority that it obtained through less than 40% of voters and less than 20% of voters in Quebec, it has the power to impose a special bill that interferes with the principle of collective bargaining. But, as government MPs, my colleagues support this process. The government had several options actually. It could have passed a special bill to renew the collective agreement, which would have been acceptable to the union and the employees, and which would have let Canadians receive their mail. Unfortunately, the government decided not to take that route.

The government could have passed a special bill that would have ended the lockout without affecting the union's right to rotating strikes and the right to strike, which would have made mail delivery possible. Unfortunately, the government decided not to take that route.

So the government decided to impose special legislation that forces employees to return to work under unfavourable conditions.

The government says it is surprised that the employees do not approve of the conditions that are contrary to their interests, even though that government decision is delaying mail delivery.

This is what my colleagues could say to their constituents to explain the current situation.

In my opinion, this government—my colleagues do not have to write this in their letter—is definitely the most polarizing government I have seen in the history of Canada. Right now, it is dividing the country into good guys and bad guys, as it has done for the past five years, and as we know it will continue to do. Right now, the bad guys are the unionized workers whom it has decided to treat as second-class citizens.

What is happening here now is by no means an isolated event. We are not staying here until who knows when in order to deal with an isolated incident at Canada Post. A message is being sent to Canadian employers for the coming years and especially for the next fours years, under this government. It is basically telling CEOs and board of directors chairs that they can negotiate in bad faith and drag their feet for seven, eight or nine months and impose a lockout.

Then the government will simply legislate and impose strict conditions on employees, conditions that favour employers. We just saw this with Air Canada. That is what the government was about to do. Now the same thing is happening with Canada Post. What will be next? Via Rail, Bell, Bombardier or any other company this government considers too important to our economy to be allowed to negotiate freely and to determine its own future.

In other words, the message being sent out right now to employers in this country is that if they manufacture a crisis, the government will bail them out. That is exactly what is happening here.

I would like to take the rest of my time to discuss two specific reasons that, to me, explain why there is currently a labour dispute. The employer is imposing two clauses that are absolutely unacceptable to the union, the entire union movement, and to people in the lower middle class. With clauses like that, we can understand why people resort to using pressure tactics such as rotating strikes.

One of the clauses is called an “orphan clause”. The most inequitable and unfair measure that there could ever be in the world of labour relations is an “orphan clause”. I am not sure if there is a way to translate that expression. Essentially, with an orphan clause, young employees joining the workforce who do the same work as employees already on the job will earn a lower salary than their colleagues. How can a union that represents all its members tell some members they are worth less than others who are doing the same work? Does anyone really think the union can accept that? Can someone not explain to Canada Post, which is a crown corporation—and therefore controlled by the government—this basic principle of labour relations, namely that members cannot receive different salaries for the same work?

The other clause has to do with pensions. As some hon. members have already talked about this, I will not talk about it at length. Employees, who know they will have income security when they retire at age 60 or 65, are being asked to go from a defined benefit package, where they know what benefit amount to expect, to a defined contribution plan, where they can hope there is no economic crisis when they are set to retire. Otherwise, they might end up having to work another five, six or seven years.

Again, the principle is unacceptable and we can understand the union's position. We are asking Canada Post to be more conciliatory. We are asking the federal government not to send workers back to work under unfavourable conditions and to consider other options such as ending the lockout.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there are some ironies in the current debate, Right now the NDP is perpetuating an effort to delay an end to a corporate lockout. Apparently, its members wish to have the workers of Canada Post continue to be locked out and have Canadians denied service. I know they have an affection for work stoppages.

When we hit 11 a.m. this morning, this back to work legislation will have been delayed longer than any of the other 32 times such legislation has been tabled in Canadian history.

Is it really the case that the members opposite are so committed to the New Democratic Party that they will do everything possible to deny Canadians postal delivery and everything possible procedurally to keep the Canadian economy from having the benefit of the postal service it depends on so strongly?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I would like to thank the member for his question. When I began my speech, I said I was sincerely sorry and offered my apologies to my constituents in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques that I could not be with them because we are here debating this issue. This is a fundamental issue that is going to set the direction that labour relations will take now and for the next four years.

The government members are well aware that they could settle this issue very quickly. They can change the special legislation; I offer them that option. This is not an option that has been only half discussed here. They can introduce another special bill and end the lockout. They can make sure that the employees retain their right to hold rotating strikes. Tomorrow morning, Saturday, I am sure the postal workers would be happy to work that day to make up for the losses. Beginning on Monday at the latest, people will start getting their mail again. It is up to the government to make the effort to end this debate by introducing a bill that is fair to everyone, which will mean that Canadians and Quebeckers will get their mail.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, this debate strikes me as a dialogue of the deaf. We have the hard right ideologues in the government jamming the union with legislation that it cannot possibly accept, and we have hard left ideologues in the NDP who cannot quite come to grips with the actual decline in the need for postal service, as evidenced over a number of years.

Simultaneously, Canadians are looking at this discussion here in the chamber and shaking their heads. If my office is any indication, frankly, they do not care. I am not getting a whole lot of push-back other than from the identifiable hard right or hard left.

I suggest to hon. members that they have a chat between themselves, because Canadians are otherwise just going to let them talk and talk.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear a question.

At the moment, it is very easy to put the situation in a left and right context, but that is not the issue. As I said in my speech, the fact is that we have a polarizing government right now that had other options than introducing a special bill, one with unfavourable terms, that requires an arbitrator to abide by strict conditions, something that did not exist in previous legislation. It had a choice.

As I said, if it absolutely wanted to use a special bill to end the bargaining process, it could have put a halt to the lockout and still allowed the employees to retain their right to strike, which they were using to hold a rotating strike, and this would have meant that people would get mail service. It could also have arranged, in a special bill, for the present collective agreement to continue for one or two years, and this could have let that people get their mail.

There are options here, but this government is refusing to consider them. In all honesty, if the people they represent were to write to them, what they should reply is this: the government has made a choice, and the choice is to pit management against the union, and that creates disputes like this one. It is not a matter of left or right; it is a matter of justice and fairness.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to add my voice to the growing concern over the government's heavy-handed and draconian legislation.

Essentially, the government has declared war on working people in Canada. Within hours of Air Canada's workers going on strike, the government advised that it was bringing in back to work legislation. Within hours of Canada Post locking out its workers, the government advised that it was bringing in back to work legislation. There was no attempt to reason or to meet with the sides in this dispute; they just brought in the sledgehammer.

Workers in Canada should look out, because this government has decided that it is appropriate that the standard of living of ordinary workers in Canada continues to slide backwards relative to inflation. They have decided it is okay for pensions to be clawed back. They have decided that it is okay for young workers to be paid less for doing the same job.

The government's intention is clear. It is attacking in the holy name of profit and ideology the very standards of living that working people have struggled to reach over the past fifty-plus years. This legislation attacks working families by making them take a lesser wage increase, $40 million less in fact. It attacks pensioners and retirees by demanding that the agreement not touch the solvency ratio. It attacks working conditions by demanding that the arbitrator look at the imaginary market place of postal companies for comparisons of working conditions. There is no comparator, but the arbitrator is forced to do that.

This legislation also attacks young workers by signalling to them very clearly that they should expect less than their senior colleagues in working conditions, wages, pensions and everything else. That is not the message this party wants to convey to the people of Canada. We want to convey a message that Canadians should continue to expect to do better every year, that our standard of living should continue to grow, that our ability to purchase our homes and food should continue to grow and not slip backwards.

The solvency ratio part of the legislation really bothers me, because the government has advised that it is concerned about the cost of a mediated or arbitrated system. Yet in order to determine the solvency ratio of the offers to be sent to the arbitrator, they will have to spend millions of dollars to have actuarial evaluations of a $14 billion pension plan done on each offer and then on the final selected package. That is an incredible waste of money.

The government only mentions the solvency ratio and not the going-concern ratio. What does that mean? A solvency ratio shows what will happen if a pension plan is wound up. If Canada Post ceases to exist, how much money will be owed to the pensioners? That is all they talk about. Does that signal a hidden agenda to privatize Canada Post? I say this because the government did not talk about the going-concern ratio, which Canada Post itself is not worried about. Canada Post states that:

Since the going-concern deficit is small, it is anticipated that this can be eliminated quickly—

That is Canada Post itself saying that. The deficit in fact is 1%.

I think this points to a government intention to perhaps contract out the postal service in the near future, and we should be very concerned about that.

I also want to point out to the members opposite that I have a long history in the labour movement in Canada. I remember what started me on this quest in the labour movement, the 1975 legislation by a certain Prime Minister who had promised not to do so, but who limited wages across Canada. That legislation in 1975 was called wage and price controls, and it was introduced by a Prime Minister this party does not really like, Mr. Pierre Trudeau. Today, the government smells an awful lot like that Prime Minister, because the government is introducing legislation to limit wages. It is awful.

Then again in 1982, he brought in some more wage controls. Again, this legislation seems to have the air of the beginning of wage controls in this country.

That prime minister lasted only a couple of years before he was kicked out of office. The government should pay attention.

If this is about restraint, if that is what this is about, that the workers of Canada Post are being told they must exercise restraint, why is the restraint not being practised at the senior levels of Canada Post? Why is the Canada Post CEO continuing to get wage increases and bonus increases that far outstrip the rate of inflation? That is a clear message to the people of Canada that the government actually cares more about the CEOs and their wages than it does about ordinary working Canadians and their wages, working conditions, and ability to get by.

The other thing that bothers me about the government's comments is its complaint that bargaining took too long and that is why they had to step in. In fact, I have bargained collective agreements that took 22 months to negotiate, and that is because the issues were so complex and so detailed that it took that long to actually figure a way out of the morass without a strike or a lockout. That is part of what happens in Canada when things are complicated. We take a long time to discuss them; we take a long time to deal with it.

The minister also claims that she did everything possible--everything possible--under the legislation to prevent this dispute. That is not true. The legislation still contains a provision for a conciliation commissioner, which was not used by this minister. A conciliation commissioner has the power to issue a public report, and while the commissioner is deliberating, there is no possibility of a strike or lockout. That was not done here. The minister did not do everything she could.

Let us also talk about the other effects of this legislation on the rest of the people of Canada and the signals it is sending to other governments in this country.

My son-in-law is a police officer and his job is declared to be an essential service, and he does not have the right to strike. In return for that denial of his right to strike, he has an understanding that is put in place by the province that his wages, benefits, and working conditions, if they cannot be negotiated, will all be sent to a third party for determination--not some of his benefits, not everything but pensions, not everything but wages because we are going to define the wages over here.

Recently the police officers in the city of Toronto, with an arbitrated settlement, reached an 11.5% wage increase over four years. That is an appropriate wage increase. They accepted it. That is what was determined by a third party.

However, here the government has decided to instruct the third party that they are not to give more than 7.25%. That is more than 4% less than an arbitrated settlement in Canada. I believe that a lot of those police officers may have voted for this party. But if this government introduces this kind of legislation, it will signal to other legislatures across the country that it is okay to limit wage increases in arbitrated settlements, it is okay to limit benefit increases in arbitrated settlements, and it is okay to touch pensions in arbitrated settlements. That will be a very sorry day for the rest of Canada.

I just want to say one other thing. In a Canada Post press release right after talks broke off on June 22, the company announced:

Canada Post must now find ways to deal with the financial damage caused by the work disruption.

That is a self-inflicted wound. They did it to themselves, and now they are worried about the damage?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question on the last point, the self-inflicted wound.

There are two financial costs here. Of course, one is happening now; $25 million a day is the estimate. The other was caused by the rotating strikes. After eight months of negotiations there were rotating strikes caused by the members, which caused an interruption in service and a loss of stability to consumers of what Canada Post offers. This is something the NDP just does not get about business.

People start to outsource their needs. Canada Post starts to lose business. That was about $100 million. That was not caused by Canada Post. That was caused by the rotating strikes. So after eight months of free negotiations and rotating strikes, which caused a lockout, there is significant financial damage.

Here is my question. If the member is not willing to get the workers back to work, he obviously must be willing to have the taxpayers in his riding take up these additional and exorbitant costs, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Why is the member not willing to get these workers back to work and let them negotiate the way they want? Why is the member so willing to allow his constituents to pay those high taxes?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are actually willing to have these workers go back to work. In fact, yesterday we said unlock the doors, they will be back, the fiscal damage will stop, and they can negotiate a collective agreement, freely and without worry of legislation.

This legislation signals to employers that they do not have to negotiate because the government will jump in and rescue their bacon the instant they lock people out.

There is no ongoing labour relations peace here. This union has had 20 labour disputes in the last 46 years and a lot of them have been legislated back to work.

Why does the government continue to do that? Why does the government continue to signal to this employer and the union that they do not really have to bargain because something bad will happen to them at the end of the day?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member talk about the immense amount of knowledge he has in labour relations. On the one hand, of course, we have the hard hand of Bill C-6, which is a hammer, with legislation full of clauses that will clearly tie the hands of any arbitrator or mediator.

Given the fact that the official opposition had an opportunity to move an amendment last night, with the member's great knowledge and the knowledge of some of the others on his NDP team, why were the amendments not put forward in more of a conciliatory way, actually trying to find solutions and laying those solutions on the table, rather than simply deferring things for six months and letting them work it out? Why were some of those amendments not mapped out so that we could find solutions, rather than a continual debate between the extreme right and the extreme left that could go on for days?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my leader signalled last night that we were in fact willing to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this dispute with this government. As far as I know, there has been no response from this government.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard some disturbing comments from the other side of the House and also from the second opposition party, but I can understand their frustrations.

With respect to the special legislation and arbitration, what does my colleague trust? Does he trust the partisan interests of the government or the free judgment of the arbitrator?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do not know who the arbitrator is, but assuming that it is a good arbitrator, I would certainly trust the judgment of a third-party arbitrator, as did the police services in Toronto in the last few months.

However, the arbitrator's hands are being tied in terms of wages, in terms of working conditions, and in terms of this unknown solvency ratio that the entire collective agreement cannot have the effect of increasing or decreasing. So his hands are completely tied.

I do not have any doubt that it will be almost impossible for him to find anything other than what Canada Post presents in this particular way of conducting an arbitration.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the number one issue during the 2011 federal election campaign in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl was pensions. It was the number one issue for seniors. It was the number one issue for working people.

For seniors, their concern was how to get by on a fixed income. Seniors asked me not to forget them when I went to Ottawa. I have not. I will not.

There is a lot of talk in Newfoundland and Labrador these days about fog, and not just the type that creeps in off the North Atlantic and shrouds the outports and cities, but F-O-G, the acronym for food, oil, and gas. The cost of necessities like food, oil, and gas continues to rise as fixed incomes remain just that, fixed.

Seniors struggle with the question of how to pay for the rising cost of living while on fixed incomes like pensions. I could not count the number of seniors I visited in their homes and apartments over the course of the election who came to their doors in hats, mitts, and winter coats. They dressed that way in the middle of the afternoon in their own homes because they could not afford to turn on the heat. They asked me not to forget them. I will not.

Seniors were not the only ones concerned about pensions. We heard the concern from young people, working couples, who spoke to me at their doors about how they are supposed to prepare for their retirement when they can barely get by in the prime of their working lives. They can just manage to pay the bills. In some cases, they cannot.

We heard the concern from middle-aged firemen who questioned how they could afford to retire on modest pensions, given the clawback on the Canada Pension Plan.

I can tell you this. The fog in Newfoundland and Labrador, the fog in Canada, is getting thicker.

One of the central issues in the dispute between the 48,000 locked out postal workers and Canada Post is pensions. As the New Democrat labour critic said in the House of Commons on Thursday, the pension plan is in danger. As the NDP opposition leader said so eloquently on Thursday, Canada Post wants to create a two-tier wage and benefit package. New workers who join the federal crown corporation would have to work an extra five years to qualify for a pension--five years.

Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, says:

...proposals to institute two-tier wages and benefits for new Canada Post employees [is] unwarranted and unfair to young Canadians, who are already facing unemployment rates.

They are extremely high as it is.

Here is a direct quote from Paul Moist:

There are no such things as two-tier rent or mortgages: young and new workers don't get a discount on utility or grocery bills. “It's outrageous to say young workers don't deserve the same wages and benefits for doing the same work.”

Young people have a hard enough time as it is paying off student loans and incredibly high credit card interest rates, which this Conservative government, as we know, will not do anything about.

If the Conservative government will attack the pensions of 48,000 workers at Canada Post, who will it attack next? Whose pension plan will it go after? We know whose side the Conservative government is on. Canada Post made a net profit of $281 million in 2009 alone. Who will directly benefit from the five extra years that new Canada Post employees will have to work? Not the workers, I can tell you that.

The labour minister stood on the floor of the House of Commons on Thursday and spoke about the damage to the Canadian economy for the Canada Post strike, which she was corrected on--it is not a strike; it is a lockout. The use of the word “strike”, as the opposition leader pointed out, to use his words, “is a brazen example of propaganda”.

The labour minister said the damage to the economy from the lockout could be significant. What about the damage to pensions? Would the minister describe that as significant? Whose pension will be next?

The labour minister says Canadians cannot go on without postal service.

I can say this with authority, the authority of the hundreds of pensioners and working people I spoke to during the campaign in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Canadians cannot go on without pensions. Let me ask again, whose pension will be next?

Is the ultimate goal of the Conservative government to weaken the voice of workers? Is that part of the strategy? Is that the new Conservative action plan? Is the true goal, as the opposition leader said, to make profit while taking advantage of workers? As has been said before, it is a race to the bottom, except for those on the top.

The Conservative government's back to work legislation gives the employer, Canada Post, the advantage in the labour dispute. The legislation will force employees back to work for less money than Canada Post last offered. Whose side is the Conservative government on? Not the workers of Canada Post, that is obvious.

During the federal election, the MP for St. John's and I met the workers of the Canada Post headquarters in St. John's early one morning. By early, I mean 6 a.m. We shook hands in the parking lot as the workers arrived for their shifts, and it was bitter cold. The workers mentioned how they may be headed toward job action, and as New Democrat candidates we vowed to be there for them.

When I was back in my riding two weeks ago, I visited the workers again outside the Kenmount Road station. They had set up an information line and served lemonade. It was still cold, but the lemonade was good. The workers were generally young. They were fired up. They were concerned about benefits and what they had to lose. They have a lot to lose.

There was a story Thursday in the news back home about how a Newfoundland Supreme Court judge issued an injunction against locked out Canada Post workers in eastern Newfoundland. Canada Post had complained that workers in St. John's and Mount Pearl were blocking access to the post offices, using vehicles, picnic tables, palllets and what Justice Robert Hall described as vigorous picket lines.

The injunction prohibits workers from blocking access to people walking by and calls for any barricades on picket lines to be removed by Thursday night. I am sure they were. The workers of Canada Post are good, law-abiding citizens, but can we blame the workers for being vigorous in their attempt to secure their future? Can we blame them? Again, if this is allowed to happen to the 48,000 workers of Canada Post, who will be next? Let me ask again so it will sink in, who will be next?

The Conservative government keeps talking about how Canada led the world in weathering the recession, but the Conservative government also talks about how cuts are on the horizon, billions of dollars in cuts. Who will pay for the savings? The working poor? The young? The old? Pensioners?

When it comes to pensions, six out of ten Canadians rely solely on CPP or QPP, other government assistance or some savings, modest savings, I might add. I got that statistic from the Globe and Mail. Here is a quote from the Globe and Mail:

Pension experts estimate that about 30 per cent of the population will be poorer in retirement, sometimes significantly, and the share grows every year.

Here is another quote from John Gordon, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada:

The agenda of this government is to take on unions and do away with free collective bargaining. This is what this is about,

I can tell hon. members what the New Democrats are about. They are about working Canadians. We are about Canadian families. The labour minister made a snarky remark Thursday in this chamber about how labour unions have a hotline to the New Democrats. When Canadians call the New Democrats about issues that are critical to them, issues that are critical to families, issues that are critical to their future, Canadians can call the New Democrats. We do not put them on hold for big business. We do not put them on hold for anyone. We answer the call.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech I made some notes. I listened quite carefully. He talked about attacking pensions and used a phrase, “the pension plan is in danger”. I would make the argument that of course the biggest danger to the Canada Post pension plan is the NDP platform. The NDP platform, we might remember, proposed raising corporate taxes. Under this government, they would be 15% next year, but the NDP proposes 19.5% so that is 4.5 points difference, representing a 30% increase in corporate taxes.

The NDP talks a lot about banks and oil companies somehow being in opposition to the notion of successful pensions. I pointed out earlier in this debate that the largest equity holdings in the Canada Post pension fund, starting at the top, are listed as: Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources; and I could go on. Out of the top 25 holdings, 15 of them are banks and oil companies.

My question for the member is, how can the member justify a massive 30% tax hike on the pensions of Canadian workers?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, for me it is all about cutting to the chase and getting to the point. What has been proposed here is a two-tier pension plan: one pension plan for existing workers of Canada Post, and another pension for new employees, a pension plan that is not as good. A two-tier pension plan is not good enough.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here is another illustration of a dialogue of the deaf. We have heard from the hard left in this particular instance.

Clearly, the government has a supervisory jurisdiction with respect to the economy. Whether it is left or right, NDP or Liberal, whatever the level of government it has a supervisory jurisdiction. The rationale for this particular piece of legislation was that the labour dispute was impacting on the economy. I thought that was a rather thin rationalization for the imposition of legislation, particularly at this stage of the negotiations.

Simultaneously, the union and the NDP have yet to come to grips with the notion that Canada Post's role in our economy has significantly declined and therefore there has to be some adjustment to the cost of running Canada Post. Meanwhile, Canadians are saying nothing. Canadians are not really engaged in this debate and it is a bit of a slugfest between the left and the right as they talk and talk to each other, or contrary to each other. Meanwhile, Canadians are finding other alternatives to the actual service that is needed here.

Ironically, the filibuster by the NDP is actually contributing to the decline for the need of the services.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned how this is about an adjustment to the cost of running Canada Post. Let me repeat something from my speech. Perhaps the hon. member was not listening.

In 2009, Canada Post made a net profit of $281 million and the hon. member talks about an adjustment to the cost of running Canada Post. This is about drawing a line in the sand. If the Conservatives go after the pension plan of Canada Post employees, let me repeat a question I posed several times in my speech: Who is next?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you may find that I am a bit dishevelled and my eyes are a bit red. I think all of my colleagues here feel the same way as we debate this bill and fight tooth and nail to give workers a voice.

I listened carefully to my colleagues. They spoke very passionately about their experience with the union movement. Since I became a part of this official opposition team, I have seen that in unity, there is strength. The experience they have shared since we entered the House of Commons has taught me a lot about the qualities of solidarity and the collective rights of workers.

I thank you for giving me time to speak to Bill C-6 in this House and to add my voice to the eloquent voices of my colleagues in the official opposition.

I think that the debate on this bill is very important. I was inspired by our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who addressed the House last night. He spoke about the history of the NDP movement and about the values that NDP members have always defended. I think that this is a debate on the values that we want to defend in this House, but also that we want to defend on the hustings across the country—the values of sharing, social justice and freedom.

There is increasing talk about economic recession; we are told the economy is doing poorly, that the greater interests of the economy are in jeopardy. And for the sake of the economy, the government is going to undermine the right of workers to negotiate a decent contract, not only for themselves, but also for future generations.

I believe the debate we are having in this House is a debate not only for the short term, but also for the long term. What will we provide for future generations?

I have been sitting in the House of Commons for barely a month now and the present government has already set the stage. First, it introduced a bill to force Air Canada employees back to work. I do not believe the timeline of that file called for that bill, when the bargaining process had just gotten under way.

As for Canada Post, the timeline has already been elaborated on, but let me remind you that somewhat controversial action is being taken. On June 8, Canada Post announced that it was cancelling mail delivery on Tuesdays and Thursdays, whereas we know all Canadians are entitled to delivery service five days a week. Canada Post was already starting to cut service to which Canadians are entitled, that is to say mail delivery five days a week.

On June 14, Canada Post ordered a national lockout; in other words, it shut out employees and prevented them from doing the work that makes it possible to deliver the mail five days a week. Now postal employees are being deprived of their bargaining right and their right to work, while Canadians are being deprived of their mail.

As a number of you previously noted, this work stoppage, this lockout, means that a number of our constituents and we ourselves are being deprived of mail delivery, in particular the delivery of cheques, as was mentioned: pension cheques and all other cheques. As was also said, seniors are often the hardest hit; they may not be used to using the Internet or simply cannot afford it.

Once again, my colleagues who live in rural regions have rightly noted that some places in those regions do not have Internet service and that most people are more confident about receiving their cheques through the mail than via the Internet. And yet Canada Post workers had taken steps for cheques to be distributed to the public, but have been unable to make delivery since the lockout. The people affected by this situation are thus in a tenuous financial situation because they still have to pay their bills and rent and buy groceries.

As the members here have also mentioned, the same is also true of small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on Canada Post's services to place and ship orders. I believe the present government is setting a dangerous precedent by interfering with the legitimate right of workers to negotiate with their employer. This government's priority, which has been clearly and expressly stated, is the greater interests of the economy.

I rise to speak about the best interests of people, of Canadians, of workers. It is should be remembered that the economy is not an end but rather a means to an end, which helps us organize our society and promote a fair division of our country’s wealth. We must have income security, security for the future, security for retirees, and for our youth as they enter the labour market, so that they too have access to benefits, pensions and programs including disability insurance, and insurance in case of injury or other misfortune.

I do not understand why this government, which talks about standing up for the best interests of the economy would, alongside Canada Post, lock out workers. The government’s own actions have jeopardized the best interests of the economy that it cares so much about.

I do not believe that this government interference in a legitimate bargaining process is consistent with the role assigned to us. This legislation is going to favour the employer at the expense of employees, who will be deprived of the opportunity to negotiate. Moreover, the government has taken it upon itself to diminish wage conditions previously proposed by the employer. The vested rights of postal workers are at stake here: retirement plans, disability insurance programs, working conditions and wage conditions.

Canada is recognized for its quality of life and social values, which make it possible for all Canadians to access programs and benefits that are the envy of many a country. This helped Canada weather the economic turmoil of recent years. This government’s actions are, in our opinion, a “Walmarting” of employment and lead to low wages, job insecurity, and a chipping away of benefits. This government’s actions bring us yet another step closer to the US model.

Can we not learn from Americans by not repeating their mistakes? Our Canadian society is based on a system where inequalities are less profound than in the United States where there are glaring disparities including huge gaps between the rich and the poor. As a Canadian and Quebecker, I want to stand up for the values of a fair and just society. I want to stand up for the rights of workers, the right to negotiate to improve conditions, so that each and every one of us may benefit.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada does not just represent people who have pension plans, people who are members of unions. We represent all Canadians.

I am hearing from my constituents as well. When Paula Fletcher, who is one of our last remaining pork producers in Renfrew county calls, I know that there is something really amiss. She emailed me a couple of weeks ago, asking:

What is this ridiculous news I heard this morning that the Government is thinking of legislating the Air Canada workers back to work? And yet they let the Canada Post workers go on strike and shut down the entire country's mail service. Do they not realize that a postal strike negatively affects business? Flying mostly affects people rich enough to travel—though I know some travel for business, most do not. We can certainly see the priority of the Harper Government. I thought Mr. Harper was concerned with the economic recovery of Canada. If companies can't get—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins-James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure if she does not understand, or maybe she made a mistake, maybe she is tired, maybe she is trying to slip in the name of the Prime Minister, but I think that she should go back a few steps and remind herself that she cannot use the name of the Prime Minister, nor his government, nor what he is doing, by referring to him personally.

I think it is only fair that we follow the decorum in this House and the long-standing rules that have been established in the Westminster system of Parliament.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Timmins-James Bay is quite correct that members cannot use the names of other members. I appreciate that it happens from time to time, inadvertently. So I will go back for a quick question from the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I meant to say “Prime Minister”.

She asked: “If companies can't get supplies or can't ship product, they will go out of business. Air travel is, for most, a luxury. Postal service is a necessity.”

This is an everyday Canadian. I am calling upon the member opposite to stop holding Canada hostage and let our postal service resume by allowing the legislation to go forward.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to emphasize as I begin my point of order that points of order do not come off the five-minute question and comment period, so I would like to have the clock stopped at all times.

I would like to ask the hon. member to withdraw her comments that we are holding Canadians hostage. I think this is beneath the tone of debate that we should have in this House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has risen on a second point of order. Maybe I will take this opportunity to clarify for all members in the House a couple of issues: one has to do with points order; the second has to do with the clock and whether it continues or stops when a point of order has been raised. This second issue has come up a couple of times in the last half hour.

I would like to remind all hon. members that at any point during proceedings, with the exception of question period, members have the right to stand and raise points of order. This is an important right that all members have, and I think we would all agree that the Speaker needs to respect that right and immediately go to that person.

As all hon. members will know, there are times when a point of order is obviously legitimate, when an issue is raised that clearly needs to be addressed. As an example of a legitimate point of order, I will not use the one just raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I will use the one raised a couple of minutes ago regarding the use of a member's name in the House. It has been my experience that the use of another member's name is usually inadvertent and not deliberate. Nevertheless, this needs to be addressed. Therefore, that point of order is dealt with by the Chair.

It is also often the case that members will rise using the process of a point of order to stop debate for something that the Chair determines is not a legitimate point of order. In this case, I appreciate that the member for Timmins—James Bay has recently provided us with an example of this type of point of order in his second intervention. The Chair is also required to deal with whether something is debate rather than a procedural issue or a point of order.

This brings us to the second point, which is the question of the clock and whether, when a point of order is raised, the clock continues or not. I would point out to all hon. members that it is the Chair who decides how long speeches are and that the clock is a guideline to the Chair. But at the end of the day it is actually the person in the chair who determines when it is the end of someone's speech and whether something can be added or not.

The general practice is that, if the point of order raised is legitimate, made quickly, and pertains to the business before the House, the clock does not stop and the time continues. If, however, in the view of the Chair, the point of order is being raised in an attempt to slow things down, to take away from the presentation, or to deprive another member of the opportunity to raise a point of order, the Chair has the right to add that time.

For example, when a member is making a 10-minute speech and a member from another party raises a point of order and carries on at length on what does not seem to be a legitimate point of order, the member is not punished and time is added to the member's speech. Conversely, if a member of the same party as the person making the presentation uses the same approach, often the clock is not stopped. I am sure all hon. members will agree that the Chair has an incentive not to encourage mischief but to respect the right of members to use the point of order process when it is appropriate. Members, however, must not abuse this process in an attempt to reduce or increase the speaking time of a colleague.

This is the process that is used. In the last 15 minutes, there have been examples of all these situations. Please let me assure everyone that all chair occupants do their best to do this job fairly. The Chair is charged with making sure that the rights of all hon. members are respected, and that those who have an allotted amount of time to make a presentation are not punished by having their time reduced by the actions of others, particularly when it is determined that this is the entire purpose of the point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel I should put it on the record that I have incredible respect for your judgment. You have given us a very judicious and wise response. Certainly members of our caucus will take note of that and ensure that any of the points of order we raise will be in the interest of debate and will not be any sort of mischief.

I do respect the Chair and what is happening in this House is an important debate. I want to apologize if I was too enthusiastic earlier.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair respects that intervention from the hon. member and thanks him for having made several examples clear to this House of what we can and cannot do.

I also note the clock has been stopped in this case. I am going to ask that it be started again. We will continue with questions and comments.

It has been pointed out that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard did not have an opportunity to respond to the question posed by the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

She reminded me of something I forgot to mention in my speech, that is, that decent working conditions lead employees to stay where they are because they are content. It is not necessarily only in the public sector where this happens. This also happens in private companies that provide their employees with good working conditions and I find this encouraging.

Canada Post workers simply want to see this continue. They want good working conditions that do not deteriorate. When people have that, they tend to stay put. Other kinds of businesses have higher turnover rates because of instability or because the working conditions are not very good. As my colleague mentioned, this is quite common and I think it is very important to have good working conditions in order to ensure continuity.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I received an email last night from a constituent in Guelph. His name is George. He is a CUPW member. He delivers the mail and he is anxious to get back to delivering the mail.

George suggested that the post office simply unlock the doors and let everybody get back to work. They would continue to work. They would continue to negotiate in good faith and would go through the normal mediation and arbitration process. He figures that within 24 hours people would have their mail again.

I'm wondering what the member would say to that suggestion, as opposed to the draconian measures that are found in the bill put forward by the government.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

That is what we have been defending all along. At present, we have a government that wants to impose its own conditions on a legitimate bargaining process.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, anytime I have spoken in the House over the past seven years, I have usually been able to say that I am pleased to take part in the debate on a particular bill. Today, however, June 24, my pleasure is considerably lessened because I am quite sad that I cannot be in my constituency right now.

In less than an hour from now, I was supposed to take part in an activity, a mass, with some people and then, as in the past, I would have continued celebrating with my constituents until the wee hours of the morning. Basically, I usually celebrate Quebec's nation holiday as a Quebecker, and not just as a member of Parliament. We are always members of Parliament, even when we go grocery shopping.

It saddens me to be here, especially since my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour tried to seek unanimous consent to interrupt the debate today and resume it again later.

The issue here is not playing the government's game by passing the bill and returning to our ridings to be on vacation for three months, as the media likes to say. Every MP is going to take some vacation, but they will continue to work during the summer period, to receive constituents in their office and take part in all the summer festivities in their riding. In any event, we are here for one reason. We were elected to work, to legislate. There is a bill before us and it is our responsibility to address the matter.

The government's Bill C-6 is an affront to democracy. Everyone has the right to fair and equitable working conditions. The summary of the bill is quite clear as to the government's intention to use a sledgehammer to impose conditions on the postal workers. The summary of the bill states:

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.

On reading the bill we see that an arbitrator, no matter how competent—it will not be his fault if he has to rule on the working conditions—will have no choice but to side with the conditions imposed by the employer. As far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of taking sides. I have always said we must side with the negotiation process, the possibility for both parties to reach an agreement. The government has not seen it that way from the very start.

I just got a reaction from the Conservative members when I said that Ronald Reagan had acted no differently in the 1980s by straight out dismissing air traffic controllers who had used pressure tactics to get fair working conditions. I even heard someone yell that it worked at least. Perhaps it worked, perhaps it is a right-wing way to impose rules, to be in control of a situation. But when it comes to a social environment, I do not think that this is the right attitude for a responsible government to take. The postal workers will go back to work and, if the conditions set out in the bill are imposed on them until the end of that collective agreement, so until 2015, the environment in the postal offices will be terrible.

At the post office in Victoriaville, during the conflict when the rotating strikes had begun, scabs arrived. The police had to step in because a scuffle broke out. Fortunately, nothing too serious happened.

The same thing happened in Sherbrooke, and some people tried to do the job of the postal workers. There are rules that need to be followed in those cases. That does not mean that all work is prohibited, but the work of postal workers must not be done by scabs.

We must also understand that there were negotiations during this conflict. We were told that the Canada Post Corporation was not too inclined to negotiate because the sword of Damocles, in the form of a special bill, was being held over the heads of employees. All we had to do was wait. When the rotating strikes began, there was some inconvenience to Canadians.

However, there was no major disruption since the unions had decided against a general strike. Rotating strikes were a way of getting their point across by inconveniencing certain categories of people in a particular sector for a specific period, with a different sector being affected a day or so later. This meant that those affected by the initial round of rotating strikes were no longer inconvenienced. Despite this, the employer reacted immediately by locking out workers, causing great inconvenience.

So, when I hear the government say that this is hurting the economy, it is important to consider what exactly occurred. The threat of special legislation caused Canada Post to lock out workers because it knew that the legislation would force employees to agree to conditions that were undoubtedly unacceptable to them. The buck therefore stops with the government. The threat of special legislation was looming and precipitated the lockout by Canada Post. Of course, all the employer had to do was wait for the infamous special legislation, for conditions to be set by an arbitrator, and then simply wash its hands of the matter, with no need to negotiate.

It was the government’s responsibility to ensure that a proper mediation process was in place and certainly not to specify in the special legislation that it would be left up to an arbitrator to choose between the two offers. It was like pouring salt on a wound when the decision was made to include in the special legislation lower wages than previously offered by Canada Post. And then there were the “orphan clauses”. In short, the government went to great lengths to ensure that Canada Post would have the upper hand in the “bargaining process”.

The Conservative government is largely responsible for the economic consequences it has spoken of today. Considering the government’s approach and its legislation, Bill C-6, it is no surprise to read of “Conservative arrogance”, the title of a Le Soleil editorial. Allow me to quote Brigitte Breton, the author of this article:

By introducing Bill C-6, the Conservatives have demonstrated that the public interest is by no means the only thing motivating them. The opportunity to show people who is in charge in Ottawa is too good to miss. That much was made abundantly clear by the inclusion in the bill of inferior wage conditions to those offered by Canada Post.

That summarizes what I have just said. We saw the same thing with Air Canada, when the government immediately said that it would introduce special legislation. They had not even started to use specific pressure tactics, there were no particular hardships, and right away, the government wanted to put a stop to it. It said that people would return to work, regardless of how, regardless of the work climate that would ensue. I think this is important, because all of that has an affect on the service being provided to the public.

I believe that workers at Air Canada, as well as Canada Post, like all workers in the public sector or semi-public sector, whether they are unionized or non-unionized, always want to work as hard as they can to provide the best possible service. However, when they return to work, their tails between their legs, because someone has imposed working conditions that go against what we have always stood for, conditions that the employer had subjected them to and that jeopardized their pension plans, this means that, whether we want it or not, services to the public could be affected because there will be a poor work climate. Obviously, I am once again directly blaming the government for this.

To sum up, the Bloc Québécois will obviously continue to oppose this bill, which is nothing more than the Conservative government trying to impose its own views.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. We worked together for quite some time on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and I always appreciate his comments. I know he works very hard on behalf of farmers, not only in Quebec, but across Canada, including on the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to thank him.

One thing that is not being talked about here, which I would like to point out again, is that Canada Post made $281 million in profits in 2009 and it must give part of its profits to the government.

Would it not make more sense to allow Canada Post to keep its profits so it can resolve these issues and improve things for its employees, while still earning profits? Is that not robbery? Is the government not stealing that money from the Canada Post workers?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and I would like to return his compliments. I really enjoyed working with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food these past few years. I have always said that this member is unlike any other member, because he has always been able to set all partisanship aside. Thus, I consider him a friend and I would have liked to continue working with him on that committee, but as a member of a party that is not recognized in this House, I can only sit at the table and have no right to speak. Perhaps those rules need to be changed, but that is not the subject of the current debate.

I agree with him completely, especially considering the statistics he mentioned. The same year, 2009, Canada Post Corporation took in over $7 billion in revenues. That is a lot of money. I agree completely with his suggestion. As for wage cuts, every Canada Post employee will lose $875 because of the provisions of this bill.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his speech.

What message is the government sending to young people with this special legislation? We know from the provisions of the bill that the salary for new employees will be much lower.

What message is the government sending to all young people who are looking for a good, stable job and who want to start a family?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.

It is a very bad message that is being sent. It is a message that tells young new workers that we consider them to be second-class employees. They are coming into a situation where a collective agreement has been negotiated—or imposed, if the special legislation is being applied—and we are saying that they have the same job, the same workload and the same skills, but that they are at a lower class. That is the message.

We should not be surprised when it comes to the Conservative government. We have always said we needed to fear this and we have always feared that this government would gain a majority. Since Parliament resumed on May 2, we have been faced with work conflicts that were not even conflicts yet, but conflicts in their early stages, with Air Canada and Canada Post. But you are now seeing the imposition of special legislation, it is the gag order, it is censorship, it is a blow, when we could have favoured mediation, real negotiation. This is what we do and what we should be doing in a fair democratic society.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in the debate this morning. It is an important debate for a number of different reasons, not only with regard to a crown corporation but also with regard to where we move as a country and the type of atmosphere in our country.

There is no doubt we are seeing a more hostile atmosphere with regard to workers. That atmosphere has been transitioning a number of different jurisdictions in North America and it is no longer outside of our border. That is rather unfortunate because it counters what Canadians expect and want.

Canada Post is a successful crown corporation. It has also been successful in creating a dynamic country. Canada stretches from the most remote areas to populace areas along the border, where 80% of Canadians live. Through Canada Post, small, rural areas receive tremendous service that connects them to bigger areas. People like that environment. They like the coast to coast to coast connection. They like the diversity.

Canada Post is part of our infrastructure, just like our railroad system. It goes back to the founding of our country. Communication is important in our country's vast geographical area. It sometimes defies the logic of history with regard to conflict, growing communities and so forth. Our communities have been able to grow in a very healthy environment for the most part. We have had our bad moments, but we have also had our strengths. Canada Post has been a part of that.

Communication is the art of moving forward. As a result of what the government has done, there is no communication right now. Canada Post has locked its workers out of their jobs and the government has given their employer a mandate to push them down. The government has denied the workers that element of communication, and that is sad.

No matter what comes out of this situation over the next few hours or days, the fact is people will have to go back to work. Most Canadians want to go to work every day, but not enough of them have the opportunity to go to a job they like. The men and women who work in my local post office and serve my community like to go to work. It is not always pleasant. There are always issues, but these people want to be part of a system that Canadians respect.

Our system has been tremendously successful. Canada Post pays its millions of dollars in profits back to the government. At the same time, it has some of the lowest rates and the best service. There are problems here and there, but there is accountability. Private systems around the world have higher costs, less service and less accountability.

Canadian taxpayers own this crown corporation. They have a vested interest in it, and I am not talking about the trucks or the physical structures. I am talking about the people, our fellow Canadian citizens, who deliver the mail and look out for their community when they go door to door every day.

I cannot tell the House the number of times I have heard from citizens about a post office worker who has noted something in the community. Our postal workers are the eyes and ears of our communities. They go beyond their job. They help out people in trouble, because they feel it is their duty. They take pride in the uniform they wear.

One of the things that is really important to acknowledge in this debate and one that I find tremendously offensive is the whole notion of two-tier wages. The two-tier wages being proposed reduce the wages for new employees by 18%. It is really equal work for less pay.

There used to be times when that was acceptable. Employers were allowed to discriminate based on the colour of one's skin or because the individual was a female or of ethnicity. We stopped that in our country because it was unfair. It does not matter what one looks like or who that person is. If he or she does the same work, then that individual should be entitled to the same wages, benefits and everything else. That is a founding principle of social justice that needs to be looked at here. An 18% reduction in wages is a slap in the face, not only to the new workers who will be hired by Canada Post but also to what we are trying to do.

As a young father, I want my kids to go to post-secondary school. I want them to graduate. I want them to find a job. Why would I want them to get 18% less at Canada Post or another crown corporation just because they are young and new? Canada Post wants to take advantage of that. It will have a higher turnover rate. That is what happens in these environments. They have higher turnover rates and less pensions to pay out in the future.

We are asking for that. The government is setting up a system and leading it through the public sector to tell the private sector that two-tier waging is okay. What is very important about this is we will pay for it anyway. Those new people will to wait another five years to get a pension. Even if they put up with the two-tier wages, even if they stay there, they will have to wait an additional five years for a pension.

What will happen when they exit Canada Post? They will rely more upon the public sector again, the taxpayers. Instead of having a planned system in place that we can afford and manage and that allows employees to contribute back to the Canadian economy, employees will be shortchanged. They will have less benefits. They will have less money. I see it on the streets every day. I have canvassed so many times over the last number of years during so many different elections. Every time I go out, I get more worried because I see people struggling to provide education for their kids. They are borrowing more. At the same time, they cannot provide food or pay their bills the way they used to. They do not feel they are moving forward.

We see so many community organizations that are growing. They are having to pick up the slack.

The two-tier wage issue is interesting. When the Conservatives came back to power, they did not have any MPs or senators on a two-tier wage plan. They did not ask them to wait another five years for their pensions. They did not take an 18% pay cut because they believed in it. They are not leading by example.

The minister and the government are saying to a crown corporation that it is okay to lock people out of their jobs, that it is okay to put the rest of Canada on hold. Those workers have invested value in the place they work. The government is going to set the example that it is possible to have a two-tier system with less pensions.

Why do the Conservatives not do this for themselves? It is in their legislation. They are supporting a Canada Post contract with wage differences. Why do they not lead by example then, if that is what they believe in?

I believe in equal pay for equal service. I believe it is time to stop burdening our youth. Students across Canada owe around $16 billion right now for federal loans alone.

This is the benefit that we will get out of this. The taxpayers will save a little of money out of this. We will send some new people to work with less money. They have higher debt. The average debt load per person is around $20,000 after two years of post-secondary education. On top of that, they pay interest at a premium above the borrowing rate. Those students are trying to enter the economy. They are coming out later in life. They are going to have their children later in life. They are going to have less pensionable years.

In this situation the government is helping legislate a system that is unsustainable. It is unsustainable as it is, but it is also a poor example. We do not want to tell businesses and other employers that reducing wages is a solution. The government did this for the auto sector. With regard to the recent recession, it was the mismanagement and the greed which caused the collapse in the U.S. and in Canada, with the stockholders and the different money-laundering, yet they never paid for any of it. In fact, they got bonuses. As a solution, they cut the salaries and pensions of auto workers, but that was not the problem. The problem was mismanagement, bad spending and lack of accountability.

I have seen the face of Canada Post and the deception. It tried to close the postal office in Sandwich Towne. The actual document was leaked to me. Canada Post's business case included money for a full-time manager for the area from Windsor to London. It put the entire salary in there to build the case that it was not sustainable. Because we had the information leaked to us, we were able to prove that and stop it from closing down the postal office. It wanted to close it down for ideology reasons.

This is about the ideology to reduce wages and pensions because, for whatever reason, it has come to be seen as a legacy cost. Wages and pensions are not a cost. They are a net benefit to this community. They are a net benefit to our country and that is what we should work for. We can afford them because we have the money.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's characterization of this matter as an ideological debate. When there is a right-wing party and a left-wing party in a chamber such as this, the result is ideological debate and the consequence is stalemate.

Clearly the government is trying to jam the union. If workers' rights are to be suspended, an alternative must be put in place. That is manifestly fair.

Clearly the NDP has said this process is not manifestly fair. It is the same with our party, but now we have an ideological slanging match between hard right and hard left.

What is interesting to me, and I would be interested in the hon. member's comments, is the near indifference of Canadians to this ideological slanging match. During the course of this debate I have received precisely one email in my office, and no visits whatsoever. That person was particularly unsympathetic to both sides.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to this ideological slanging match.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to respond to ideology.

We are calling for proper process. The Conservatives' ideology is what is doing this. We are calling for the proper process to go through arbitration. We are calling for the law that has been normal practice to unfold here. That is what we are calling for.

If the issue is about indifference, that is the difference between the hon. member and me. I remember the days when the member would call for larger corporate tax cuts. Now the policy in his party has changed. It is quite different. There is a phone book of Hansards in which the hon. member's party called for large corporate tax reductions.

At some point in time when it comes to my party and where I stand, sometimes it may feel as though there is indifference there, but values of social justice drive us. We know the truth with regard to what is going to happen here. We are going to stand with those who sometimes do not have somebody by their side.

That is how we got health care in this country. That is how we got pensions. That is how we have a difference between our parties. It is because we will care for and stand with those who sometimes are alone.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that my colleague sees all the social groups as complementary. The opposite is the government, which sees all social groups as a potential way to manipulate and turn them one against the other.

I would like to hear my colleague talk a little more about how this bill is again pushing that way of seeing society by the government.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is very germane to what is happening here in terms of the Canada we are potentially moving towards.

The government is quite clear. By using this example, the government is setting the table for the private sector to use these divisive tactics in its negotiations.

Living on the doorstep of the United States, I have witnessed what has been taking place there with their overall ideology for a number of years. We have seen this happen in the United States, and it is not working. They are not becoming more productive. They are not becoming more effective.

That is why I stand here today to appeal to Canadians who are watching this debate. The workers are locked out. They are good workers. They want to work for a crown corporation that returns a benefit to them and their families. All they are asking for is the simple benefits they have enjoyed in the past and their right to be able to raise their families with dignity and integrity.

What is happening is an attempt to use the lockout to divide Canadian public opinion. People are taking the position that the workers are on strike. They are not; they are locked out. They want to go to work. They are fighting for the best service they can deliver for people in this country. That is what it is about.

If my neighbour or the person bringing my letters to the box every day is young or new, why should that person be paid 20% less? Why should that person have a smaller pension than anyone else? They are doing the same job.

It is only right. It is as simple as thinking of social justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by pointing out that it is now — not technically — but actually June 24, which is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I would like to congratulate all my constituents on this Quebec national holiday. Unfortunately, I cannot be with them today. I would very much liked to have been able to be there. Our leader attempted to negotiate an arrangement with the Prime Minister that would have allowed Quebec MPs to return to their ridings to celebrate such an important holiday with their constituents. Unfortunately, the response from the Prime Minister was a firm no. We can see the true face of the Conservatives today. There is a total lack of respect for Quebec and its people. I will now move on to something else.

The NDP is here to defend the rights of workers. On June 3, letter carriers and all Canada Post employees began rotating strikes to put a little pressure on management. This rotating strike was perfectly legal and allowed the mail to reach its destination within a very reasonable time period.

They are fighting for better and safer working conditions. Not many people know it, but I am a chiropractor. Not long ago, I had a patient, a woman letter carrier. I cannot go into details, but as the months went by, I was truly able to see that the work of letter carriers is very demanding physically, particularly once I saw how her return to work went. It showed me just how demanding her job was.

These people wanted to work. In any event, my patient truly wanted to return to work to earn her pay, to be sure, but also to help her community, even though her working environment was unsafe. Winter means ice and icy patches, and they have to do their job even when there are snowstorms. In the summer, when the heat can be oppressive, they have to carry all their mail over their shoulder. This creates a great deal of musculoskeletal pain — that’s just a bit of chiropractor jargon. In short, these people work very hard. They deserve to be treated with dignity, particularly when they ask to have included in their collective agreement a safer working environment.

These workers also want, through their labour action, to say no to the cuts that management is trying to force upon them. These attacks affect 48,000 workers and their families. That represents many people in Canada. They make the economy run, whether in Canada, Quebec, or Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. That is why the NDP is going to stand up as long as it takes to defend the rights of workers and families.

Their union opted for highly responsible rotating strikes. This showed respect for the people who wanted to receive their mail. They received it in a timely manner. It also showed respect for their workers, to enable them to put a little pressure on the government.

On the other hand, Canada Post decided to lock them out. That is why we are here today. As a result of this lockout, the mail has definitely stopped reaching people’s mailboxes. That was a smart move by Canada Post. We have seen over the past few days and will continue to see over the coming days just how this decision has placed Canada and its people in a very complex situation.

The union also proposed to Canada Post that it end the lockout to allow people to continue working and negotiating at the same time. However, for some strange reason, Canada Post refused. The crown corporation has really shot itself in the foot. The Canada Post team has decided to keep up a hard line approach, not unlike the one the Conservative government is trying to impose on the postal workers.

It is important to remember one thing: the media often talks about a postal strike, but this is not a strike; it is a lockout. The main problem lies with the employer, Canada Post. The employees have the right to negotiate their collective agreement in good faith with their employer. It is a right that has been earned over time. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer provided a very interesting history of the union movement in Canada.

However, this is not a negotiation in good faith. The government is trying to impose a contract on the workers, but it is not the government's role to do so. The bill clearly sides with the employer. It is irresponsible of the government to act in this way. We even see that the bill encroaches on the Canada Post employees' freedom to negotiate. As a result, the two parties in this situation cannot honestly negotiate with one another. What is more, the government is proposing lower salaries than the ones Canada Post was offering a few days ago during the negotiations. What is happening right now truly makes no sense.

In fact, I wonder why the government insisted on offering so little to the workers, even less than Canada Post management wanted to offer their employees. Personally, I think this is a conflict of interest. Just consider where Canada Post's profits end up. This is a corporation that generates millions of dollars every year. Who owns Canada Post? The Government of Canada does. At the end of the day, cutting payroll expenses at Canada Post will boost profits. Where will the profits go? They will go into the government's coffers. What will the government do with this surplus money? During the election campaign, there was talk of investing $35 billion in purchasing fighter jets and there was talk of megaprisons. I do not think it is ethical to cut employees' salaries and benefits to invest more in the Conservative government's ideological program. That is my view as an NDP MP.

What message is the government sending with its approach? It is implying that, if a contract is unfair, it is not a big deal; if employees do not agree with their employer, it is not a big deal—the government will take action, it will impose a framework that will put them at a disadvantage and it will cut everyone's wages. Recently, with the orphan clause, it has been said that there would be a second generation of employees, often young people, who will not have the same benefits as employees with more experience.

I think it is a bit hypocritical of the Conservative government whose ideal is to reduce the size of the government; now that it is in power, it is meddling a lot in the labour relations between employees and their employer.

Since I do not have much time left, I will briefly point out that Canadians have fought over many years and decades to be where they are today, to have decent salaries and benefits. Not all Canadians are privileged to have these benefits. We should not be lowering our standards in Canada. Our society is going through economic recovery. In our society, everyone should be elevated, not cut back and brought down to minimum wage. Like the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, I do not want to see the postal service privatized and I do not want to have to go to Walmart to get my mail.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague, another chiropractor, to the House. Perhaps we could work on straightening this thing out by aligning both parties so we can come to some resolution.

In the big picture of things, this is what the government is trying to do. We have looked at the disagreement between the two parties and we have seen two parties that cannot come to an agreement. We have seen rotating strikes, which has cost Canadians over $100 million. There has been a lockout. Obviously these two sides cannot come to together.

What would the member do with the rest of the workers in Canada? The calls I am getting in my office are from seniors and people on disability who require their cheques, and small businesses that are relying on cheques going back and forth consistently in order to pay their bills. Small business is now responsible for the employment of most Canadians.

We are trying to end this now as quickly as possible, get everybody back to work and have a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, the NDP want to keep us here. I should be in Oshawa today for 11 o'clock. We are celebrating Saint Jean Baptiste Day too. I find it very disrespectful.

We need to work together and help continue this recovery. What would the member say to those--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the Conservative member, who is also of the same profession as I am. We in the NDP also want workers to get back to work as quickly as possible. The workers and their union are calling for an end to the lockout, and rightly so, so they can resume work and start delivering the mail again every day, and so they can negotiate their collective agreement at their own pace.

My colleague wants the postal workers to return to work and so do we. The NDP does not believe however that a collective agreement should be imposed that penalizes them and that is not as generous as what Canada Post had already offered.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his remarks today.

I would also like to wish a wonderful Fête nationale to all my colleagues from Quebec who are present. Like them, I would have liked to be in my riding today to celebrate with those dear to me.

I would like to ask a question about the “orphan clause” in the bill. One of the concerns raised by constituents in my vast riding relates to young people and the message we should be sending them. My fellow citizens of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are very proud to see so many young people and women in our party. I would like to ask my colleague’s opinion as to the message the government is sending in this regard.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the NDP for his question.

As a young person of the age of 25, I am fortunate to be in a job where I am my own boss. At least I was before I became a full-time MP. Many young people have difficulty finding work as we are coming out of an economic recession.

Young people who are looking for work would love to find a job with decent wages and good working conditions so they can start a family and stay in their home region, whether that is Abitibi or Lac-Saint-Jean.

Yet with the focus on cutting wages and benefits, there will be a generation of young people with little job security or who do not make enough money to make a proper start in life. This is not the right message that the Conservatives are sending.

[For continuation of proceedings see part C]

[Continuation of proceedings from part B]

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have preferred to make my first speech in the House under more positive circumstances, but the government chose otherwise.

As the saying goes, it helps to sleep on it. But in my case, sleeping on it has raised some questions. I was anxious to return to the House to share my concerns. I must admit that after the election, I was worried about our country's progressive values. I was worried that we take a step backwards with the social gains that Canadian society worked brilliantly at great cost to earn over the course of our history.

I never thought that the Conservative government could threaten the structures of Canada's economic success themselves. I must admit that I was surprised about that. I see that this is the reality today, and I wonder why and what the government's goal is.

The public must understand that the Conservative government is trying to create a precedent. The Conservative government never hid its intentions. The Minister of Labour recently reiterated that the government's priority was to support economic growth, and that it would intervene in any labour dispute that could jeopardize that.

Any labour dispute? What does that mean? It is now very clear that the government will jump in indiscriminately. It is one thing to support development, to support businesses that create jobs, but it is an entirely different thing to systematically attack workers.

The New Democratic Party is in an interesting position, since we must remind the Conservative government of some fundamental principles of our economy. Simple principles. In our economy, the workers are also consumers. They are customers who use their incomes to keep the economy rolling.

One concept is fundamental to our economy: offer better wages to employees and they will buy more cars; offer better wages to employees and they will buy houses, consumer goods and services. But if you lower wages and cut employee benefits, you are attacking the very foundation of the modern economy.

The Conservative government is proposing a single formula: support economic development by reducing the purchasing power of workers. The government is adding insult to injury by simultaneously suggesting that Canadians reduce their debt levels. Workers who have supported Canada's economic growth for years, by going into debt of over 140% of their income, are now forced to accept that the government is making their debt level even worse by decreasing their disposable income. In what economic dream world is the government living?

The Conservative government is getting all worked up about the economic impact of the delays in mail delivery. It is condemning the temporary pressure tactics used by the workers, who are trying to preserve their purchasing power. And what does it do to resolve this temporary problem? It permanently reduces the income available to workers to support economic growth. What are we to take from this lack of logic? Do we just accept the excuse that the government continues to repeat, that its intervention is necessary to ensure economic development?

The answer is no. Instead, we need to unmask this government, which claims to be a champion of the economy but is flouting economic principles for ideological reasons. The Conservative government is interfering in the market economy and in the bargaining process between workers and their employer. Let the government suffer the consequences of its own lack of rigour.

If the NDP has to remind the government, citizens and especially the Minister of Labour that the Canadian economy is based on principles that have made us member of the G20 and an economic success worldwide, they can count on us. We will not allow the Conservatives to attack our economic prosperity. We will not allow the Conservatives to reduce the purchasing power of Canadians and further increase their level of debt. But above all, if the government insists on systematically interfering in negotiations between workers and employers, the NDP will systematically stand up to protect the Canadian economy and the principles that have made it so strong.

Now let us talk about the sense of urgency we see in the government. Not only has it rushed into this matter, not only has it gotten involved in a process that is none of its business, but it is also trying to force the adoption of a bill that will create a precedent that the government intends to systematically repeat, according to the very words of the Minister of Labour.

What is the urgency the government is referring to? Let us be clear. It was never the intention of Canada Post employees to undermine Canada's economic stability. This accusation on the part of the Conservative government, this bugaboo that it has been unleashing on the House for several days now, is not convincing anyone. Canada Post workers are much more sensitive to the importance of the service they provide than the Conservatives are letting on. The government is forgetting that Canada Post's clients are the neighbours, family members, colleagues and friends of the crown corporations's employees. Accusing them of taking Canadians hostage is absurd.

Under an agreement reached before the dispute, Canada Post workers had already committed to delivering government cheques, such as welfare, old age security and family support payments. According to the union, nearly 9,000 members would have helped sort and deliver over 2 million cheques a month. But the lockout changed everything. That excessive measure is what interrupted mail service to Canadians. The scolding emails only started coming in after the lockout was imposed, the same emails that the government is now citing to justify its bill. I hope the government will keep those emails as a reminder of the harmful effects of its precipitous action. We will also send them all the emails from citizens who are disappointed by this government's actions.

Lastly, I would like to send greetings to all of my friends and constituents in the riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert who were expecting me today for our national holiday celebrations. Since moving to Quebec, I have come to enjoy this beautiful celebration. The national holiday has allowed me not only to celebrate the history of my new home province, but also to develop a sense of belonging. How I would have liked to be among my constituents to thank them for the incredible welcome they have extended to me. I would have liked to show my profound gratitude for the honour they have bestowed upon me by voting for change in Ottawa. I will simply have to put it off to another time.

In the meantime, I am here to do the job entrusted to me. I will remain here to represent the interests of the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. And, if need be, I will stay here with my colleagues until Canada Day.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to touch on the sort of revenge factor that the member has built into at least her strategy, if not the entire party's.

I have been talking with constituents this morning. The great Kenora riding covers 326,760 square kilometres. There is no road access to 25 communities. The mail lies at the heart and soul and the ebb and flow of a lot of the business activity and social economic activity. We have an opportunity here to put these folks back to work which is what my constituents are overwhelmingly asking for. They are saying put back to work legislation in place so that we can get our regional economy and Canada's economy back on track.

I know the angles that the NDP is working here. Its members are saying that we could have had rotating strikes, or some sort of hybrid response, so that not too many things would be affected. But at the end of the day, seniors are not getting certain important pieces of mail. First Nations communities are not getting essential pieces of mail. Small businesses are suffering.

My question is quite simple. Does the member not believe at this point that putting an end to this by using back to work legislation is the most effective way for us to move forward?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the other side for his question.

First, I would like to say that the situation has gotten worse since the lockout. The rotating strikes did not disrupt mail distribution for seniors and for all members of society. I want to point out that this happened when Canada Post locked out its employees. There is no point trying to blame the workers. The workers are proud of what they do. The workers are prepared to return to work if we unlock the doors at Canada Post.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for her speech. It was very informative. At the same time, it seems as though it addressed a number of points I have been hearing since this morning, that NDP members are just talking for the sake of talking, that we just want to stall the debate and prevent people from doing all kinds of things, when that is not the case.

There are fundamental principles at stake. I will not allow our colleagues from the other side or from the second opposition party imply that our right to speak means nothing in this wonderful chamber. I was pleased to hear the member refer to that, because, even if we would have rather had the day off like everyone else, I think that the best interests of Canadians are at stake. When I say “Canadians,” that includes workers and other people.

I would like the member to answer a question that we often hear from the other side about the fact that the union did not transmit the employer's offers, even though the union received its mandate from the employees at the start of negotiations and it is not obligated to return—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to give her colleague the chance to answer.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I think Canada Post has been posturing since the beginning so the government would introduce this bill that we have been debating since yesterday. Canada Post had started making offers to the union but now the Conservative government is interfering and coming between the employer and its employees

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

First of all, as a Quebecker, let me begin by wishing all Quebeckers a wonderful Fête nationale.

Unfortunately we cannot join in the celebrations today. This is distressing for me. It is very important to me to be a Quebecker and a Canadian. So the Fête nationale is extremely important to me. To all my fellow citizens of Alfred-Pellan, to all my family and friends, and to all of Quebec, happy Saint-Jean!

A whole generation of new workers entering the labour market will be affected by the bill the Conservative government has introduced. Why? First of all because young people are the next ones who will enter the labour market and who will become the next postal workers at Canada Post.

Allow me to point out just a few features of the bill we are debating. First of all, wages will be lower for the next workers hired. They will make $875.50 less over four years than what was planned.

As for their pensions, the new employees will have to wait five years longer than others to be eligible for their pension.

That is not to mention the dangerous working conditions that Canada Post workers could face.

Because this bill affects the next generation of workers, I thought it very useful for all members of the House of Commons to hear what young people had to say on this subject. So I asked them, through various social media, what they thought about this subject, the lockout at Canada Post and the bill the government is bringing to the table.

Today, I want to give them a voice. I will let you hear what they had to say about this subject.

To start with, the first person, Daniel Carette, a young father, 26 years old, says that bargaining should proceed in the usual way, there should be no government intervention, and in addition, important government cheques are sent by mail in any event. So he suggests that the employees be allowed to bargain their agreement in peace. He adds that he is not very keen on unions, but he is on side with what was won in the old agreement, and it should not be eliminated from the new agreements, particularly when the employer is not having problems.

Philippe Long writes that he thinks the lockout is pointless, and that for the managers who are criticizing the employees because of their rotating strike to impose a general lockout and paralyze the country is no better.

A master’s student at Laval University in Quebec City, Caroline Roy-Blais, wrote that Canada Post employees had decided not to take the public hostage, by organizing rotating strikes and continuing to deliver government cheques and other papers. She adds that the employers decided to impose a lockout so the government would get involved in the bargaining and compel the employees to “agree to” dangerous working conditions and lower wages for people hired in future.

She also says that she is against government intervention. First, she writes that although the government says it is a fan of the free market and is not interventionist, it is unabashedly intervening in the dispute. Second, she asks why two classes of employees are being created. Equal pay for equal work, she writes. Third, she says that employees’ right of free association in a union is important, and employees should not be prevented from organizing to get better working conditions, based on the entrepreneurial right to make money.

She also adds that we must not forget that the “orphan clause” is intended to give higher wages to postal workers who are already employed, but freezes wages for future employees. She suggests that this means that if someone is hired after the agreement is signed, they would not be entitled to the same wage for the same work! She concludes by saying that this is not fair at all.

Jean-François Paradis, a young father in the Montreal region, said that Canada Post was trying to impose a new distribution method that has tripled occupational injuries, which is not acceptable. This is a lockout. It is not a strike. There is no mail distribution because of Canada Post. If it goes on any longer, it is the fault of Canada Post, which was waiting for special legislation instead of negotiating.

I also received a short comment from Patrick Allard. He thinks this is a real shame.

This morning, another citizen, Eric Jacques, wrote to me. He said that Canada Post has been earning a profit every year for 16 years, yet managers say that they need to cut costs. Where is the logic there? Letter carriers were carrying out a rotating strike to maintain service, and the government said that it would not intervene as long as mail was being delivered. So Canada Post imposed a lockout, so that the government would take action and the corporation would not have to negotiate in good faith. If we truly want to improve the health of the economy, we need a plan with good wages, like those of mail carriers.

Those are just a few of the comments I received. That is what the next generation has to say about this labour dispute. These are engaged people who understand the problem. They do not understand what the Conservative government is trying to do.

I sincerely hope that the comments from these few Canadian citizens will be taken into consideration by members on the other side of the House, so that we can reach a better consensus for the sake of the workers.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech and I find some of it very misleading. She seems to want to portray the action the government is taking as unusual.

I would like to recount to her a bit of the recent history. In 1978, there was back to work legislation. In 1987, there was back to work legislation. In 1991, there was back to work legislation. In 1997, there was back to work legislation.

The reason is we have two parties that have a history of not settling. These are two opposite sides that have had over eight months to come up with some type of agreement. They have had numerous meetings with the minister. They have been given every opportunity to come up with an agreement.

The real question that Canadians want answered is, how long is the NDP going to allow these two parties, together, to hold Canadians hostage?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First of all, the NDP, like the workers, would be happy to see a return to work. It would be very simple to get workers back to work immediately, because all we have to do is unlock the doors. It is as simple as that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her wonderful comments this morning. It has been so amazing to hear the very passionate speeches taking place about the principles that are at stake here and how people tackle these different principles. I notice that she spoke about the two tiers of salaries that were tabled by the employer and she also spoke about the next generation.

I wonder if the member could comment more about what a living wage or a decent wage is for a family. It seems unfair that the employer could tell employees because they are new and younger, they would therefore get less money. As someone who represents the younger generation, how does she feel about the fact that because a person is a new employee or is younger, he or she would get a lower wage?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question.

It is easy for me to imagine what it would be like for someone who went to work at Canada Post after the labour dispute and was subject to this two tier system. There are two people who do the exact same job, but do not have the same salary or benefits. Someone who was hired one month before me could retire five years earlier and would have more money in his pockets to support his family. That is completely unacceptable. We are doing exactly the same job. Equal pay for equal working conditions. That is all I have to say.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that it was a certain member who said, in Montreal in 1997, “In terms of the unemployed of which we have over 1.5 million, don't feel particularly bad for these people”. Who said that? It was our present Prime Minister who quit his job as a member of this House because he felt he would better serve at the National Citizens Coalition where he ran the campaign to deunionize Canadian workforces.

We see the Conservatives today pretending they have the interests of the workers in hand. We have the old crocodile who has dressed himself as Little Bo Peep, and he has his bonnet pulled down over his snout to try to hide his true intention. However, if we pull the bonnet back, we will see the same dismissive attitude and the same arrogance against common working people on these benches today that we heard in 1997.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about the Prime Minister's dismissive attitude towards working people.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan has roughly 40 seconds to answer that question.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is currently a real lack of respect for the workers, first with the lockout and now with this back-to-work legislation. It is absolutely unacceptable. There are other ways to handle this.

We truly advocate teamwork. We are prepared to negotiate with the government in order to come up with a better way to settle the current dispute at Canada Post.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like many of the MPs in the government, I too have been inundated, not with complaints, but with words of encouragement to continue our opposition to this interventionist bill.

Do the members opposite realize that their party is interventionist? The party that advocates individual and economic free enterprise at the expense of everything else is being interventionist, but not just anywhere. It is being interventionist for the sake of personal and political interests. The government is controlling workers, not companies. We are not naive. There have been other special bills like this before, but not when the Internet was in every home. Today, we can make payments by phone or by Internet. If anyone is left out, they can call their MP and people who can help them out. As others mentioned earlier, the most important cheques were being delivered. As I was saying, we are not naive. An agreement was reached between senior government officials and Canada Post to impose a lockout in order to introduce a special bill to reduce working conditions and force Canada Post employees back to work under lesser conditions.

I was listening to the radio this morning. Economists and sociologists were unanimous on this. I hope that certain people realize that their position is increasingly being challenged. The government can admit its mistake. We are prepared to work with the government to come up with a special bill that will suit all Canadians. The government would come under less criticism than if it continues on its current course. Once again, I am reaching out. I hope the government will listen to us and take our considerations and public opinion into account.

People back home fear that the current government's attitude will become more widespread and that the government will take away the fundamental rights of workers in Canada who contribute to the economy, which would not be viable if 75% of the population did not contribute to the tax base. I would like the minister to explain how she plans to deal with the potential loss of many high-quality jobs in our regions.

What do I tell the people in the various towns in my riding? They are fighting to keep their post office. The post offices are in part the heart of these villages. What do I tell people at Château Mont Ste-Anne who are currently locked out? Do I tell them to go back to minimum wage? What do I tell the AbitibiBowater retirees and workers who are worried about their pension funds? Do I tell them to go back to work until they are 70? They have paid into their pension all their life.

What do I tell the young workers in my riding and young Canadian workers? I myself am a young man. Do I tell them that they will have to work until the end of their days without security? Canadians have rights.

Is the government prepared to change its mind to suggest negotiation opportunities without flouting the workers' rights? Could this interventionist government work with us and listen to us to help Canadian workers? Could this interventionist government step back, reflect and admit its mistake?

I am reaching out. The entire NDP is reaching out. We can make other proposals for the good of the workers.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said they are not naive on his side. After listening to his speech, I would put forward they are very naive. I would ask any member of the NDP who has run a business, met a payroll, and had to work with the postal service to run their business to stand up and let us know.

I am sitting next to my colleague, the newly elected member for Brampton. He runs a manufacturing business and needs cheques to come in before he can put cheques out to pay his employees. This is the type of small Canadian business that is being affected by this.

These two parties cannot make an agreement. They have to get this resolved. We are trying to get it resolved in the best way for both parties.

How long is the NDP going to allow these two parties to hold Canadians hostage? How long are they going to let that happen?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I do not think that he understood my message.

I have another proposal to make: remove the locks. That way, our colleague will have his cheque, and all the entrepreneurs will have their cheques and their papers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member indicated the New Democrats are reaching out to the government. He is not the first one to make reference to the fact that they apparently have a series of amendments they would like to bring forward. I know the member is concerned about the postal workers and wants to see what it is they are referring to.

Can you explain to me why there is a need to hold back on sharing that information with members of the chamber? What is it the NDP are in fact looking at that could possibly assist us in trying to draw this thing to a conclusion in which we would find more people being able to have a discussion?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is well meaning in his question. What concerns me is if we are going to have fair bargaining, and we are attempting to bargain with the government, then we would be undermining our ability to build trust with the government by asking our members to reveal what those negotiations are.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I believe this is a question of debate.

I will ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to complete his question very quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, based on that point of order, I can assure the member that stood on the point of order that I likely have more confidence in the new member than I do in the member who has the experience.

Why not share with Canadians what it is the New Democrats are talking about so that we could actually have an engagement on that discussion? We might be able then to—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

I would like to give the hon. member time to respond.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that there are a great many possibilities. For example, we can keep the current collective agreement.

With the unanimous consent of the House, we can do what we want. If we decided together to amend the special bill with the unanimous consent of the House, we could leave in two hours, and it would be done.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the comment by the member on the opposite side.

I am a small-business person. I have three successful small businesses. They are all profitable. I understand small businesses. I am a lefty capitalist; I believe in profits, but I believe in sharing them equitably with the other people in our society.

Madam Speaker, thanks for this opportunity to speak to the government's legislation. The Conservative government is attempting to ram Bill C-6 through Parliament within hours of suspending the regular rules of the House, just as it did with the HST implementation bill.

Labour disputes happen in any modern market-based economy. They are a fact of life and a result of the competitive dichotomy set up between profit-centred companies and workers who push for living wages and safe working conditions. That is a normal situation for market-based economies, which you allegedly believe in.

Normally, disputes work themselves out without a lot of government interference. I am surprised by the current government. Before the Conservatives were in office, and afterwards, they always talked about how they were all for smaller government and hands-off government that lets markets work things out for themselves. That is the claim.

Instead, though, we see a very interventionist government. This is a heavy-handed government that is now egregiously interfering in the collective bargaining process we have developed over many decades. For a party that claims a hands-off philosophy, this is the most meddlesome federal government in a very long time.

This is just another symptom of the fundamental changes happening within the Conservative Party. Conservatives in this government have wandered far from their roots. Their forefathers must be turning over in their graves.

Whatever happened to Conservative claims for small government? The first things they did after getting a phony majority was stack the Senate and appoint a huge ministry, one of the largest ministries in the history of Canada. There are more ministers, more limos for ministers, more perks, and more staff. All that was after they bulked up spending on the Prime Minister's Office. We have never had a PMO that is so large or that has spent so much.

The current government has always talked about fiscal responsibility, but its track record shows that it does not understand the concept. It is blowing billions on fighter jets, mega-prisons, and indiscriminate corporate tax handouts. It is opening military bases everywhere across the globe. In the process, it is racking up a record deficit, the largest deficit since Brian Mulroney.

Now it is interfering in labour market negotiations in a way that is nothing less than a violation of Canadians' Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If it does this now, where will it end? Will the government step in every time there is a dispute in the marketplace? Is it going to legislate every time two sides do not agree on something?

Let us be very clear. We have no postal service right now, because Canada Post shut down service completely. It locked its workers out.

I was disappointed to hear on the CBC this morning at 5 a.m, quoting the minister on that side, that this is a strike. There was no countervailing force on the news to indicate that it really is, as we know, a lockout, not a strike.

Let us start at the beginning. The workers had concerns about their contract. They went on rotating strikes a few weeks ago, on June 2, and there were some service slowdowns. Their attempts were measured, and they were responsible. It is true that it was not an ideal situation, but I did not hear any hue and cry from the people in my riding, including small businesses. Life went on during those rotating strikes.

After the workers started the rotating strikes, they even offered to end the strike action if the company would agree to keep the old contract in place during negotiations, but Canada Post refused. Then on June 15, Canada Post decided to lock everyone out and shut down Canada's mail service completely. That was irrational, and it was unreasonable. That is when I started to hear about it from my constituents. People rightly complained. Small businesses were being affected. Canada Post management should have taken that into consideration before taking that irresponsible action.

However, instead of introducing legislation to end the lockout, to resume rotating service, and to get both sides back to the bargaining table, the government decided just a few days later to interfere with the right to collective bargaining and to impose a settlement below even what management had demanded. Therefore, Canada Post is being rewarded for shutting down the mail service that so many of our constituents rely on. This is a dangerous precedent, regardless of the particulars of this or any labour dispute.

Can any large corporation here in Canada, from now on, knowing the government's ideology, simply refuse to negotiate and then wait for the government to interfere and legislate people back to work? Will Canada Post be encouraged in the future to hold our postal service hostage anytime it does not feel like bargaining?

This is a dangerous path the Conservatives are leading the country down. It is one that would lead us to more entrenched positions, more, not less, labour unrest, and more, not less, interruption of the services Canadians rely on. What incentive will there be in the future for corporations to bargain in good faith or settle?

The government should not be in the business of imposing labour contracts for businesses and workers. That is not free or fair collective bargaining. That is not letting the process work. It is not letting the marketplace work. The Conservative government must stop interfering.

This is an extraordinary level of intervention for a government that says that it prefers to let the market sort things out. I am left wondering if this may have something to do with the government's desire to privatize Canada Post service and to reduce service to Canadians.

The government has been moving towards privatization for our postal service for a long time, and we know it. Canadians living in rural and remote areas, such as much of Thunder Bay—Superior North, will suffer most from this privatization. They are greatly impacted by these losses of service.

I have rural postal services in my own riding that are threatened. For example, the community of Dorion, in my riding, is about to lose its postal outlet this summer. This outlet is currently located in Canyon Country Service on Highway 11, and they are having to close permanently for circumstances beyond their control. However, Canada Post has found no local alternative. It has not let anyone know about any progress in finding one. This is not a good sign. It is one of our more worrisome examples of a worrisome Tory ideological obsession.

Canada Post insists that it is still respecting its so-called policy of not shutting down rural services themselves, because they can throw up their hands and say that there is no alternative.

Despite a fat salary for the CEO and bonuses for its executives, Canada Post is profitable. It does not need to shut rural services any more than it needs to privatize or to walk away from the bargaining table in these labour negotiations. The company made $281 million in profit last year. The CEO is making more than $650,000 a year, and his salary is going up by a lot more than the rate of inflation and by a lot more than what the workers are requesting in these negotiations. Why take the desperate move to shut down all postal services across Canada?

I want to talk a little about the people who are impacted by the Canada Post lockout. As I said before, I am a small-business person. Of course, my business, like so many across the country, relies on post offices for service. Lots of businesses rely on that. Many send their payments by mail. The Canada Post lockout and shutdown of the service has negatively impacted them, and Canadians will carry the can for it, not the poor posties who want to do a good job for a reasonable rate of pay. This service is important to them. This is impacting the workers who want to work and have been locked out of their jobs in the same way Canadians have been locked out of their postal service.

I would like to read a quote:

Nobody knows how much the population of Canada still relies on the Post Office more than postal workers. We see the medication, the card$ of $upport to out-of-town students, the food being sent to the far north. We see the frustration of our co-workers when they see all that they have fought for over the years being stripped away in one fell swoop of a pen by [our] Communist [Prime Minister]. It's maddening and frankly quite sad that a government would invite this sort of turmoil and suppression on its own people.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment first and then ask a brief question.

I am glad that the member opposite talked about owning three successful businesses, which makes him management, in my view. I wonder how his customers would feel if every other day some people in his shops did not show up for work because they were on a rotating strike. How long would he put up with rotating strikes while his successful businesses suffered?

I have heard from the hon. member and other members that the Canadian people are going to suffer. What percentage of the 30-plus million Canadian public are supporting this government in making sure that Canada Post gets back to work? What number do they need before they understand that Canadians want this Parliament to work? They want us to move this legislation forward and get Canada Post back to the activity of serving all Canadians. Is it 70% or 80%? What number do they need to hear before they finally take action?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard an implied question, and I heard a secondary question. I will answer the implied question first.

In my three businesses, if I had employees who went on rotating strikes against me, I would look in the mirror. I would assume responsibility for my mismanagement. I do not have those problems in my businesses. My businesses are run fairly, with fair benefits and fair pay for my employees. They appreciate that, and therefore they are loyal, so I do not have those problems.

Look in the mirror.

The answer to the second question is that yes, 33 million Canadians want to have their postal service restored. Everyone on my side of the aisle wants to see those services restored. We know that it is up to 167 members of the House on that side, although we know that it is really up to one or two or three. Allegedly it is up to 167 members who can unlock those post offices tomorrow if they decide to do that.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, we talk a lot about the services of Canada Post. The opposition talks a lot about the lack of services or the economic impact of this strike or this lockout.

I want to know from my colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North what happened in the past with the lack of service and the reduction of services by Canada Post? I want to know the impact on rural communities and his constituency of Canada Post's decisions?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have serious problems in Thunder Bay—Superior North in many of our rural areas. My riding is 100,000 square kilometres. There are 31 communities and nine first nations communities. The communities are not getting mail delivery every day. There has been a backlog due to cutbacks of staff and the use of part-time supplementary workers when needed. Small mom and pop operations that service the communities have been regularly closing, and they are being replaced by more affluent service centres, often operating out of one of our Shoppers Drug Marts at less convenient locations that are not close to those people.

It has been very clear for a long time that service is going down. It is time for the government to not only settle this labour dispute but to go about making the investments and making the commitments to make sure that rural delivery is enhanced and restored.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member opposite ask the hon. New Democrat member how he would feel about people not showing up for work. I would remind the member opposite that the post office workers did show up for work. They were actually locked out.

I have a question for the New Democrat member. Would you, as a small-business owner, cut the guts out of your employees' pension plan?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, we have a growing problem in this country as we emulate the United States Republican model. We have growing gaps in income. We have a loss of the middle class. We have people who are the working poor.

I urge all members opposite to read The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, by Wilkinson and Pickett, to read real hard science on why the Scandinavian countries are way ahead of us in terms of happy, healthy societies that benefit all people and have a reasonable balance between big business, small business, and workers.

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

Madam Speaker, as all of my colleagues have said today, we are sitting in the House of Commons on Quebec's national holiday. I apologize to my constituents. This shows that the Conservatives care more about opposing the rights of workers than they do about respecting the national holiday of a nation of Canada. The Conservatives were the ones to accept the validity of the Quebec nation and now they are putting their anti-labour ideology ahead of respect for Quebeckers.

On June 3, 2011, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes that demonstrated the workers' willingness to exert pressure, while still remaining in good faith and keeping the mail service running. The union offered to end the strikes if Canada Post would agree to reinstate the old contract during negotiations. But Canada Post refused.

On June 15, Canada Post, with the Conservative government's approval, decided to lock out its employees, force them into a work stoppage and shut down the mail service in order to allow the government to intervene.

As my hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was saying earlier, the government certainly must have approved the lockout. This allowed it to then introduce back-to-work legislation. Locking out the employees this way does not seem very fair to me in a collective bargaining situation. It shows the government's tendency to set restrictive parameters that prevent the parties from talking. Canada has laws to protect workers, but the Conservative Party seems to be telling the workers that it is going to take away their right to negotiate a collective agreement, impose conditions inferior to what Canada Post was offering and force arbitration. Will the arbitrator be neutral? We do not know. Will the arbitrator follow the government's lead and side with the employer?

Mail service continues to be essential to Canadians’ lives and to our economy. In my riding, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Dorval, people are angry because of this lockout, because their business depends on that service. But my constituents still realize that the dispute is much broader. They also realize that this is not a strike, it is a lockout. And they know that the dispute goes beyond what is happening at Canada Post; it is an unbelievable precedent.

The government is not just moving toward privatization, as several of my colleagues have pointed out. It wants to impose a climate of fear, to make workers who want to negotiate proper working conditions wary. The workers at Canada Post have been the victims of a huge machine that wants to violate the rights of workers everywhere in Canada. Before long, Canada will be doing what the state of Wisconsin did as recently as March 2011, when it passed a bill limiting the rights of public service unions and stripping government employees’ unions of nearly all their collective bargaining rights, with the exception of bargaining about wages. That is repression.

The letter carriers I have talked to in my riding say it is not even wages that upset them in this case. As my colleagues have pointed out, the pension plan is in danger, the “orphan clauses” are unacceptable, and management is imposing frustrating conditions in which employees are going to have to work. What upsets my constituents the most are the terms that affect occupational health and safety. I spoke with Michel St-Pierre, a letter carrier who has lived in my riding for several years. The postal workers are asking their employer for good working conditions in terms of safety, among other things.

At present, a letter carrier has to carry two bags, one on each side of the body, plus circulars. We all get millions of circulars in our mailboxes every day. So we can imagine the weight they have to carry. With the new special bill, they are being required to carry a third bag. Canada Post wants to force them to carry a bag in front that completely blocks their view of the ground. Well, that is intelligent. It is going to save money by making workers carry more bags, but workers’ compensation is going to have to pay out a lot of money because workers will be injured and file complaints. In a case involving backache, it is very difficult to prove to the compensation board that it is attributable to the job. Canada Post is going to lose a lot of money because of those injuries.

And that is not all. The union stood by its position that every postal worker must have access to the same pension plan and be entitled to the same benefits. Should we agree to Canada Post’s proposal to eliminate the option of early retirement for future employees, it will only be a matter of time before an attempt is made to tighten the eligibility criteria for early retirement for current employees. We remain optimistic about resolving the dispute, but there must be a show of goodwill on both sides.

The government has to stop interfering in the negotiations. Locking out employees and then forcing them back to work is certainly not a fair way of negotiating. I now have trouble believing that the two parties will be able to negotiate a fair contract.

For there to be a fair contract, the Conservatives need to put an end to their interventionist style of government and prevent a precedent from being set, which will be the case if this legislation passes.

It is true that the multinational courier companies regularly lobby to have Canada Post deregulated. These companies want the government to open up the letter mail market to competition so that they can increase their profits and market share.

Finally, some right-wing media outlets and economic institutes have called for the privatization and deregulation of Canada Post. However, almost everybody is opposed to this.

In 2008, the federal government commissioned a review of Canada Post Corporation and the report was published in 2009. This report is very clear. It appears that the public is no way favours the privatization or deregulation of Canada Post.

Furthermore, every major federal political party is officially opposed to privatizing the postal service, and most parties also reject deregulation.

I would also like to add that another one of my constituents contacted me this morning. She is a letter carrier and has been working for a very long time. She is currently having difficulty carrying all this weight. She told me that the new bags that are going to be imposed will mean that she will be required to carry more than 30 kilograms.

That is not all because, with that 30 kilograms, letter carriers currently have four hours to prepare their mail and four hours to deliver it. Now Canada Post wants to impose six continuous hours of delivery, six hours of walking the streets with three bags, plus flyers, to deliver the mail.

On top of that, with the new special legislation, they would be prohibited from collecting overtime. If my constituent finds it too heavy, if she has difficulty walking, if she has stairs to climb, if there is black ice in the winter and she has difficulty and takes half an hour longer, she cannot claim a half-hour of overtime. I think that is truly ridiculous.

We are asking the government to change this special legislation and let workers get back on the job so that small businesses can have their mail service. We need to let the parties discuss the collective agreement together so that these workers can determine what they need and they can ask for what they need for workplace health and safety, for the orphan clauses and for pensions and wages.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the NDP members' speeches, and it is so obvious, the lack of respect they have for small businesses and Canadians who are relying on the post office.

It is quite obvious to everybody who has followed this disagreement that these are two parties that have a history of not agreeing. As I said earlier, 1978, 1987, 1991, 1997--each of those times they required back-to-work legislation. That is what we are talking about here.

They have had since October to come up with an agreement. The minister has met with them numerous times. She has bent over backwards to try to come up with an agreement. This is an essential service for small businesses. They need the cheques to come in and they need the cheques to go out.

These two parties, not one side or the other but both of them, cannot come up with an agreement. Businesses are suffering. I am asking the members on the other side, how long will they allow that to occur?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from across the floor for his question.

It is certainly true that small businesses need postal services to resume as soon as possible. My husband has a retail business on eBay and everything has been shut down for two weeks because he cannot send any parcels. However, he understands that this is a lockout that the employer decided to impose on the employees. The employer locked the doors and prohibited them from delivering the mail.

In my riding, the employees even decided to continue the service. An elderly man wanted his pension cheque and could not get it because his street was under construction and letter carriers could not get to his house. He went to the Canada Post office and still has not been able to get his cheque.

We want the workers to be allowed to go back to work, but they must be allowed to discuss the conditions themselves with an impartial arbitrator who will listen to both sides.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite spoke of two parties with a history of not agreeing, and it seems to me that what we need to do in this chamber is to move beyond disagreeing and make some progress. We have a problem because we have a bill that is unfair and a dangerous precedent and we have a firm opposition on this side. On the other hand, we have a majority on the other side. So how do we make progress?

I think the way we make progress is something that the leader of the opposition mentioned, which is to look at some amendments where we can meet in the middle somewhere. Unfortunately, we are standing here debating a hoist amendment, which is simply to get rid of the bill. It is not talking about where we can meet in the middle. I have great hopes, because I trust the leader of the opposition that maybe some helpful amendments will be raised.

Does the hon. member know when we will start talking about those amendments to help us make progress so we could make this unfair bill more just and make this dangerous precedent not that way?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

After our leader's speech yesterday, someone on the other side of the House asked him what the amendments were. We are talking about pensions. We are talking about wages that are lower in the proposed legislation than what the employer was offering. We are talking about orphan clauses. In fact, the amendments are simple. We have been talking about them for several hours and we will continue talking about them for the next few days. The rights of workers must be respected and some sort of common ground must be reached.

[The hon. member spoke in Cree.]

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this august chamber to speak on behalf of the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and on behalf of all Quebeckers on this national holiday. Of course, like all of us, I would have preferred for us to celebrate this day in our ridings with our constituents, but we have decided to take this time for workers today.

I want to talk about the speech we heard last evening by the leader of the opposition and the many proposals the leader had to offer in his speech. In my opinion, it was one of the best speeches I have heard in the House of Commons in a very long time. We should be grateful to him because it was truly an honour for those who were here to listen to the leader yesterday.

A number of points raised in his speech are essential and fundamental to this debate. A number of my colleagues have been raising a number of those points over the past several hours. I want to come back to one point in particular and that is the cavalier way in which this government is unilaterally imposing draconian conditions on the workers involved in this dispute. This creates a dangerous precedent. It seems that the hon. members across the way are having fun and like dangerous things. Just look at how they feel about chrysotile asbestos.

Tabling this type of draconian measure would create a dangerous precedent. It would very certainly open the door to other measures in other sectors in the future. In my riding, many people are increasingly wondering who will be the government's next victims and what this government will do next. Rest assured, what we are seeing right now is just the beginning.

Good labour relations require respect for workers' rights. That is a fundamental aspect of bargaining and labour relations. That is not the case when this government introduces draconian measures that violate their rights, as is happening with the bill before us. This bill is shameful, outrageous, unacceptable and unsustainable. There are so many negative adjectives I could use. It is unfair and even propagandist in some respects, since it is nothing but propaganda to keep calling this a strike. The Minister of Labour should know that this is not a strike; it is a lockout. Even my constituents are writing to me to ask me to remind the Minister of Labour that this is not a strike, that it is a lockout. It is rather shocking to see that the Minister of Labour was not distinguishing between the two yesterday. A young person who wrote to me even counted, as did we, that the minister said it three times in her reply.

I come from a culture of negotiations. I am a first nations man, from the Cree Nation, to be exact. I can provide examples of negotiations I have been making for the past 25 years on behalf of my people, such as the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. That was the first modern agreement signed in Canada between a government and aboriginal peoples. In this case, it was the first modern agreement signed by a provincial government. That had never happened before 1975. It was the first agreement signed by aboriginals that involved a province.

The difficulty in this case was getting the provisions of the agreement implemented. It took 30 years for an agreement to be reached.

I am proud to have taken part in the negotiation process in 2002 for the Paix des Braves, an agreement with the Government of Quebec. I also participated in the agreement to help establish a new relationship between the federal government and the Cree nation, which was settled in 2007 after a delay of several years. Furthermore, I am proud to speak about the new, recently signed framework agreement for the civic and public governance of James Bay. We may end up with a public government in the James Bay area, which is good news for everybody. This would spell an end to the exclusion of aboriginal peoples in the management of their natural resources.

I have given these examples because I know that relationships are at the core of any negotiation process, and that these relationships must be based on mutual respect and cooperation. Relations between management and workers must be harmonious, too. These relationships are the key to any negotiation. In my opinion, there are very serious implications to what is being currently proposed in this bill. These are not solutions; they are draconian measures being foisted upon the workers of this sector.

I also want to talk about the signals this government has sent out throughout this affair. It concerns and troubles me to see how negotiations will be run for years to come should there be further labour disputes. There needs to be a very close eye kept on this process. All Canadians, and indeed certainly every resident in my riding, are watching what is happening very closely. It will be an indication of the arrogant approach this government, this majority government, will take in the years to come.

The right to negotiate, which incidentally has been a fundamental right for a very long time in this country, has no place under this approach. This right is as fundamental as the right to go to court, which this government also disregards. This approach in no way promotes an environment of trust between management and workers, nor by any means a responsible culture of negotiation and compromise, which is fundamental to all labour relations.

We have been labeled ideologues a number of times this morning. The ideologues are on the other side of this House. We are fighting for social justice in Canada.

There is no shame in standing up for the rights and interests of aboriginals in this country. There is no shame in standing up for the rights and interests of women in this country. There is no shame in standing up for the rights and interests of immigrants in this country. There is no shame in standing up for the rights, interests and freedoms of people in this country. And there is certainly no shame in standing up for the rights and interests of seniors, let alone workers, in this country.

I have been involved in negotiations for the past 25 years and I intend to continue my involvement in this particular matter for as long as it takes, and throughout my term in office.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I must say that this moment is a little sad for me. The hon. member who has just spoken talked about social justice and about the fact that the Aboriginals in the north cannot be forgotten.

The hon. member represents a constituency in the north of Quebec where elderly Aboriginals need things like eyeglasses or medications. They need the Nutrition North Canada program. Vital food is sent to our Aboriginals through the mail. But he says that he wants to support workers who earn between $21 and $37 per hour and who want to negotiate. He wants to represent them more than those who need the representation, the Aboriginals in the north.

I am asking him clearly if he is going to decide to support those who elected him, those in need in the north of his riding, the Aboriginals in the north.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me correct the references to the Aboriginals in the north. They are not our Aboriginals, they are peoples and nations.

Second, I would like to emphasize that the Aboriginal people whom she mentions so proudly are not naïve. They understand perfectly. The young Cree man whom I mentioned just now, the one who sent me an email and counted the times that the Minister of Labour used the word “strike” in her speech yesterday, he understood that the minister was spreading propaganda.

People understand perfectly that this is a lockout. All the Prime Minister has to do is call the head of Canada Post and get him to unlock the doors at Canada Post.

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

Madam Speaker, the member just mentioned the CEO of Canada Post.

I am putting myself in the Conservatives' shoes. We are coming out of a recession, so everyone is tightening their belts. I understand that. The NDP stands in solidarity with everyone.

Should the CEO of Canada Post who, I believe, earns $497,000 a year, plus a 33% bonus, also have to tighten his belt to help resolve this dispute?

That question is for my NDP colleague, if he has an answer.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that the CEO of Canada Post intends on doing what the member suggested. However, for the good of all the citizens who currently need postal services, I think it would be smart for him to put an end to the lockout.

The members on the other side seem to be fond of locks. We must unlock the doors of Canada Post. When the Prime Minister was not happy with how things were going here, he locked the doors of Parliament. When my leader, the leader of the official opposition, suggested meetings to find solutions together, what did the Prime Minister do? He suggested another lock.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are currently debating the hoist amendment to this unfair and dangerous bill.

I would like to know whether there are any negotiations.

I know that In a few hours the amendment will be defeated by the majority over there, and I would like to know if there are negotiations going on for what is going to happen next and how we are going to make progress.

I am not aboriginal, but I know I share with aboriginals and other Canadians the feeling that we want to see progress. We have to make progress at some point. We cannot let this unjust, unfair and dangerous law--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have raised a number of questions from this side of the House. I think we have a very good idea of the amendments being proposed to this unfair bill. It would be great if there were an opening, but there is not. Everything is locked up.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, honourable members, brothers and sisters: lockout, lockout. It hurts to hear those words. I don't know whether the Speaker can see it from her Chair, but I have a bump here that dates back to the first lockout I took part in at Commonwealth Plywood some 30 years ago. The workers had been locked out, and the scabs were escorted in and out by police officers and private security services. Those security guards and police officers took billy clubs to the workers there and to the people who had come to support them. To my mind, a lockout is a violent measure. I see a member laughing over there, but that does not prevent it from being very violent. There is political violence in this kind of legislation.

For the Conservatives, when citizens demonstrate, it is often violent. Cutting jobs, imposing legislation, putting people out on the street, cutting $11 billion from public services: that is not violent for them. Making seniors wait in hospitals for 16 hours is not violent, no.

Lockout, lockout. This government loves locks; we should have suspected that. It also likes big fences around cities to protect them from dangerous and violent demonstrators. The summits of the powerful are protected from the legitimate demands of citizens.

This government really likes borders. It is putting a lot of money into border infrastructure, even in the backyard of the minister responsible for the Treasury Board. This government also likes prisons, lots of prisons with lots of locks.

To justify investing in prisons, the Prime Minister says there is a lot of unreported crime. Do workers who refuse to go back to work in response to a sorry piece of legislation commit that kind of unreported crime? Perhaps.

Touching their fences is another unreported crime that could help fill those prisons. That is dangerous. They arrested 1,200 individuals who dared to touch their fences; that is a major crime.

This government wants to lock the Canadian people into a system of logic, the logic of law and order. If things do not work the way it wants, it will put locks on our freedoms: the freedom to negotiate, the freedom to exercise pressure and eventually freedom of association perhaps. The only thing it will not put locks on is its privileges. No one puts a lock on the freedom to mine anywhere without the consent of the local communities. They have the right to operate a two-kilometre mine near a lake or near 62 rivers in the name of freedom of trade. They have the freedom to drill shale gas wells anywhere they want. They are free to dig a well in my backyard. No one is putting a lock on that kind of freedom.

They have the freedom to pollute the water, the air and the vast expanses of the Canadian Prairies with mining and oil residues. They have a firm grip on their freedoms. They have the freedom to exercise control to benefit the oil market, to raise prices. They have the freedom to concentrate communications businesses in order to send a message. We cannot put a lock on that. They concentrate businesses. They are good at that.

They have the freedom to speculate with the savings of small investors, without regulation or penalty. They gamble with our savings. They are free to do that.

They have the freedom to charge usurious interest rates of 20, 22, 23 per cent. There is nothing to it. Families are going into debt, young people in particular. They put them at the bottom of a well so they have to pay for 100 years. They have the freedom to avoid taxes.

We have nice little tax havens. We are free to go and put our money there. That is how we launder our money. It is fun. We make money. No one looks into that. Those are the freedoms they defend on the other side of the House. It is true. However, they do not respect the freedom of workers to organize, to negotiate. What about negotiating, exercising pressure or establishing a power relationship? No. We are talking about negotiations. All week long, I have heard the Minister of Labour say they negotiated for eight months. What kind of negotiations are we talking about? Negotiations designed to divide workers into two groups: one group for which they want to cut wages, undermine pensions and increase the retirement age. What are those false negotiations? False negotiations! You would think Canada Post Corporation was a bankrupt business asking its workers to make an effort to save the company. We know that workers, even unionized ones, often make those efforts. But we are talking about a business that makes a profit of about $281 million a year. It is not the case: Canada Post Corporation is not bankrupt.

To understand the offers made by Canada Post Corporation and, indirectly, the government, you have to understand that there is a political agenda behind this. The first item on that political agenda is to prove to everyone that the Conservatives will not make an issue of workers' rights. The second item is to prove that they are in power and that they are strong. It is true! One need only consider the ministers' condescending attitude in the past three weeks in their answers to the questions put to them. I am thinking of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who systematically repeats the same sentence to us. The Minister of Industry does the same thing when it comes to asbestos. They are not answering questions; their patting themselves on the back; and they are not meeting the expectations of the members of this House, not at all, any more than those of the public who would like to have answers to certain questions such as: What was done with the $50 million? How is it that no one has any documents on the matter regarding the decision-making processes that led to those investments? Those documents have simply disappeared.

The fundamental objective of the Conservative government's political agenda is to scuttle public services, to carve up the government, to make cuts to public services and, lastly—the ultimate objective—to privatize and eliminate government, contracting everything out to the market. It would be good if there was no more government and everything was private. That is the Conservative credo. We know that. We should privatize the hospitals, prisons, public services, police, water, the land, our land. In the collective psychosis of privatization, why not privatize the government itself, the government of the people? Let it be replaced by a board of directors! That would be a lot easier.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Let us remove the government and establish a vast board of directors made up of businessmen who will decide what is good for the people. That is the vision, the collective psychosis of the Conservatives, the reform ideal.

If you are engaging in social “desolidarization”, you will need a lot of locks. You would better buy locks! You will also need a lot of prisons. You will have to put a lot of officers on the border. We will not let the speculators, the usurers, the predators of the common good destroy the social and political progress of the last 100 years without reacting. No, it is out of the question!

The NDP members will stand up with workers and Canadians to defend something that cannot be locked up, put between four walls, fenced in, put behind barbed wire, something that you cannot leave at the border, something we cannot lock up. This thing that we will always stand up to defend is our freedom, our freedom of speech, our freedom of association, our freedom of organization, our freedom to get organized to live in a fairer society, enriched by all its members.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that in this debate the NDP continues to ignore the origin of this work stoppage.

It is clear that the rotating strikes had a negative impact on the volume of mail that was being delivered. Everybody who has ever had a business knows that they cannot continue to pay 100% of the expenses when they only have 50% of the income. It was an obvious fact that the work stoppages had led to a decrease in the volume of the mail. Canada Post locked them out, of course.

I have an email here that I just received in the last half hour from a constituent who says, “I just wanted to drop you a quick note of support on the Canada Post issue. Our company relies heavily on Canada Post and we are losing customers daily”.

What about the companies that are going to shut down? They are losing business, laying off workers and firing them. When is the party across the way going to start standing up for the working families of Canada?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond, just like the Minister of Foreign Affairs, by saying that the Auditor General made recommendations and that we are going to follow them, and that 32 projects benefited from these investments, and so on.

If someone asks me another question, this is what I am going to say.

Honestly, and to answer my colleague's question, I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is June 24, Quebec's national holiday. So I invite all the members to sing along: “Si j'avais les ailes d'un ange, je partirais pour Québec! Si j'avais des lumières sur mon bike...”

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the member's speech and I noted, on a number of occasions, that he used the words “lock” and “locked” as part of his way of expressing what has happened with respect to Canada Post. He also used the word “union”.

Back in St. Catharines, I have a union with the people of the community that sent me here to represent them. I take that union with them very seriously. I also know that every mailbox in the city of St. Catharines and in this country has a lock on it. I have 120,000 people in my community who deserve to get their mail on a daily basis, for whatever important reason it is.

The member opposite was just elected, and there are 100,000 locks on the mailboxes in—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, what was the question?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to raise one point. My colleague outlined the origins of the impasse here as being the ultimate goal of the government to privatize Canada Post as part of a neo-Conservative agenda that would include a multitude of changes; to recreate Canada in the image of George Bush's United States or Johnny Howard's Australia.

Are we seeing the first glimpse, the first insight, the first shot across the bow of the attack of the neo-Conservatives to throw some red meat to their base and finally do the things they were put here to do, which is to devastate the country as we know it, that our fathers built in the post—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, this desire for privatization has been expressed for years in the neo-conservative discourse in Ottawa and in Quebec City. That is their vision of the market. The NDP wants to keep public services universal and free for the population, so that the wealth is shared and we live in a society of social justice. The government should not forget that. In four years, we will still be here to remind the government that social justice will climb its way to power in Canada.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say something about the Fête nationale. Since 1964, no government in this House found a way to prevent the adjournment of proceedings for June 24, Saint-Jean Baptiste Day, which is Quebeckers’ national holiday

To hear the Prime Minister say yesterday that we simply had to vote for the bill if we wanted to go home to celebrate is one of the worst things that I can imagine hearing in this House. This image will stay with me for a long time, and I will make sure that my fellow citizens also remember it in four years’ time.

On the other hand, it was an honour to hear the Leader of the Opposition give such an inspiring speech here yesterday. He gave a rousing retrospective of everything the labour movement has done to achieve a quality of life that is beyond comparison with that of our ancestors. The members opposite need to remember this.

I would like to set the record straight on a a few points. Canada Post is a crown corporation that has posted a profit of $281 million. Just to be clear, this is a profitable crown corporation that has locked out its employees. The last time I closed an small business it was because it was not profitable. When a business is profitable, usually things can be worked out and an agreement can be reached. I have to wonder about the skill of our friends opposite as managers.

Despite what a number of our colleagues opposite have stated, the union’s position is not the result of vicious organizers who are pressuring others. I met with the group of letter carriers in Montmagny, along with their organizer. When I asked who among them was their spokesperson, the organizer did not speak up; the others pointed him out. A woman said they had chosen him because he speaks well. He humbly asked to meet with me. I had just met a monster, a monster of kindness. He was definitely not pressuring these workers.

The 55,000 workers who will be affected by this bill are not temperamental. They are above all parents, citizens and consumers. These 55,000 workers are not being unreasonable.

Consider the fact that they are also consumers. Consider the impact of this decision concerning a crown corporation that is making a profit. Wages will be cut by $800 per year or more for 55,000 consumers. How will this decision help what the members opposite call the economic recovery that they have been talking about since the beginning of this Parliament? As far as the economic recovery goes, if a crown corporation is profitable, it should share its good fortune with its workers in order to really get the economic recovery going.

These workers are also citizens. I am not so sure that our friends opposite remember that. One of our colleagues made the argument that the rotating strikes are affecting public health and safety. Is this some kind of cynicism or desensitization? We are talking about 55,000 workers who will be losing insurance coverage for their prescriptions. They are citizens who also deserve assurances for their health and their future.

They are also parents. Think about the young parents especially who are just starting out with the crown corporation and who are told from the outset that they will have to make do with 18% less, a less generous wage package and more difficult working conditions and that they will have to work longer. These decisions are leaving the parents tired, worn out. That is the impact when a group of workers is seen as simply being temperamental.

I come from the regions. I hope that the broader objective is not to privatize postal services. In the regions, people already have to make do with a small postal outlet very far from home. If the goal is to set up a big postal outlet as you enter Montmagny for 14,000 residents, I hope it does not come to that. If postal services are privatized, it will lead to scenarios just as ridiculous as that. So please let us back off on that.

Contempt and provocation are a way of using events that our friends opposite resort to regularly. Unfortunately, they are practising this kind of politics at the expense of our national holiday.

Canadians and Quebeckers are smart enough to see the strings the government is pulling. They know it is a lockout. They know that this House could have adjourned so we could go home to our ridings for the national holiday. In four years, people will remember. If the government respects people, aboriginal people, seniors and those who need medicines, they should unlock the lockout.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party have spoken often about the issue of the pension for Canada Post workers. I have in my hands the equity holdings, greater than $25 million, for that very same pension fund. It includes, in order of largest investment, Toronto Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources, Potash Corp., Canadian National Railway, Talisman Energy, Research in Motion, Barrick Gold, Manulife Financial, and I could go on.

The Leader of the Opposition has called for an increase in taxes on these very same enterprises from 15% to 19.5%. That means that the after-tax profits, which come from these companies and go directly into the pension fund of the workers the member purports to defend, would be reduced. In other words, the tax increase on enterprises that is proposed by the NDP is actually a tax on the Canada Post workers' pension fund.

I am wondering if the hon. member would explain to the workers of CUPW why he wants to increase taxes on their already stretched pension fund.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Let me begin by correcting something my colleague opposite said. The solution we put forward was to ensure that big companies duly pay their taxes, which are lower than what companies pay in the United States, in order to be competitive, and to make huge investments in SMEs. That is what was suggested and what is needed to create as many jobs as possible in Canada.

To be fair, I suggest that the government move to impose an 18% salary cut for all new Conservative members for the next eight years.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to clarify something for the hon. member for Oshawa, who does not seem to understand the situation. He put both parties on the same footing. He said that both parties are guilty, which is why the government needed to take action. I would remind our colleague that the union fully intended to keep the postal services as flexible as possible. Therefore, it chose rotating strikes as low-pressure tactics, so that seniors, aboriginal people and Canadians in remote areas could keep receiving mail. Management responded with a lockout, which put a stop to mail delivery. The two parties are not on the same footing and they are not equally guilty, which is why we are demanding an end to the lookout.

My question about orphan clauses is for my colleague and riding neighbour. These clauses are detrimental, since workers doing the same work as their colleagues will be paid less. Could the member comment on that?