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

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

A friend of mine, who worked in a different crown corporation, could not become a permanent employee because of such an “orphan clause”. He had been head researcher in his division for eight years, but he was still waiting to become a permanent employee. That is how ludicrous the situation was. In the end, the workers went on strike and the issue was settled. These orphan clauses lead to absurd situations, like wage reductions for new employees. How do you explain that, for 20 years, a worker hired three years before me will get paid more than me for doing the same job? That would be a two-tier system, as my colleague pointed out. Such a ridiculous situation should never occur. A responsible government should always try to avoid this kind of thing.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my best wishes to all Quebeckers on the national holiday. It warms my heart to learn that all francophones, everywhere in Canada, are also celebrating this national holiday. Let us continue the struggle. We will succeed.

I would also like to say to all my colleagues that I am extremely proud of all the speeches they have made up to now. They are speaking from their hearts. They are speaking from their experience, unlike this government, which seems to speak like a machine, an answering machine, constantly repeating the same message. I am concerned, since I myself have experienced special legislation in Quebec that had a horrible effect, not just on me but on a lot of people in Quebec.

I am going to talk about the history of Quebec, particularly because today is the national holiday. Let us recall the very early days of Quebec. The people who brought prosperity to Quebec and to Canada are the workers. They are the people who cleared the land with their hands. They are the people who built the roads. They are the people who set up local businesses. And later in our history, they are the people who came together to create Hydro-Québec so it became a people’s project. They are the volunteers who continue to work with and help people still today.

All these workers sacrificed their time and their energy. This is the people as a whole, let us not forget. This is a shared history, and the connection with the postal service is very important in that history. It is thanks to the postal service, thanks to that connection, that people were able to communicate. And still today, it is the most reliable service there is, and all Canadians know it. Everyone uses computers, but we still have the postal service. It provides us with unbelievable services.

Everyone in my riding is affected by the postal strike. Everyone realizes that the strike has to end, but there is a way to do it, and this government is not doing it the right way. This is absolutely unacceptable.

We are heading toward an historic event. We are a part of history, of a new millennium. Where is this government’s new vision? Where is its ability to go beyond the old methods?

In my own work experience, I have worked in unionized workplaces since I was 14 years old, in large and small businesses. I have even been the boss. I have also bargained positions. I have handled all aspects of bargaining. There is a common thread that connects all private and public enterprises, and that is that the proceeds are shared, the success is shared. Canada Post has absolutely no excuse. The corporation had revenue of over $281 million and it is continuing to prosper, but it is not sharing those proceeds at all. Canada Post absolutely did not want to bargain with the workers, who acted in complete good faith. They were even prepared to go back on the same terms, terms that provided for survival, for continuity.

This government’s pretext for the lockout is that the workers were acting in bad faith and are causing the corporation to lose money, when it just keeps making more.

Let us come back to history now, since it seems that this government always operates in the past. All governments that have acted like this, that have created a false situation, like the lockout, and that have then come forward with a special bill, have engaged in dictatorship. That is what I call it, and I will say it today.

Yes, that is where we are heading. It is a right-wing position that runs counter to all the rights of working people, without exception.

By the government’s definition, an essential service is one that is profitable. That is a very broad meaning, and if I look at all the workers there are, all occupations are profitable.

This government claims to be creating jobs. I hope that is true, but it remains to be seen. When workers use their right of expression, they are literally gagged, because it costs money. If I understand the government’s reasoning, no matter who the workers are, if it costs the employer money to settle an internal dispute, the workers will be gagged. That is the message being sent now, with this special bill. We have a problem.

There are all kinds of workers at present: agronomists, nurses, office clerks, restaurant owners, customs officers, security guards, painters, journalists, bakers, dentists, consultants, accountants, movers, electricians, mechanics, cabinetmakers, telemarketers, translators, sociologists, airline pilots, musicians, engineers, peace officers, bailiffs, guides, convenience store clerks, servers, school principals, and so on. What is their agenda? What influence will they have on the multinationals? What message are they sending? What influence will they have on the provincial labour codes?

If people cost even the slightest bit of money, they have the perfect excuse. Strip people of their right of expression, lock them out, fabricate a scenario and decide to bring in a special bill. Congratulations. We are truly heading in the right direction.

Employment contracts continue to decline. If I understand this reasoning properly, to be profitable, people have to work 60 hours a week and draw a pension at the age of 105. We are heading in an excellent direction.

Myself, I do not believe in any way in a society where the economy controls the people. The opposite is true: the economy serves the people. It is not the 2% who should be in control, it is the 98% of people who live ordinary lives, who want to see solutions with a vision.

I invite the government opposite to sit down with us. Instead of making decisions on its own, with a narrow vision, I invite it to take the time to sit down with us to see the broader picture, one that is widely representative of what people want.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the NDP continue to ignore the source of this conflict in terms of work stoppages. The initial problem was rotating strikes.

I have an email here. I know the NDP members do not like to hear from their constituents, but maybe they will listen to one of mine. I received this email on June 3. This person starts off by telling me that he did not vote Conservative but voted NDP. He goes on to state: “This greediness for more money and job security has to stop. No agency or organization in this day and age has job security and better pensions, while many organizations are cutting back on their pensions and laying off staff because they cannot make ends meet.”

My question is very simple. Small businesses have been threatened by this work stoppage. Their volume of business has been reduced, which has resulted in layoffs or, even worse, business closures. Considering the number of small businesses affected, when will that party start standing up for average Canadian workers?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The solution is very simple: for the postal service to get back up and running again, the lockout has to end. The union agrees to return to work on the same terms. There will be no strike; the employees will go back. They have to end the lockout.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. He has spoken at length about this lockout by Canada Post and the heavy-handed action of the government in reaction to the lockout. It is very simple to end the lockout by simply unlocking Canada Post and allowing the workers to go back to work, as they have offered to do.

In my city of Toronto, the government put locks on almost the entire city and instigated a massive violation of civil liberties during the G20. Many of our local businesses are still waiting to be compensated for that particular lockout and loss of business to our community.

Does the hon. member see a parallel between the lockout of Canada Post and the denial of postal services to Canadians and the lockdown of the city of Toronto in the G20 negotiations, with its denial of civil liberties and denial of business opportunities for Toronto businesses?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

This is in fact a pattern on the part of the government. I think it feels a bit threatened. When something threatens people's very existence, the government takes a hard line, when it could just take the time to meet with people, as it has the gall to say it does, and understand the situation. I imagine that communication is not its strong point.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I feel like I am on the floor of the convention in Vancouver for the NDP, a socialist party. I keep hearing over and over how profits are bad at Canada Post. I remind the member that the chief shareholder is in fact Canadian taxpayers, at the end of the day, as funds get reinvested in, for example, roads, public infrastructure, health care, and education.

Apart from that, I wonder if the member does not feel confident that the union can win final offer selection arbitration. I do not know if the member has read the bill, all seven pages of it, but the workers will be going back under the recently expired agreement. All settled matters will continue to be settled. They will not be reopened or up for grabs again.

There is a guiding principle about an improved pension solvency trajectory. That is a good thing. That has to improve, not get worse. There are guaranteed pay raises for four years. Who else is getting guaranteed pay raises for four years? The final offer selection is for only the outstanding items that have yet to be agreed upon.

Does the member not believe that the union can put together a competitive package that can win final offer selection?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been amendments proposed. I am happy to hear that this government is open to amendments. I think it is important to be open.

The door is open, and it is now up to the government to act.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate. I have been extremely excited to listen to my colleagues over the last number of hours that I have been here.

Let me take a different tack in this debate and talk about the terminology that we interchange among ourselves. Sometimes we need a hand in understanding what it is. We do not use it in a wilful way. We simply repeat it over and over again. We think we are actually using it in an appropriate way or are helping to clarify.

In her remarks last evening, the Minister continually talked about a strike, when actually that strike ended when the lockout started. I think she came to recognize that.

We on this side recognize that indeed there was a rotational strike. There is no doubt about that. There was a rotational strike. That is a fact. No one denies that. We have to use the proper language and recognize that this has ended and we now have a lockout.

A lockout is a totally different thing altogether in labour relations. It is a different thing altogether. We now have to recognize that it is no longer a rotational strike that went from place to place, some small places and some large, and then moved on. We are in a full-scale lockout. The entire system is shut down.

In the Canadian labour act, only one side can do a lockout. That is the employer. Workers can never lock out themselves. They can withdraw their labour, but they can never actually go and put a padlock on the gate. They cannot do that.

The other piece that has gone back and forth over the morning is this term “union boss”. Let us explore who is a union boss and what a union boss really looks like. The terminology of “union boss” suggests that somehow that person is the boss of the workers represented by this particular individual.

Actually, the pyramid needs to be inverted. It is those workers who hire the union boss. They democratically elect the union boss. Every three or four years, or in some cases five years depending on the organization, the workers can get rid of their so-called union boss if he or she did not do what they asked him or her to do.

The same thing happens to us. Some of us are back from the 40th Parliament to the 41st Parliament and some of us are not. Clearly their bosses, their constituents, said, “Thank you for your time. I no longer wish to have you here. Please move away. I'm choosing someone else.” In the labour movement, that is indeed what we do in many circumstances.

Let me put a face to the union boss. The members who are sitting here today and looking at me are looking at an ex-union boss. I do not have two heads. I did not grow horns. I represented workers who elected me to do a specific task on their behalf, which was to bargain collective agreements, and that is what I did.

When we were finished bargaining collective agreements, I brought it back to them and said, “Here is the best that we have done. We think this is good. Would you like to vote on it? Tell me yes or no.”

Sometimes they said yes and occasionally they said no. What did it mean when they said no? It meant the union boss went back to work. He or she works for the workers. The workers do not work for the union boss.

The terminology we use can sometimes start to impinge upon people's reputations and give a connotation that is not necessarily true. I would ask the members, when we talk about and use interchangeable terms, to actually use the terms in an appropriate way.

There is a boss at Canada Post, and that is the CEO. Workers do not elect the CEO. The CEO comes to them. The workers do not get an opportunity to say, “You have done a rotten job. It is time to move on.” They do not have that democratic right. However, inside their union they have a democratic right to get rid of their “boss” simply through the electoral process.

I would simply say that sometimes we all use improper terminology. I am not suggesting that we all are not guilty of it. From time to time on this side of the House we are guilty of using terminology that maybe we should think about when we are actually doing those sorts of things.

Let us get past the terminology and talk about the fact that these new workers are about to receive less than the present-day workers under this agreement and the offer that comes from management. Who are they? In my community, they are actually not young people. Many of my colleagues here are younger, and have expressed the sense of what it would be like to be young workers who end up making less than those they work beside.

In my community, a lot of these workers are over at John Deere. They are at Atlas. They are workers who are in the midpoint or sometimes late point of their careers who have to find other work because the places they work for have closed.

Those places are gone. John Deere packed up a little over 18 months ago and is gone. Atlas closed down a number of years ago. We have seen the literal gutting of the manufacturing sector in my riding, just as we have seen across this country.

Here is what happens. When people get a job at Canada Post, they do not start as full-time employees. They start as casual employees. They are told to stay home, that they will be called if somebody calls in sick. Stay by the phone, they are told. So there they are, workers hoping to finally get a job at Canada Post, and they stick by their phones in case a fellow worker calls in sick and they are needed for the day. They get a call and are told, “Come on in today.” Then, if they stay there long enough, they might become part-timers.

Meanwhile, they still have all the responsibilities they had before. Young people have responsibilities, but I am talking about folks who look more like me and less like the young folks we know out there, like my children, who are in their mid-twenties. These folks still have mortgages to pay and children to raise, and yet they find that they are still casual employees or maybe, finally, part-timers. Then, when they are about to take that final step and become full-time employees, they are told, under this collective agreement, to just take less. They will work beside others who are doing exactly the same job, but they are told to take less.

So if they are taking less, why would we allow folks to work side by side doing the same thing? Is the corporation saying that it values one employee more than another as far as rewards are concerned? Whether that will be through the pay scale, because the pay scale is going to be reduced for new hires, talking about the sense that somehow--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Essex is rising on a point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring to a collective agreement with postal workers that includes two-tier wages. Could he table that in the House?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is not really a point of order.

The hon. member for Welland.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about a collective agreement, I am talking about the proposed collective agreement with Canada Post. I thank my colleague for the non-point of order and for at least giving me the opportunity to clarify the terminology we talked about earlier.

The proposal from Canada Post would lessen the amount of money, so the proposal then becomes a proposal for two types of workers, but not workers who are doing different jobs. The letter carrier who gets less money doesn't get to carry less mail. He or she gets to carry the same amount of mail. These people get to do the same amount of work. They have to work the same number of hours. They have to do all of the things that the others do; they just do it for less. It seems to me that there is an injustice in telling folks to do the job for less.

I have heard Canada Post argue that it is not going to be as profitable in the future as it has been in the past. I wish I had that crystal ball. I think all of us wish we had that crystal ball. It would be wonderful for elections; we would know if we were going to win the next one. It would be wonderful for our RRSPs or investments because we would know how much we could make or lose in the future; we would know what to do with our investments. That would be a wonderful crystal ball.

So what did the union say to the company? The union said it had some ideas about how the company might indeed make itself more profitable. The company is not really saying no, but it is not really jumping at the bit to do it.

Here's one thing the union is suggesting. I would like the government side to get this, because that side has portrayed the TD bank and others as being highly profitable enterprises with low taxes. The union is suggesting that Canada Post ought to do what it did before and go back into financial services. It is fully capable of doing that. It can do it, and if it did, it could make money.

In fact, as a youngster growing up in Glasgow in the U.K., I remember buying savings stamps at the post office. If I bought a savings stamp, it would be put in a book that I actually had in my hand. If I went back at the end of the month, I got whatever the interest was for that month, and I received another little stamp, a real stamp, not one of those ink stamps. If I wanted my money back, I would take out the stamps and hand them back to the post office, which gave me money.

That was quite some time ago, of course. We can do things much differently now. With all the wonderful electronics we have, we can do all those wonderful things. We can do interbanking and all the things in that wonderful world.

Here is a golden opportunity for Canada Post, a crown corporation that benefits Canadians when it makes money. Here is a golden opportunity to make money, to return it to Canadians as a dividend and to reward its employees equally and fairly. Yet it is not saying that it wants to rush in to do this. I find it astounding that a business would not want to make money. I find it astounding that my colleagues on the government side are not pushing Canada Post to make more money. The profit motive is not a bad thing. I am willing to say that in the House. One would think that Canada Post would want to do that.

Let me just say that this is an opportunity for the government to say, “Yes, we want Canada Post and the postal workers to get back to work.” It is as simple as ordering the CEO to take the locks off the boxes and saying, “Let the workers go back to work and we will figure out a negotiated settlement, because that is what we have done in the past, and we can do that in the future.”

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some of the speeches, or maybe I should call them “the pollutants”, from the socialist Marxist party called the NDP--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think people would agree that was a really low-class statement that is not befitting of the kind of debate we have in the House. If the member wants to engage—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I did not hear any of that point of order because of all the noise.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was not allowed to finish because of the interruptions.

I would ask my hon. colleague to do the right thing and retract that rather low-class comment. If he wants to make derogatory comments, he can go out to the washroom or get on the bus. He can use many places to make derogatory comments, but this is the House of Commons. He needs to have a certain decorum in debate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. We are not going to get into a big back and forth on the point of order. I would ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat to think about the types of words he is using. We are trying to elevate the level of decorum here.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue, because I am going to use some of the language that was used by NDP members. They are very socialist and we know that. They talked about dangerous precedents and draconian measures. We understand, of course, that this is exactly what they are doing in terms of hoisting our fragile economic recovery by not supporting this motion to try to stop the postal workers and by not joining us in trying to get postal workers back to work and delivering mail.

I had another call today from one of my small business constituents, who said he is now going to have to lay off employees because he is not getting postal service. He cannot get his invoices out. He has no income coming in and is virtually going broke. New Democrats purport to support small business. I would ask them if they are going to join us in helping to get postal workers back to work and the mail delivered.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the power rests with the CEO and with the government, which actually has oversight over the crown corporation. The government simply has to give the CEO the key, tell him to put in the lock, turn it to the left, and open it.

The government could have done this yesterday before it introduced the legislation. This would be over with, the workers would be back at work, and the small business owner the member is talking about would be mailing his invoices and getting his remittances, and he would not have had to lay off his employees. That could have been done.

In fact, the government could have done it last week. As soon as Canada Post indicated to the minister that it intended to lock out workers, the minister could have said no, not to go there, not to threaten to lock them out. The minister could have said that if they were going to go back to work not to lock them out, to let them get back to work, and they would try to figure this out. That did not happen and there was a lockout.

The bottom line is that the CEO should be given the key to open the locks and unlock the doors. The workers will show up tomorrow morning to get back to work and we will indeed go forward. It is just that simple.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am probably one of those people who worked in labour and was never involved in union leadership; I was one who would say yes or no to an agreement when I worked as a lumber worker and a teacher.

Let me take it back to the school system. When I was working in the school system, the tone and morale of the school always depended on the direction the principal was taking. In my talks with postal workers, I've found that the morale in our postal service has deteriorated and had deteriorated since the last CEO was in charge. Prior to that, after the late 1990s, things were moving along smoothly. There was good consultation with the workers and the company was making money, but suddenly it went down. There are more grievances now than there have ever been.

Would the member agree that perhaps this is the reason we are in this situation now, that it is because of the fact that we have not had a good labour relations climate in Canada Post?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. My colleague from down Windsor way will understand this, because he and I were both in the same union at one point in time. If there is not a good industrial relationship between the union and management, the shop floor is poison and productivity goes down, and the company suffers and so do workers. That is clearly what has happened at Canada Post.

As has been pointed out in the debate today, 1997 was the last time that we saw workers being forced back to work. There has been a period of time when we've had basic peace. It is important—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I'll stop the hon. member there.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say right off that I think this has actually been a very good debate overall. I guess now we are into about our sixteenth hour. I have been looking at this beautiful calendar on the table in front of us that is still showing Thursday, June 23. I f feel like we are in that movie Groundhog Day, where the day just keeps going around. I guess we might be in Thursday for a while.

Overall I think it has been a good debate. So much of what we do in Parliament seems to be pro forma. There is a bill, we debate it, it goes to committee, and we know what each side is going to say. I do feel that on this occasion, with this debate on a matter that is so serious, we actually do not know what the outcome is going to be. We do not know how long the debate is going to go on. I think that is an open question.

We do not know what the outcome will be although there is certainly pressure building. For all of the New Democrats who have spoken, I can say that, contrary to what the Conservatives say, we do want to see the postal service resume, absolutely. We support those small businesses. We support and understand the need for that service to resume.

But the reality is that we are faced with a lockout and with dreadful legislation in this House that we are determined to oppose. I think that is the only honourable and principled thing we can do, while at the same time seeking changes in amendments that will help resolve this situation. I do think it presents a very interesting scenario in the House and it makes the discussion and the debate all the more meaningful.

I have heard some of the pretty amazing speeches that have taken place and the stories that people have told, whether they are about labour history, women's rights, or the impact of the labour movement. Again, the Conservative members really cannot bear to hear that, but it is a side of society that is really coming out and is rarely debated or aired thoroughly in this House.

I am appreciative that we at least are able to have that kind of discussion and get underneath this legislation to examine the principles and issues of why we in this party feel so strongly that we are opposed to this back to work legislation.

Yesterday, in his incredible speech, the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, talked about the relationship that he and his family have with their letter carrier. I have the same experience. I think we all do.

I know my letter carrier, who usually comes every day at about 9:15 in east Vancouver. A couple of years ago, he noticed that my front door was open. I was not there. I was in Ottawa. He left, thinking that maybe someone was in the garden or in another room. He went on his way. He came back the next day and the door was still open.

Someone who was staying there had inadvertently left the door unlocked, so the letter carrier, my postal worker, took the time to phone the police and report it. The police came down and contacted my office and I was able to then get someone to lock the door. To me, that was a great example of how letter carriers and postal workers are so much a part of our community.

I have been down to the main depot on West Georgia Street year after year to talk to letter carriers, and also in my own community. We see them there at 6 o'clock in the morning sorting the mail, and then out in the community no matter what the weather, be it icy or snowing or raining, or whether one's stairs are broken down. No matter what, they are out there delivering the mail, so we do have a very special relationship with these folks in our community, and that is mirrored right across this country.

To me, it adds insult to injury that we are facing this legislation in the House that is forcing these folks back to work when they have been locked out, when all they want is to get to the bargaining table to negotiate a fair settlement and a fair deal. Come on, this is reasonable, and this is what labour relations are meant to be about in this country.

I am so sick and tired of hearing the Conservatives say over and over that they do not intervene in the marketplace, as that is not the role of government. So what do they do? As soon as they are faced with their buddies at Canada Post who do not like what they are facing at the bargaining table, they rush out and bring in legislation that makes it even worse. What incentive is there for Canada Post to do anything, to bargain anything, when they know that their friends here are producing legislation they could only have dreamed of and that now is a reality?

Yes, we are pretty opposed to all of that, on the grounds of it not just affecting postal workers but also, and I want to stress this, because of its implications for all workers in this country.

We can see the writing on the wall. This is about a race to the bottom. This is about establishing two tiers of wages: If an employee is new, he or she will get a different wage from some who is already there, and maybe a different pension and maybe different work and safety provisions at some point.

We understand that the government is setting a direction with this legislation by siding with the employer in a completely unilateral way that has enormous implications for labour relations in this country for all workers. We just have to look at pensions. Many of us have spoken through the night and through the day of our concerns about the pension system. It does not matter whether one is unionized or not, because everyone wants to have a sense of security for their retirement. Heaven knows, we have been raising this issue year in and year out in this House, before and after the election.

The issue of what happens to people's pensions, whether they are based on defined benefit plans or defined contribution plans, with the latter really having no security, is of critical importance not only for postal workers but for all workers in this country.

Yes, we are onto that. We recognize that the legislation is setting the direction and tone for what is going to take place in this country in terms of labour relations.

I heard one of the Conservative members say earlier that the NDP is opposed to Canada Post because it makes a profit. In fact, we are very happy that Canada Post generates profits; it shows that it is a very viable crown corporation. It is providing an essential Canadian service to all parts of this country. We just want to make sure that those profits are shared in a way that the employees get a fair deal. Again, to us that seems a very reasonable proposition. The fact that Canada Post makes a profit is not a bad thing; we just want to make sure that the workers do not get the short end of the stick.

We have all been quoting the emails we have received. To hear the Conservatives, one would think that they are only hearing from people who support their back to work legislation. However, I want to add to the record that I have heard from a number of people in my community.

I have an email I received from a small business owner, who states that:

Canada Post is running a profit. It is a Crown corporation why not share the profit. Yes I would like the mail to resume but why not focus on Canada Post listening to our postal workers and give them their due rights.

I have another letter from a constituent, who is a postal worker, who wrote to the minister, I guess a couple of days ago. This constituent says:

I know that if we are legislated back with a poor contract that does not address the many issues, especially Health and Safety, this act will do immeasurable damage to the working environment which already is a highly stressful environment. High injury rates, burn-out from extremely long routes and, believe it or not, high mail volumes coupled with extreme levels of under-staffing have made this job unmanageable.

This postal worker went on to say that we should maybe invite representatives of the parties to go on a mail route to actually see what it was like.

I am very proud of the New Democrats in this House and the fact that we understand what this legislation is about and that we are determined to expose the implications and consequences of this legislation, not only for postal workers but for all Canadians. We want to see the postal service resume and we call again, in this House, on the government to take the locks off the door, allow that service to resume and allow collective bargaining to happen. That is the way things should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Scarborough--Agincourt last night never really got an answer from the New Democrats to a question he posed. It is important that we get an answer because it is important that we walk the walk in this House.

All that we do in this place is to talk, so it is important to match our talk with action. We and the Liberal members are hearing that the NDP's staff in the House have no collective bargaining agreement and that the Office of the Leader of the Opposition is ignoring the seniority of union staff and new hires in that office are being classified as management to avoid union rules.

Is this true, and if so, when will the NDP put a collective bargaining agreement in place? When will they start respecting the seniority of their union staff? When will they stop classifying new hires as management to avoid union rules? In other words, Mr. Speaker, when will the NDP talk the talk and walk the walk?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually be very happy to answer that question. I do find it a bizarre question because the NDP is the only political party on this hill that stands by its principles and actually has a collective agreement negotiated with the people who work for our MPs and our overall operation. Many other parties lay people off in the summer, some of whom have very low wages. We have a very standardized approach and I'm proud to say that we operate in a very honourable way in terms of our collective agreement.

It is the party across the way that has denied for so many decades having health and safety provisions as rights here on the Hill. Those are things we have fought for. We will take no lessons from that member or the Conservative Party about collective bargaining and labour rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that in the last few hours we have heard many wonderful speeches in this chamber, especially on this side of the House. I also agree that what we are doing here reminds us of the movie Groundhog Day. Yet I remember that progress was made in that movie: Bill Murray's character decided he just could not live the same day over and over again and he tried to do something to improve himself.

I am wondering how we can do the same. I am wondering when we can start talking about amendments to this bill to further show Canadians how unreasonable and unjust Bill C-6 is and what a dangerous precedent it is.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we want to see progress. I do not want to be stuck in that movie.

We are here debating this legislation, but we have said all along there is a very efficient and easy way to resolve this situation, and that is to remove the lockout.

Our leader made it very clear last night in his speech that the NDP will offer amendments and, in fact, has already been in the process of trying to offer resolution to this dispute. However, the response from the Conservative government has been rigid and unilateral.

I would ask the members opposite, are they not willing to recognize that this legislation is extremely harmful and that they need to embark on a sensible and responsible course of labour relations?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my colleague's point in response to a Conservative member that we do not even have health and safety provisions here on the hill. That issue has been outstanding for years. If the members opposite want to talk about fairness, how about the people on the Hill who do not have the same health and safety provisions workers across Bank Street have? That is hypocrisy. This government is engaged in that hypocrisy when it brings in closure.

I would like my colleague to talk about closure, because if we go back to when the Conservatives were in opposition and criticizing the then Liberal government on closure, they said they would never invoke it. Here we not only have had closure invoked but it has been brought in before the legislation was even tabled. So we now have new heights of hypocrisy and I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa Centre is entirely right. Not only are we debating really regressive legislation but the whole process by which this came forward from the government. It really is the first piece of legislation that has come forward after the budget, and it is a very telling story that the government used its majority to invoke closure on a bill that we had not even debated. How is that democratic?

Unfortunately, we have come to expect that of this Conservative government. Even so, we are opposing the legislation and will fight it all the way.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House representing the people of Timmins—James Bay who, over the last century, have fought many of the key labour battles that have allowed us the standard of living we enjoy today and who are watching with great concern. I have received emails from people across the region who have been watching a concerted attack against a way of life that has been built in this country thanks to working people standing together.

What we need to do here today is to deconstruct the stage play that has been set up by the PMO and the Conservative Party. This is one of their careful little stage plays were the world is in black and white and there is good versus evil, and Captain Canada over on the Conservative benches is going to rise up and squash the union bosses and the socialists. We hear such language from the back benches of the Conservative Party.

How was this stage play created? There was an ongoing labour dispute with Canada Post and CUPW. Certainly in the Conservative mind, beating up on posties is probably an okay because they think there is a collective memory of a time of great labour conflict. They keeping saying that the sides have never been able to get together. In fact, look at the last time: It was in 1997 when we had to order them back to work. Then my wonderful daughter, Margaret Lola, was not even born and now she is in high school. So this is not an ongoing crisis; it is a breakdown of discussions. Then the government intervened and locked out Canada Post.

We have an unprecedented situation where, in a fragile economy, the government is working with Canada Post to shut down the mail service of the country. That has allowed them to stand up and to say that we have a crisis and that they have been forced to act. It is a manufactured crisis. It is an old tactic of the Conservatives. John Snobelen, the leader of the Mike Harris gang, used to speak about how one has to manufacture a crisis in order to shake things up.

They shut down the postal service across the country. Then the Conservatives have come into this House dressed as Captain Canada, vowing they are going to defend the interests of the senior citizens they have cut off, that they are going to defend the small businesses they have cut off. They create this as an us versus them battle.

It was interesting last night to listen to the Minister of Labour, because she kept trying to confuse the Canadian public that the Conservatives had to intervene because it was a strike. She said the word again and again. It is a misrepresentation, because it is a lockout.

She said the government was not taking sides. Of course, we know what side the government has been on.

When the leader of our party said that we could settle this, that we were speaking with the union and that we were willing to bring forward amendments to make this work, there was laugher and ridicule from the Conservative benches that we would have a phone line to the union workers of this country. Of course, we have a phone line to them because that is how one gets things done in the country. In the New Democratic Party, we believe one should talk and not demonize.

I find it astounding that the Minister of Labour would ridicule the idea of actually talking to the other side. That is what we have been doing. We have offered amendments and offered to work with this government. We have not heard anything back from them except vitriol.

The Minister of Labour defended this. Wearing her Captain Canada logo, the minister said that the Conservatives represented 33 million people. It is an absurd claim that the Conservatives make that they represent all Canadians versus only 40,000 union members. What does that attitude represent, but a narrow mentality that the big get to crush the small.

If we went by that theory, we could undermine all manner of things in this country. That is the Conservative mentality. That is the stage play they are creating, whereas New Democrats do not believe in pitting people against each other or using the politics of division.

Unfortunately, it is not all that surprising, because we need to see the author of this stage play. I would like to quote the voice of someone who is well-known in this House, who said:

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people.

Who was that? That was the Prime Minister of our country.

He said that when he decided he did not like federal politics. He had better things to do. He quit his job as a member of Parliament, which some people might not remember, and he went to work for the National Citizens Coalition. He thought they had a better agenda than could be achieved in the House of Commons.

I was looking at the platform the current Prime Minister ran on in 1997 with the National Citizens Coalition. One point was to start attacking the interest groups such as women's organizations and human rights organizations. We sure saw how the Conservatives put the boots to KAIROS. It goes right back to the original plan. Another one was to launch a media attack against unions. We could hear it from the backbenchers. They would go on about those big bad union bosses. That was there in 1997 when the Prime Minister was running the rabble at the National Citizens Coalition.

There are some other interesting things he ran on. These are the key reasons he left Parliament. One was to set up a lobby campaign to bring in right to work legislation in Alberta. The second was the privatization and elimination of the public service. The third and most crucial one which he ran on with some of his now elected buddies was a campaign to de-unionize the workforce.

When Conservatives say they are not picking sides, we know exactly what they are doing. This has been a manufactured stage play by the extreme right in this country and a Prime Minister who said that he did not care about the fate of the unemployed. He said that in 1997. We know that a leopard never changes its spots.

I would like to indicate how this demonization has occurred under the Conservative government.

I heard the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound yesterday. The Conservatives are creating all these emails and saying that they are talking to the common people, madam and monsieur citizen. The member said his people back home say that if people starting in the workforce get $12 an hour and three days a week, they should be tickled pink.

I have talked to many people in my riding and across the country. I have never had senior citizens come up to me and say they are ticked pink that their adult son or daughter was getting $12 an hour with no pension and three days of work a week. They are lucky to have a job; that is the attitude. I have never heard that.

What I have heard is people asking about what has happened to our country. The pension and workforce that have been built up are being eroded. The workforce is being turned into a temp service. By intervening and creating this lockout, the government is creating a two-tiered workforce. It says that the new workers do not deserve pensions, that they deserve lower wages. My hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound said they should be lucky to have a job.

I know what it is like to see communities fight to get basic wages. My grandmother told me that when she was a little girl she saw the first form of lockout and back to work legislation. It was called the army. My grandmother was a young girl when Winston Churchill sent in the army against the dockworkers of Dundee. She never forgot that.

Of course, they moved into the velvet over the brass knuckles. When my family came to Canada my grandmother was in the Hollinger mine strike that went on for six months. At that time the average life expectancy of a Timmins miner was 41 years because minders were dying of silicosis. At that time there was no eight-hour workday. They fought for the eight-hour workday. It was not given to anyone. This is something they built up.

I remember the stories of men like “Big” Jim McGuire of the Western Federation of Miners. He said that when a man gets injured in the mines, there should be compensation. The records show that the Conservatives at Queen's Park at the time laughed and ridiculed him. Their grandsons and granddaughters are here today laughing at us because we have said there is a fundamental principle here. If the Conservatives want to make this a stage play, well this is their play.

The New Democrats have said again and again that we want the locks off Canada Post. We want people back to work. We want a fair negotiated agreement. This takes good will. We have offered to work with the government. We have offered to help bring the union to the table if the government is willing to listen. However, it is not going to happen if the government ridicules the notion of actually talking to the union, if it tries to demonize them as union bosses, and if the members of the government believe that people making 12 bucks an hour for three days a week should be happy to have a job. That might be the Conservative ideology, but it is not ours.

The Conservatives say they will not take sides, but look at Nortel. Look at the Nortel workers who lost their jobs and their pensions. Look at the sick workers whose benefits were cut off and the government did nothing. Every other western nation that was involved in Nortel stood up for their workers. The government did nothing, but--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member's time has expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of State for Transport.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments. We are here today to talk about resuming mail service for Canadians.

After eight months of negotiations, the negotiations broke down. There were rotating strikes which led to a lockout, which led to a complete mail stoppage, which has had a huge detrimental impact not only on the postal workers and the financial viability of Canada Post, but most important on the people of Canada. That is why we are here as the Government of Canada and members in the House of Commons, to represent the stakeholders, the people of Canada. Would the member acknowledge that?

We recognize that the member and his party have strong ties to organized labour. However, would they put aside those biases and support the Canadian government in bringing workers back to work so that Canadians can get their mail in a timely manner? Will the member's party support the Government of Canada in supporting the people of Canada?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the minister's argument and it seemed to get rather convoluted. At one point he said that great stress has been caused to business. Yes, of course. That was caused by his government's decision to lock out the workers.

How much more direct do we have to be? Do we in the New Democratic Party want the workers back at work? We want them back now. This is why we have said let us just sit down and deal with these amendments, but the government does not want to do that.

Then the minister presented a circular Conservative argument saying that they, as in Captain Canada and the Conservative Party, represent Canada. They do not represent Canada. He accused the New Democratic Party of not representing Canada. Why do the Conservatives not do the right thing?

I say to the member that I do represent Canadians. I represent the people of Timmins—James Bay and I will be in this House for as long as it will take to ensure that people get a fair deal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to the debate. I very much appreciate the fact that there are many people who are also listening to what is taking place in this chamber. There is a great deal of sympathy in terms of the hassles and the bother that the Canada Post workers have had to endure because of being locked out.

Earlier in his speech the member made reference to the fact that the NDP have provided amendments to the government as to what could be done on this legislation. It would be extremely helpful if the NDP could provide that information to the Liberal Party. It would be great to end the lockout and let the workers get back to work.

Having said that, I understood from his comments that there are some amendments which the NDP has shared with the government. Would the NDP object to sharing them with all Canadians and members of the chamber?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have made an offer to the government to settle this. I am not trying to freeze the Liberal Party out of this whatsoever. We are trying to act in good faith with the government. We have offered the amendments. We have offered not to go public with them. We want to see if the government will sit down and negotiate. That is how it is done.

We are serious about getting this situation settled. We know everybody wants their mail service back. This manufactured crisis by the Conservative Party has an impact on Canadians across the country. We think it is completely unacceptable that the government has held senior citizens hostage when the mail servers said that they would ensure that any cheques for seniors would be delivered. They made that offer. Once again, the Conservatives are not talking to the people on the lines. We have been talking to them. We know what their offers are. We know what the issues are. We are offering as the official opposition to make this happen. We just need to see that the government is actually willing to stop holding the Canadian public hostage.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my constituents for their support. And I also want to wish them a wonderful Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

My riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges is quite awesome. From the top of Rigaud Mountain, we can see farmland, the Ottawa River and Lac des Deux Montagnes on the north side. My constituents know the south shore of the St. Lawrence quite well. Some say that Rigaud Mountain is but a hill, but the landscape tells quite a story. Today's sand plains were once the shores of Champlain Sea, which was created by the melting of ice sheets after the ice age.

Our crucial waterways were shaped by melting ice. Watersheds are an integral part of our lives. The forests, rivers and wetlands in my riding are part of the creation myths of the Mohawks who live on the other side of Lac des Deux-Montagnes.

We also have the Haudenosaunee nation, known as the Iroquois, and Turtle Island, for the turtle coming out of the water. These were among the first communities to be established in the region. There is a long history of fine communities made up of good people looking after each other and rising to every challenge. This is the region where my father decided to settle. It is the region where the father of my party leader also settled with his family. They wanted their children to grow up surrounded by nature, in a healthy environment among warm people who were always willing to lend a helping hand, and in a place where they could attend good schools. They wanted us to grow up in a better world.

They wanted us to grow up in a better world. My father, William Nicholls, was a working man. He worked in a non-union job for a company called Control Data. That was a company that delivered computer paper to all the departments of the federal government in the 1970s and 1980s. That was my introduction to Ottawa, at the age of eight. As we drove into Ottawa in his truck, we would bring boxes through the back doors. He delivered an essential service. He kept the databanks of the government going.

Sometimes he was treated with disdain when he entered through the wrong door. His work was taken for granted. Other times, he was greeted warmly. As a child watching the reactions of these people to my working father, I realized how manual labourers in this country were perceived.

I find it unfortunate that the government is trying to place blame on the working people of this country by confusing for Canadians the difference between a strike and a lockout.

It is not surprising, though. The government is happy to discourage the voting population into thinking that public service and government does not work. It would have them believe that people working in a union have cushy lives and that they are spoiled. I am sure the Conservatives' Minister of Labour will set them straight on that.

Once upon a time there was a young girl of eight years old. Her name was Lisa MacCormack. Her father was a union organizer in Nova Scotia. This girl grew up to be a minister in Canada's government. Through struggle, hard-working values and respect for work, her family was able to prosper. Through her union family's upbringing, she was able to prosper.

My father wanted a better life for me too. That is what I also want for my daughter. I am here for Pera Nicholls, age six. I want her to know that in my short life I struggled to make a better world for her, a world where she will not be worked so hard that her body breaks down before its time like so many workers' bodies in this country do.

My father died at 62 years old of lung cancer. He smoked because it was a psychological crutch for him. All the weight, worries and stresses of the world were channelled into those cigarettes. My father did not like his work. He did it with pride and the knowledge that his sons would have a better life and that they would have benefits, pensions, respect, low stress and an easier life than his was.

Our time on this earth is limited. We have maybe 100 years each, and in a hundred years all of us in this room will be gone. Is it not our calling on earth to alleviate the suffering of all of our fellow citizens?

What I see from the government is a mean-spirited 19th century attitude; that is, survival of the fittest. And I find that echoed in the words of Stockwell Day in his address to the Conservative convention that was held a couple of weeks ago. He said, “The official opposition will bring out the saddest cases, the most hard done by. They will present to Canadians stories of the most hard done by”.

Do members know what his advice was to them? He said, “Don't listen to them. They are the exception. We are here to promote Canada's prosperity”. That sums up the Conservative spirit for me. The Conservatives are for the prosperity of the few.

The Conservatives throw the label “socialist” at us. I would ask Canadians why Conservatives took the word “progressive” out of their party name. Its absence implies that they are the regressive Conservatives. That name would certainly be apt, since they want to take us back to jolly old Victorian times when there were fewer workers' rights, sexuality was repressed and people lived in fear of God. It was easier to control people and easier for monopolies to form. The term “regressive” always implies rolling back rights and measures that were put into place to make workers' lives less stressful.

I cannot say that the Conservatives are deliberately misleading Canadians when they continually refer to the crisis before us as a strike; that would be unparliamentary to imply that. I will let Canadians be the judge of that.

It is a lockout. It is a lockout that has been done with the approval of the government. The Conservatives are the ones who are keeping hardworking Canadians from working. Why? That is in order to demonize them in an attempt to turn Canadians against working people.

I would like to read an email from Jack Coyne from the Yukon:

Thank you for the telephone call this evening in regards to the Canadian postal...[lockout]. It is heart-warming to know there are those in our nation's capital who are working hard to resolve this dispute.

I believe the fabric of our country is being damaged with the halt of Canada Post. Certainly we all know there are other ways of communicating during this lock-out, but what of the elderly who are unable to send each other birthday cards? What of those who depend on mail-order catalogues? I personally know of dozens of artists who are unable to ship their wares worldwide. I have a farmer friend who was lucky to receive his chicks (chickens) before this...[lockout].

I know of people who are waiting for this conflict to end and are desperate for their cheque in the mail. The lack of Canada Post is a missing link in our lives and I feel people do not understand the significance of this void and perhaps will not understand until perhaps it is too late.

Obviously, the longer the...[lockout] continues, the less faith the public will have in the system, translating into less mail volume; This reduction will result in the inability to support our current level of service and will ultimately spell the demise of our current world-class postal system.

I believe in the importance of our Canadian Postal System. It is part of our culture and it is part of our heritage. Please do not allow it to perish.

I am grateful for your obvious concern and diligence; I appreciate your getting in touch with me.

I believe these sentiments from Mr. Coyne are shared by many, so I would say to the Prime Minister, “Take off the locks, Mr. Prime Minister”. Welcome the workers back and let them do their jobs. One phone call and you can stop this lockout. Take off the locks, Mr. Prime Minister.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, we would actually all get back to work if the opposition made the choice to simply stop this debate and vote with respect to the bill to make sure people get back to work immediately.

Our government was elected with a strong mandate to complete Canada's economic recovery. Recent polls state that 70% of Canadians support back to work legislation to end the work stoppage at Canada Post.

In my riding, Simcoe—Grey, Canadians want their postal service restored so they can get back to business, so their charities can flourish and they can make sure they are going to be profitable and provide jobs to people.

Can the member explain why the official opposition is not on the same side with the majority of Canadians?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this government is committed to maintaining this lockout. This approach has deliberately caused division and conflict among Canadians. I find it unfortunate that the Prime Minister and his ministers have chosen ideology over allowing Canadians to receive their mail.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post entered contract talks determined to create a two-tier system of pensions, meaning that existing employees would continue to get a guaranteed income at retirement, but new hires would be put on a defined contribution plan. The employer makes regular payments into employees' pension funds but offers no commitment to what the payout will be.

Meanwhile, census figures from Statistics Canada show that younger workers were earning less in 2005 than their parents were a generation earlier.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could tell the House about the kind of precedent this back to work legislation sets for future generations of workers entering the workforce, many of whom will be young Canadians who already fall within the lowest income brackets of our country.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I believe that what is being done right now is trying to sell out future generations and their right to the benefits and pay and working conditions that our ancestors have enjoyed. I see this as a mean-spirited approach on the part of the government to sell out the rights of future generations that have been established in this country.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question in regard to the opposition member's views on the people who live in the remote and isolated communities of Canada's Arctic.

The member for the Northwest Territories is very silent. The people from the Arctic depend on Canada Post for their daily livelihood needs, including milk, diapers and food.

Why are the members from northern Quebec not speaking on behalf of the people who live in those isolated communities and who depend on Canada Post for their daily basic necessities, the people from Nunavut, and the people from the Northwest Territories: Tuktoyaktuk, Aklavik, Paulatuk?

Where are the members from the NDP to speak out for aboriginal people who depend on Canada Post for their daily livelihood?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, everyone knows that the member from our party for the Northwest Territories spoke in this House, and he spoke very fervently and definitely to this issue.

I wonder if the minister could clarify and apologize for her comments.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is clearly not a point of order.

The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that cuts were made in the past to postal service in northern Canada. The Conservatives' lack of respect not only for workers, but also for the people of Quebec who are celebrating their national holiday is also sad.

Unfortunately, the government wants to maintain the lockout. This is a deliberate attempt to cause dissension and division among Canadians, to divide the northerners and the southerners. I think it is a shame that the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet have opted for this ideology instead of letting Canadians—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Surrey North.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want start by thanking the people of Surrey North for giving me the opportunity and privilege to be their voice in this House today.

I also want to wish a joyous day to my friends from Quebec on this national day for Quebec.

I want to commend my colleagues for working so hard in the last 24 hours and being here around the clock. They have done a wonderful job of standing up for the hard-working people of Canada.

I have been hearing from government members across the aisle that owners of small businesses have been calling them. Small business owners have also been calling me. They are telling me they want the government to unlock those doors, let the workers go back to work and get our postal service working.

I stand here as a new MP for Surrey North. As the owner of a small business and as a person who believes in our charter rights to collective bargaining, I also believe in good-paying jobs that support our local economies and the small businesses in our communities.

I had a chance to meet a couple of postal workers during the election. In the conversation I had with them, they said they were worried about their pensions and about their wages being clawed back. They were afraid. They wondered what they were going to do.

Lowering wages is basically a race to the bottom that the government seems to support. It will hurt us all in the long run.

When I moved to this beautiful country 31 years ago, my brother had a very good-paying job. He worked in the sawmills. He was a unionized worker and he helped me to go to university because he had that good-paying job.

I have talked to many people in the last years and months who are working in the sawmills. I am mindful that the government and the Government of British Columbia do not want to support secondary manufacturing. They would rather ship raw logs abroad. That is a discussion for another day.

With this lowering of wages, I bet there are people earning $12 an hour now, working in the same sawmills my brother worked in as he helped to support me. What are these people going to do? How are they going to be able to afford an education for their children?

The extra money that is earned in good-paying jobs is spent in our communities, in small businesses. In this House we talk about small businesses being at the heart of our economic engine. If we are not supporting our small businesses, how can the economy prosper?

I own a small restaurant in Surrey and I know how this impacts our communities. This money is being taken out of our local businesses, out of the pockets of small businesses that are already being hurt by the HST that was introduced by the Conservative government and by the B.C. Liberal government. I know how it hurt the small businesses in British Columbia when it was introduced by the Conservative government and the B.C. Liberal government.

I read this in the paper yesterday. The Prime Minister and the former premier of British Columbia had cooked up this deal in secret. Can we guess who has been appointed high commissioner to Britain? It is the former premier of British Columbia. That is for another day.

We need good jobs in our communities. The Conservative government does not believe in this idea.

The government has a choice. It can unlock those doors and let the workers go back to work.

I am speaking today in the House under very difficult circumstances. The government has introduced a piece of legislation that will take away the right of workers to bargain in good faith. That to me is unacceptable. It is impossible for me or for any person who values the legal right to strike, a right that is in our constitution, to support this legislation.

The government has chosen to violate the rights of the workers to negotiate a fair agreement. It is highly unusual for a government to force back-to-work legislation on locked-out employees. It is highly unusual because it seems to most people to be completely unreasonable. It is clear to most reasonable people that locking out workers is not fair collective bargaining.

Again, collective bargaining is our charter right. I wonder what the government is trying to say to Canadian workers by taking this unreasonable course of action. What is the government trying to say to hard-working families? Is it that the right to collective bargaining does not really exist in Canada? It does not seem to exist under this government.

This intervention by the Conservative government, this imposition by the Conservative government, is something I simply cannot support. I find it very troubling that the government would throw out our rights with such ease. It does not seem to be the Canada that I came to 31 years ago. In my Canada, hard-working people are respected. Their rights are respected, not ignored or trampled upon by government.

I am disappointed by the actions of the Conservative government. These actions are not acceptable to me or to the people of my riding of Surrey North.

The proposed back-to-work legislation to end the postal dispute sets out a wage settlement that is actually lower than Canada Post's last offer. We know that. We have talked about it in the last day or two. The legislation outlines a wage settlement of 1.75% in the first year, 1.5% in the second year and 2% in each of the final two years. However, at the bargaining table Canada Post had offered 1.9% in each of the first three years, followed by 2% in the final year.

Basically, this legislation offers the postal workers lower wages than what they had bargained for in good faith before the Conservative government locked them out. The difference works out to about $860 to $870 for a full-time employee over the course of the agreement.

Yesterday we heard our labour minister talk about 45,000 people against 33 million people. Let us remember that those 45,000 people who work in the postal service have families behind them. They have many small businesses behind them.

The Conservative government has made it clear that it is opposed to workers trying to improve their working conditions and to families making a living wage in our country.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the NDP members have not thought through the impact this is having on many of the people who live in Canada's remote and isolated communities of northern Labrador, Makivik regions of Quebec, Nunavut regions or Northwest Territories.

Where are the individuals from that party who support the interests of the aboriginal people who depend on Canada Post for every product that is shipped to their communities? There are no highways. They depend on Canada Post for milk, for diapers, for prescription drugs.

Who is speaking out on behalf of those individuals in Canada's Arctic regions of Labrador, northern Quebec, Nunavut and Northwest Territories? Where is the member from the Northwest Territories? Why is he not speaking on behalf of people from Tuktoyaktuk, Aklavik, Ulukhaktok, Kuujjuaq?

Who is speaking on---

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Surrey North.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Northwest Territories spoke here last night. I believe the member from the Conservative side was probably not here. I think she needs to check Hansard to see that the member for the Northwest Territories was here.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey North should know that it is unparliamentary to refer to the absence or presence of other members.

I should just remind all members that when these points of order keep coming up, going back and forth, it takes away time from members or it adds to their time, depending on who is raising the point of order and whether it is provoked or unprovoked.

Let us try to keep that in mind.

The hon. member for Surrey North.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government could start the mail in two hours.

All the Prime Minister has to do is pick up the phone and unlock those doors.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this is a lockout, even though the other side wants to make Canadians believe it is a strike.

In reference to the member from the other side who was talking about people being hurt because of this lockout, could the member let her or the government know that if it were to unlock the doors, the problems would be solved? Small businesses would get their cheques and could rehire their employees.

Could the member remind government members that this is not a strike, but a lockout caused by the government? Can the member please tell the hon. members from the opposite side the hardships the government is causing to people from the north?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this is a lockout.

The government has a choice. It can unlock the doors and get the postal workers back to work and get those cheques to the seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to this member is this: just when should the government act?

This process has been going on for months. Then we had the rotating strikes. Then we had a lockout. It was over a week ago that the government gave notice that this legislation would be front of Parliament, and they are still not talking, either the union to Canada Post or vice versa.

We have the NDP filibustering the passage of this important legislation. How many months or years of negotiations should take place before the member would take some action on this matter?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, the government is not listening to the people.

The government has a choice. The government can unlock those doors and the postal workers would be back at work within hours.

It is also my understanding that the union had proposed that they would continue to work under the old agreement, but the government chose to lock them out.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to send greetings to the people of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Today is the national holiday of Quebec. Of course, I should be in my riding, touring the municipalities, going from one celebration to another and meeting my constituents in Matane, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Cap-Chat, Mont-Joli, Amqui, Causapscal, Saint-Gabriel and Sainte-Flavie. Nonetheless, here I am. It is important to be here and that is why my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have been on duty all night to speak and intervene in this important debate.

My skin is not pale and greenish today because I was partying all night, but because I stayed up late. It is not that the Green Party's colour has rubbed off on me, it is that we fought hard all night with the opposition members to make the government listen to reason.

Yesterday, there was a chance of getting unanimous consent to a motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, in order to suspend the sitting of the House. Even though the government formally recognized the nation of Quebec, in practice it does not. It would have been nice if the government had given unanimous consent and allowed all my colleagues from Quebec, regardless of their party, to be in their riding to celebrate with their family and friends.

Today, I am sad not to be in my riding, but I know that my comments and today's debate are right. Most of all, I am sad for the postal workers. From the start, we have been hearing the government blame the postal workers. It claims that these workers are exercising a right to strike or are engaged in a strike that is not fair and is undermining all workers in Quebec and Canada who have obligations. We understand that the postal service is a very important service, but do we need to remind the government that we are not talking about a strike, but a lockout? A lockout is not remotely the same as a strike.

The postal workers' decision to go on rotating strikes was completely legitimate. A union has every right to apply pressure. The pressure tactics chosen by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers were considered appropriate and were not overly disruptive to Canada's postal services. On the one hand, rotating strikes allowed postal workers to get their point across, while on the other hand, they did not unduly penalize other Canadians who also had commitments, who wanted to get their mail and send letters and so on.

The source of the conflict is not the rotating strikes; it is the lockout imposed by Canada Post with the—dare I say it?—complicity of the government. This lockout was imposed too fast and is an inappropriate government strategy to try to move things too quickly. The bill is completely inappropriate, too hasty and too coercive. In my opinion, the government's strategy is completely unreasonable.

Postal workers play an important role. I am from a rural community. We were talking about isolated areas earlier. Mail plays a very important part in our lives. In our communities, our municipalities and our villages, post offices serve as beacons. In addition to getting their mail and using the postal services, people get together there. Post offices are a meeting point, a focus point.

As you know, local services in our communities are extremely important. When services are undermined through proposed legislation, as the government is doing here today, this generally lowers the quality of service. Canada Post is in the process of conducting a strategic review to examine postal services in rural areas. Some of our country roads have rural mailboxes.

These mailboxes allow people to have their mail delivered to their home. However, rural communities are increasingly being undermined whether due to privatization of some sort, or a reduction in services. I know many Canada Post employees who work out in the field and are disappointed right now by the way the Government of Canada is treating them. It is treating them like pariahs, and as if they have failed to negotiate in good faith, when in fact the methods used by the postal union were entirely legitimate.

The difficulties our regions are facing in terms of regional development are primarily due to government decisions like this one, which weaken our communities.

Earlier, I listened to the Honourable Minister of Health speak about what has been done for northern Canada, and of the difficulties currently faced by northerners. I am fully aware that the existing situation affects them terribly. However, the blame cannot directly be laid upon postal workers. The lock out is obviously to blame for this situation.

Earlier, the minister bemoaned the reduction in services to northerners, but was it not the very same government that reduced government subsidies lowering the cost of foodstuffs, and then reversed tack and reinstated the program to help northern communities? This government is engaging in doublespeak.

The government needs to see reason. It should consider the proposals brought forward by the opposition, take a step back, and acknowledge that it acted too hastily. It might agree to a number of motions or amendments and see them as being for the greater good. It is not a question of interfering in the current negotiation process, but rather of finding some common ground upon which both the postal union and employer could agree.

In closing, I would ask the government to take note of the opposition’s unanimous condemnation of the deplorable manner in which the government is treating postal workers. I call on the government to adopt the amendments, when proposed.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to read into the record an e-mail I received this morning from a business owner:

The postal interruption has dried up cash flow to my small business. We, like many other small businesses, receive most of our remittances by cheque from across North America. Our customers are not paying any bills. This week we still had to pay our workers for payroll, still had the lease payments for our trucks and trailers, still had to pay repair bills, and trucks needed fuel. With very little money coming in, we are in an increasingly tight spot. Every other business in our industry that I have spoken to is in the same bind.

Then in bold underline he said:

We need the postal service to get back to work. All I can say is a humble thank you to you as our MP and to your fellow Conservative members who care about small businesses across Canada who are badly suffering. Thank you for the back-to-work legislation and for your perseverance in making sure that it will pass. I will make sure everybody I have contact with knows which political party cares about businesses in this country that employ millions of workers, versus the opposition party, who are only concerned with their narrow, self-serving interest.

Why is the member not standing up for ordinary Canadians whose jobs are at risk because of this postal interruption?

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side of the House for his question.

We basically agree on the effect that the current lockout imposed by Canada Post is having. Indeed, the impact on small- and medium-sized businesses is notable. But the solution does not lie in imposing special legislation that flouts the workers' rights. The solution to this problem lies basically in the understanding that the government must have of the situation on the ground and that the workers must have a fair agreement with their employer.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

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

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

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The government's strategy is a serious political mistake. Perhaps I consider it that way because I teach political science. This strategy, as it is being taught, is an unreasonable strategy that would show that the government is creating an entirely new precedent and a type of jurisprudence for future conflicts. It is important that the government change its mind, that it realize the impact of the choice it has made with this special legislation and that it humbly support the proposals presented by the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member, after the vote on the order of reference, which I am looking forward to, what do we need to do to make progress for Canadians?

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to allow politics to be much more democratic. We have to allow citizens to regain political leverage. Participatory democracy has to become a new approach to politics. We currently have a patent example of an archaic approach to politics. It is time to change things and take other approaches that will ensure that parties, regardless of what side of the House they are on, will truly be able to co-operate to listen to reason and consider solutions that will benefit everyone.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to thank people. Since this morning, we have been receiving dozens of emails supporting us and telling us we need to rise in the House to defend the rights of workers. I am proud to be here with all my colleagues taking turns to defend those rights. I would like to wish all my constituents, those from Beauharnois—Salaberry in particular, an excellent national holiday of Quebec.

The Conservative government is acting in bad faith by wanting to impose an unacceptable labour contract on Canada Post employees and opting for an authoritarian response to the labour dispute, as it did with Air Canada.

Yesterday, I met with a union representative who came to Ottawa to tell me that workers need us and they cannot wait to go back to work and for the lockout to end so that they can continue to work and deliver the mail.

A few days ago, intensive discussions were held to try to find a solution to the dispute, but management shut the door and called a lockout. I know that I have repeated this several times, but what we have here is a lockout and not a strike. And yet, all the employees did was use a reasonable way to draw attention to their demands, a rotating strike that did not have much of an impact on basic services. It affected only one municipality at a time for a 24-hour period. Now, as we speak here today, all negotiations have been broken off. Clearly, it is in the employer’s interest to take a hard line now that the government is on its side.

After all these hours of discussion, I can’t believe that the Conservative government has not had second thoughts about its decision and asked Canada Post to lift its lockout. Postal employees continued to provide services during negotiations and all Canadians were receiving their mail. What bothers me most is that the government would have people believe that the problem stems from the employees, when what they are claiming is a legitimate and basic right, the right to properly bargain for a collective agreement that is fair and just.

Furthermore, this same government is making incoherent statements to which I strongly object. Instead of sticking to the facts, the Conservatives are twisting them and trying to scare people, as evidenced by the fact that they keep repeating that we are in a crisis and that they feel they have to intervene. What a deceiving and misleading attitude! Their disgusting intervention, rather than improving conditions for employees, is harmful to the bargaining process. It is harmful because the government, through the use of its special disrespectful act, is making a wage offer that is below what was put forward by management. Shame on them!

Why would Canada Post return to the bargaining table when the government is getting involved in the dispute in favour of management? There would be no advantage for them to do so. This inappropriate intervention by the government is prolonging the dispute, effectively holding Canadians hostage. Clearly, those who are no longer receiving their mail or their pay cheque are increasingly unhappy, and rightly so. But the employees are also no longer receiving any pay cheque.

It is therefore important to remember that it is the insidious strategy of the Conservatives that has plunged us into this difficult situation. Employees are waiting to return to work. Why would the government not encourage Canada Post, which had profits of $281 million last year, to reinvest in working conditions that would be beneficial to its employees?

Is it not obvious that a healthy working environment in which workers are treated well and acknowledged for their valuable contribution, whether in terms of personal relations between management and employees, or in terms of fair and equitable working conditions, would promote increased employee efficiency and productivity? The more people feel happy and proud to go to work, the more they do their work conscientiously. While this strikes me as elementary logic, management and the government apparently disagree.

And yet, Canada Post workers put body and soul into ensuring that their fellow citizens receive their mail. Some suffer physically from having to walk in storms, lift parcels and repeat the same movements each day. They don’t complain because they love what they do, are well paid and look forward to a happy retirement. Is this something that is now in the past?

Will the government set a precedent? It is important to realize that the key issue here is the health and safety of workers. Letter carriers and postal employees are among those workers who are most seriously affected by occupational injuries. Canada Post loses four days of work per person per year because of injury or illness. Employees spend more time standing in front of machines and this increases the risk of a back injury. Letter carriers must walk 12 to 15 kilometres per day with considerable weight on their shoulders. Not only that, but the new lettermail sorting machines require them to carry more envelopes in their arms and hands, thereby increasing the risk of injury.

By forcefully imposing a labour contract that is disparaging to employees, how does the government hope to restore a positive and productive work climate? Relations between management and employees will be very tense and the morale of workers will be at its lowest ebb. And yet, the Conservative government boasts that it is promoting the economy, creating quality jobs and fighting poverty. These are nothing but empty words. My last school principal told me to be careful of those who talk a lot, and to concentrate instead on people’s actions.

I realize that the government is making cost reductions an objective at the expense of its own employees. Because just in case they have not realized it yet, Canada Post employees are also citizens of Canada, from coast to coast, and they contribute to the country’s economy. On every post office is written “A Mari usque ad Mare ”. They are full Canadian citizens. There are 48,000 of them, not to mention their families.

Perhaps the government’s goal is precisely to sow division among people in order to reign more effectively. By imposing its back-to-work legislation, which causes a decline in working conditions, young people, the next generation, will no longer be interested in this kind of work, the workload will become too heavy and the other employees will become inefficient. And once that happens, the Conservatives will be able to suggest privatization. Is this really the beginning of the end for public services?

We therefore would do well to allow the two parties to settle this dispute. Our public postal service is one of the most cost-effective in the world. In 2009, Canada Post generated millions of dollars in profits and stamps are not very expensive here compared to other countries. For example, a stamp in Canada costs 59¢, compared to 78¢ in Germany and 88¢ in Austria. It is true however that the industry is currently facing many challenges. The emergence of new technologies such as the digitization of communications, is transforming postal services.

Traditional postal services have probably reached their peak. However, the post office is not likely to disappear. It will always remain important, particularly in rural areas. Workers understand the need to modernize services and the importance of looking towards changes for the future. The collective agreement between Canada Post and the union already allows it to adjust levels of workers, and Canada Post Corporation has reduced hours of work to a level that is proportionately higher than the decline in mail volume.

Other countries have managed to meet the challenge of modernizing postal services while keeping them universal. How? They provide services that focus on new public needs that are more lucrative and then using the profits to finance basic services in all regions. Some people seem to believe that no one sends letters anymore and that postal service is doomed to disappear. That is false. The volume of lettermail is 10% higher than it was in 1997.

Despite the many challenges facing our postal service, it is important not to forget that most Canadians support maintaining universal services and are against privatization, as was pointed out by a postal service consultative committee. Canadians want quality, universal and affordable service for all urban and rural communities. Furthermore, the postal service is important for small and medium-sized businesses.

What is happening now is extremely important for all Canadians. The special bill to force through a regulation that attacks the most basic rights of workers is a Conservative government strategy to use force to settle a dispute, and it risks creating a dangerous precedent.

What kind of society do we really want? Do we want a fairer and more democratic society, one in which disputes are settled by means of negotiations, or a country that attacks the rights of workers and forces them to return to work without being consulted? I stand proudly beside my colleagues…

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. We must now move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans has the floor.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the new member for Beauharnois—Salaberry and to congratulate her for her spirit and drive. She represents a very lovely region that I have been visiting for a long time, ever since the old regattas in Valleyfield.

We have been hearing from many different people today discordant opinions that would appear to be leading to political polarization, with people laying blame right and left. To be sure, a lockout is no fun. On the other hand, random strikes anywhere in Canada, when we do not know from one day to the next when we will be the next victims, can also paralyze the economy.

I would like to ask my new colleague how long we should have waited before making a decision, a decision that we made a week ago now.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the other side of the House for his question. But I find that the question is inaccurate. The strikes do not happen randomly. They are a right. They were organized. And strikes do not create victims. There were rotating strikes organized 24 hours at a time in one municipality at a time, in order to apply a small amount of pressure to make people aware of the conditions faced by employees who wanted to negotiate and to exert some power over the bargaining that was underway.

We are also not attempting to place the blame on anyone. All we are doing is reporting the facts. Bargaining had begun and is not yet over. Then, there was a lockout that prevented the continuation of the bargaining. All we want is to find a solution that would enable the two parties to resume bargaining process so that everyone can have their mail delivered to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate the new member of Parliament for giving a very powerful presentation.

After these many hours, everyone has been present but some of us have not slept. I have observed and listened to all the speeches.

At this point, I feel so frustrated. I feel like a mom who wants to call time out. I feel that all the members on all sides of the House have good intentions but we cannot seem to meet in the middle. I honestly believe we could get people back to work. We could open those doors if we reduced the partisanship of the discussion and started trying to figure out where we could come together because we want the mail to move and we want the workers to be respected.

What does my friend, the new member, say?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the Green Party.

The goal is in fact for all the employees to go back to work. That is what the employees are writing to us every minute of every day. All these people are just asking to return to work, to earn a living and to continue building a future for their families. The goal here is not to take sides; the goal is to really try to help people return to work in a dignified workplace that is mindful of their working conditions.

We are defending working conditions here. We do not want to take a step back to when everything was dangerous, when safety and salary conditions were precarious, and when the living conditions of families were poor. What we really want is to return towards conditions that are more fair and humane.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to do so, I would like to say thank you very much to the constituents of Hochelaga and wish them a happy national holiday, this June 24. It is not by chance that I am wearing a blue shirt today.

I have a large constituency. It is diverse but, at the same time, it is very much like a village. The name actually comes from an Iroquois village, Hochelaga. I see a lot of neighbours helping each other in the village. There is a lot of imagination. As I was saying, it is diverse. There are middle-class people, but there are also very many people living in poverty, unfortunately.

I firmly intend to listen to them, to address the situations they bring to me as best as I can and to protect their rights. What are the rights of ordinary people? We talk a lot about ordinary people. The following are some examples: decent housing, that goes without saying; access to healthy food, that is where it all starts. In short, they have the right to a decent life.

The government is saying that it wants to protect ordinary people—that same term again—by forcing the Canada Post workers to go back to work. It seems to exclude postal workers from the ordinary people category.

The government is also accusing the opposition of wanting to protect these workers, Canada Post workers. These people are cousins, sisters and neighbours. Everyone here knows people who work at Canada Post. These are ordinary people. They are no different from the rest of the population, except for the fact that they are lucky enough not to have to go alone before their boss to ask for a day off to, for example, accompany their child on a school trip. Indeed, it can be intimidating to have to meet one's boss alone to ask him for things like that.

Why do postal workers enjoy that benefit? It is because they got together and they have a body to represent them, namely their union. What do those bad union people do on a day to day basis? We, workers, spend 33% of our time at work. Come to think of it, that is a lot of time. One third of our day is spent at work. The union is there to ensure that the environment in which we spend all that time is adequate.

What do union people do when a new collective agreement must be negotiated? First, union members democratically appoint a negotiating committee. A vote is held. So, a choice is already being made by members. The committee then makes inquiries, asks questions to members and sends questionnaires. It does all these sorts of things to see what improvements could be made. Then, it prepares a document listing all the demands and submits it to members. Again, there is a vote. This is a democratic process. Moreover, and this is important, members are asked to set priorities. They are asked what is most important to them and how they will react if the committee does not succeed in getting one thing or another. So, when the committee enters into negotiations, it already knows what the members' priorities are. It then sets out to negotiate those priorities, while knowing what members are prepared to accept or not.

The Conservatives also often accuse us of hurting ordinary people and small businesses by opposing the back-to-work legislation. Let us clarify things once again. Some workers were engaged in rotating strikes. The mail was still being delivered. Some employees were prepared to deliver cheques to retirees and to people on welfare. Again, the mail would have been delivered. However, the employer ordered a lockout and the mail could no longer be delivered. It is not workers who are preventing the mail from being delivered, it is the employer. The employees even said they will return to work if the employer puts an end to the lockout.

I am now going to deal with a few demands. Canada Post wants different working conditions to apply to new employees. For example, someone who is hired next month will earn 18% less than someone who was hired last month.

Let us say that I work at a job and the person next to me does exactly the same work.

I was hired in July, while the other person was hired in May or June. I will earn 82% of the other person's salary for doing exactly the same work, even though he has held his job for just a month or two less than I have. That is discriminatory and unfair.

Moreover, new employees are often young people who are joining the labour force. It is already hard for young people to support their families, but it is going to be even more difficult.

Let us now talk about salary increases. Canada Post has offered 1.9%, 1.9%, 1.9% and 2%. The government has lowered these increases to 1.75%, 1.5%, 2% and 2%. Meanwhile, between 1997 and 2010, the CEO's salary increased by a yearly average of 2.2%. If we include performance bonuses, we get 3.8% on a $600,000 salary. That is significantly more money than 1.5% or 2% on an annual salary of $35,000 or $40,000. So there is a great injustice here.

This is a government that, in my opinion, uses its majority for disgraceful purposes. That is why NDP members have decided to spend the night in this House, and that is why those who are from Quebec are not with their constituents to celebrate the national holiday. We have principles and we are going to stand up for them to the very end.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga for the almost perfect speech that she delivered here today.

We often hear government members say that small businesses are suffering because of the lockout. I wonder if the hon. member for Hochelaga could tell us what the government can do to prevent small businesses from suffering because of this lockout.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The answer is very simple, and that is the answer that I am going to give to any government member who puts that question to me.

We have to end the lockout immediately. Cheques and bills can be delivered. People can receive the documents they need and everything will be fine. That is how we could help small businesses: by ending this lockout immediately.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to ordinary people who live at the poverty line. The member should know that this lockout and the delay in passing the back-to-work legislation are causing personal hardship to many people in remote, isolated communities of Labrador, Makivik region of Quebec, Kuujjuaq, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories. There are many seniors who wait for their pension cheques. They live cheque to cheque to buy food. There are other people in the communities who depend on Canada Post to ship their products like milk or diapers or what not.

What does the member say to those individuals who depend on Canada Post for their daily livelihood about the delay in passing the back-to-work legislation?

What does the member say to those individuals in those communities in Canada?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I already said it and I will say it again. When the rotating strikes were going on, some mail was being distributed. Despite being involved in rotating strikes and considering other action, postal workers were still prepared to deliver cheques to pensioners and to social assistance recipients.

Now, because of the lockout, there is no mail at all. Therefore, I would tell people living in the north to ask the government to put an end to the lockout, as I just said. That is very simple.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I have to thank my staff in the office who are getting many telephone calls and emails from people who are very concerned. I think the opposition is really trying to belittle the impact these rolling strikes have had. I do have an email and it is quite lengthy and I will not actually read it into the record, but I think you need to recognize that when there is a threat of mail not being delivered, it changes what is happening with businesses, with invoices and with charitable returns, so a rolling strike is essentially the same as a complete strike.

I think I would like the member to acknowledge that perhaps rolling strikes do have a very significant impact on the business of this country, on small businesses and on our charities, and that rolling strikes are not something we can say were not important and were not impactful.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Postal workers have already said that if the employer ends the lockout, they will immediately go back to work. So that would be the solution. It is always the same answer to the same questions.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if the Prime Minister is being disrespectful by choosing to be in Thetford Mines to celebrate our national holiday and asbestos today—a clearly partisan choice—instead of being here in Ottawa to defend his own bill.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

I just heard that. It is very surprising. It is quite shocking, especially since I cannot be in my riding, through which the Montreal Saint-Jean-Baptiste parade will pass today. I find it very, very unfortunate.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by wishing all Quebeckers a wonderful Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Like my colleagues, I was supposed to celebrate with my constituents today. However, I am pleased to say than a good number of my constituents are happy that I am here today to stand up for them.

The right to associate and to bargain collectively is the first right young workers learn about. I am disappointed to see that the government is not respecting this fundamental right in its bill.

Instead of promoting collective bargaining, the bill undemocratically provides for lower wages than what was on the table. A democracy, and especially a democracy like ours, should not tolerate such unfair conditions.

Before I had the honour to sit in this House, I worked hard to uphold the rights of young workers. One of the first things I learned as a labour relations officer was that both parties must negotiate in good faith. The government is not negotiating in good faith. Most of the young workers I defended were fresh out of university and many were in debt. These young people choose to go into debt in the hope of getting a good job and earning more that the minimum wage.

The bill before the House has young workers very worried. They worry because they are already having trouble finding a job with fair wages and fringe benefits. The bill suggests that jobs with good benefits are no longer available and will eventually disappear. It also suggests that my generation will no longer have the right to fight for the wages and pensions they need to live a decent life now and in the future.

As our party leader pointed out yesterday, workers at Canada Post are fighting against a divide being created between younger workers and older workers. Under the bill, new workers would have to wait five years before getting the same wages and benefits as their colleagues.

I understand why this bill has young workers so worried. With this bill, the government is telling the workers of tomorrow that they cannot expect the same good wages and fringe benefits as today's workers.

I would like to take a moment to describe the Canada this government is in the process of creating for my generation with bills like Bill C-6. Such a Canada would be a country that does not recognize the workers' right to a collective bargaining process, a country that does not believe that Canadians who work 40 hours or more a week deserve decent wages and a pension that will allow them to retire with dignity.

We will vote against this bill because we will never support the Canada this government is trying to create. Canada Post workers acted reasonably. They continued delivering the mail because they believe it is important to serve Canadians well. They also expect their government to act reasonably too. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, the government imposed a lockout and is now trying to force the employees back to work with lower wages than what was already offered.

I would like to take a moment to read an email I received yesterday. This email, from a Canada Post employee, explains and demonstrates the Canada Post workers' desire to go back to work. Unfortunately, this government put a lock on the doors. Here is what the employee wrote.

Here is what an employee says:

I (along with my fellow workers) would like to be working right now, processing and delivering the mail, as our customers deserve.

Since Canada Post, with the government as its employer, has locked out the workers and thus stopped mail service in Canada creating hardship on business and families, does it seem just for the Government of Canada (our employer) to punish the workers with Bill C-6.

Indeed, since the full mail stoppage was caused by the government itself.

Personally, I think the message is clear: it is unfair for this government to accuse the workers of shutting down the mail service, and even more unfair to force them back to work at such a wage, without going through the bargaining process. The Conservatives are quick to blame our party for not protecting the interests of businesses, but the Conservatives are the ones who shut down the mail service with the lockout. As one of the postal employees said, the employees want to go back to work but they cannot, because the government put a lock on the door.

In closing, this legislation must be opposed. We must oppose it for the workers of the past who fought for the right to negotiate collectively, for the workers of the present who are exercising that right, and for the workers of the future who want to keep that right.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to remind my hon. colleagues that tens of millions of Canadians are affected by what is going on in the House, and they are not part of the negotiations between Canada Post and the union. Canadians are hurting.

It is also worth pointing out that these are the types of Canadians who elected the member to this chamber. These are the Canadians who are suffering because of the postal situation that exists today. We are trying to rectify the situation and we are being blocked and obstructed by the NDP.

I would like the member to explain to her constituents, the ones who are being materially affected by this strike and by this situation, why it is she is prolonging this very deplorable situation that exists right now regarding our postal situation.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I would like him to know that Canadians are hurting because of the lockout. Canadians want the government to unlock the doors.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague.

I have a very simple question to ask her. How important are negotiations in collective bargaining? Is the principle of negotiation at risk because of the decisions made by the government?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

The bill will create a dangerous and, frankly, terrible precedent. It will remove the right to bargain collectively for all Canadian employees and workers. If the government is allowed to do so this time, who knows, it might do it again when the next strike or lockout of its own doing occurs.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the people who are really punished in this serious situation right now.

They are not only small businesses but small weekly newspapers, which are a very fundamental and important part of our country. This letter talks about their business being small, but it says it “has grown by leaps and bounds over the past three years since it was established as a start-up...”. It says:

...the labour disruption at Canada Post is taking a toll on our company. Our newspaper, The Clark's Crossing Gazette, is the largest independently owned community newspaper in Central Saskatchewan with a weekly circulation of 15,100. The company employs four full-time and three part-time people in addition to providing a few hours of work each week for as many as a dozen high school students. The Gazette operates in a highly competitive environment and each day this labour disruption continues, it costs our business money.

If the Official Opposition was serious about protecting “average Canadians” as it preaches it exists to do, then it should step aside and allow quick passage of legislation to put the postal system back into operation. If the NDP refuse to co-operate, our company—like many others—will be forced to re-examine our relationship with Canada Post....

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, we do have very little time remaining.

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would tell my hon. colleague that it is workers like the one who sent me the email who want to get back to work. They carried out rotating strikes so that mail could still be delivered to Canadians who deserve it. It was the decision of the government, who imposed the lockout, to stop the delivery of the newspapers she talked about.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to take a moment to address a short message to my constituents in the riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes. I know that I was expected to attend the festivities on the occasion of our national holiday but, unfortunately, I am not going to be able to be with my fellow citizens.

However, I want to say that I am with them in spirit. I am here today to protect not only the interests of Canada Post workers, but the interests of all Canadians and all workers. I do feel strongly about what is going on, and it is my duty to be in this House with all my colleagues to stand up for Canadian workers and families.

Like many of my colleagues, I keep receiving emails and calls in support of workers and of the NDP stand. Despite the fact that, with this lockout, Canadians are being held hostage by the government, people are still prepared to defend the rights and the benefits for which their parents and grandparents fought.

By targeting workers and families, this government seems not to know that social justice is now an indisputable gain that we will defend to the very end. So, I salute the courage of our 55,000 fellow citizens and I invite them to keep fighting for their universal rights, which the government is trying to trample. The fight of postal workers is also the fight of all Canadians. I wonder what message the Conservative government is trying to send to Canadians with this legislation.

Following the May 2 general election, this government promised to govern for all Canadians. However, it has already deprived Canadians of a service as essential as mail delivery for ideological reasons and to show management that it can be even harsher with the employees.

As Nancy Snow put it: “The government should spend less time promoting itself and distracting the public's attention, and spend more time serving and protecting its fellow citizens”.

It is also important to point out that the government is trying to discredit postal workers by claiming that this is a strike. In fact, what we have here is a plot, a lockout imposed by the employer, despite all the attempts made by the unions to get workers back on the job and to restart negotiations.

The government has to show responsibility and stop intervening in this dispute. It has to acknowledge that workers have the right to negotiate with their employer as equals.

I would also like to share a story about Richard, a 54-year old Canadian who has been providing his employer with good and loyal service for almost 30 years. Richard gets up every morning and delivers letters and packages in good weather and bad. Richard loves his work and over all these years he has developed special ties with all the people in his neighbourhood. He is the one who delivers long awaited cheques, letters that sometimes come from the other side of the world, or even packages. Richard always takes the time to say hello or smile at people, or offer a few words of comfort to those who receive bad news. His work is his life and he puts his heart and soul into it.

Today, Richard is not happy about the current situation and that of his colleagues. Richard has always been a good employee and he is wondering why his employer is trying to trample his rights. Richard is thinking of himself, but mostly of his son who, following in his father's footsteps, has also been delivering letters and packages for four years now. What future is being offered to his son? One in which he will have to wait much longer to retire? One in which he will not have enough pension benefits to allow his family to live in dignity?

He thinks about it and believes that his union has acted very responsibly. It offered to end the strike if Canada Post agreed to maintain the former contract during the negotiations. Canada Post refused and decided to lock out the employees and stop the mail service.

This decision is the only reason why Canadians are no longer receiving their mail. It is important to remember that Canada Post employees have been locked out by their employer and are not on strike. Workers have the right to negotiate in good faith with their employer and that right is currently being denied.

The government interfered and decided to impose an employment contract on the employees of Canada Post. This contract is simply unfair. Not only does it not meet the demands of the employees, but it also provides for wages that are lower than what was offered by the employer. What kind of world are we living in? It is not the role nor the responsibility of government to impose such contracts. What the government is proposing is, quite simply, unilateral and irresponsible legislation. It violates workers' rights. The government's actions do not enable the two parties to properly negotiate an agreement.

The government must not interfere in this dispute or in any other similar dispute. This debate is not just about resolving the issue at Canada Post; it is about the right of workers to negotiate. Canadians fought too long to create a fair and equitable work environment. They fought with all their might for fair wages and suitable benefits to help them meet their families' needs.

These employees are being locked out and are being forced into a contract that would take back the gains they fought hard for. This would set us back years and creates a dangerous precedent.

I would like to remind the members opposite that instead of deceiving Canadians, insulting their intelligence and violating their right to have accurate information by talking about a strike, they should be talking about a lockout.

The government interfered between the union and Canada Post, claiming that the postal employees, by no longer working, were jeopardizing the Canadian economy. But I want to remind the members opposite that the employees of Canada Post want to return to work and serve the public as they have always done.

On June 3, Canada Post workers started a rotating strike. This shows their willingness to continue their job. This strike movement was just a way for them to fight for better job security and fair wages.

They refuse to be the victims of tactics to unfairly take back their money. They refuse to allow their rights, and also the rights of employees of any large employer associated with the government, to be subject to this abuse in the future and have to suffer the consequences.

Today's debate is not only about postal workers' rights, but rather about the interests of all Canadian workers. What will become of their rights? What message is the government sending to the heads of Canada's large corporations? It seems to be saying, “Do not worry, my friends; do as you please; impose whatever conditions you like on your employees; hire other employees for lower wages; do whatever you like and do not worry for a moment about the consequences. The government is here to support you and protect your interests, and not those of your employees. Whatever happens, we will legislate in your favour and we can even cancel your previous agreements and lower your employees' wages”.

Things should not have happened this way. The government had several options to get out of this crisis. I will not bother listing all of them, since my colleagues have already talked about some of them, but I would like to mention one such option: lift the lockout to allow Canada Post employees to return to work, and above all, to resume negotiations.

The postal workers have said this on many occasions: they want to get back to work. By lifting the lockout, Canada Post could give its employees the opportunity to go back on strike, yes, but more importantly, to get back to work and start delivering the mail. Negotiations between the two parties could resume, with the wishes of both sides being respected, and perhaps an agreement could then be reached.

This could all be done without hurting the Canadian economy, without violating the rights of citizens and SMEs, which, let us face it, have suffered from this lockout. Indeed, while they were still able to enjoy Canada Post services during the rotating strikes, that was not the case during the lockout. Whose fault is that?

We are all victims of this lockout. Our seniors are no longer receiving their cheques. Small businesses can no longer send their invoices. And although we are in the digital age and many services can be carried out online, Canada Post nevertheless remains a vital service to all Canadians. Our duty is to stand up for the people who deliver this essential service. The government is imposing restraint measures by directly attacking the rights of citizens to have a decent income and pension plan.

Collective agreements are used to get what workers deserve, to support families and help them pay their bills, work in a safe environment and retire in dignity. That is precisely what we are fighting for today, but the government does not seem to understand that or it is simply turning a deaf ear. The government is supposed to protect workers' rights, not legislate against them.

We are here today, on June 24, on Quebec's national holiday, trying to come up with a solution. The fate of our constituents is in our hands and we will not abandon them. We will fight day and night to defend their rights. As our leader says, we are prepared to work together day and night to restore workers' rights.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue with Terry Jenson, the business person who said:

If there is any indication back to work legislation will be delayed—as the NDP have said it will do—we will act swiftly to move our newspapers to readers via carrier or other means instead of relying on the unionized workers at Canada Post to handle all our distribution. Perhaps the Official Opposition is more interested in our company creating 125 new carrier jobs for high school students instead of paying postal employees to deliver our newspapers.

...our company spends approximately $100,000 with Canada Post and that business is now being put in jeopardy....

This Canada Post strike costs $25 million per day. I would ask the member this. How much more will it cost Canadians if companies like this have to find alternative routes?

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question, even though I do not really see a question in what she just said.

I would simply like to reiterate what I said earlier. Workers have the right to strike. A lockout is something that is imposed and that is what is hurting Canada's economy. It was not the strike, since the workers were on a rotating strike that allowed the public to continue to receive mail.

Today, because of the lockout, people can no longer receive their mail.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the government side believes, we are here today to talk about more than just the delivery of the mail. We are here to talk about the value of collective bargaining and fairness. Those are Canadian values.

We have some things to balance here and I am waiting, with good expectations, for the amendments mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech. I am wondering when they might be forthcoming and whether the hon. member has any ideas about what we might discussing in the hours to come.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are working on that and should be able to come back to you on that shortly.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the constituents of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and wish them a wonderful Fête nationale. I am missing the celebrations today and it is the first time that I have been outside Quebec for Saint-Jean Baptiste Day.

I have a question for the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. As she knows, the cost of living is very high. A loaf of bread is $3, and gasoline costs $1.30 or more per litre. Small and medium-sized businesses are very important to the NDP. We have even proposed, in our platform, to reduce their tax rate from 11% to 9%. We support employers.

I would like the hon. member to explain to the House how the lockout and the current situation will harm the Canadian economy.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

Indeed, workers at Canada Post were carrying out rotating strikes. As most municipalities continued to received mail, the economy was moving forward. We now have a lockout. Mail is no longer being delivered. Small and medium-sized businesses cannot send bills or receive cheques, which is not right.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on some of her comments, but she did say a few words, such as “imposing a collective agreement” and “the union has been responsible”.

I received an email from a postal clerk who said that they were excluded from any discussion on the last offer that was made by Canada Post. In fact, they felt that the offer was more than reasonable and more than fair. So, if the union was responsible, does that not suggest that the union has locked out its members from participating in this decision?

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

The member is shifting the blame somewhat. The lockout was in fact imposed by Canada Post, and not the union.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I am rising in the House, after asking my first question last week. First, I want to thank my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé for placing their trust in me. I am honoured to rise in this House to represent them. I will represent their interests every day.

I would also like to highlight the work of Guy André who worked for seven years for the people of Berthier—Maskinongé. Although we have differing opinions on the type of country we want to build, we share the same passion for our community and the same commitment to helping our fellow citizens.

Communities like mine did not simply choose a new member of Parliament. On May 2 they sent a clear message: we want a new way of doing politics; we can change things; we can do better. That is the message sent by 1.5 million Quebeckers. They rallied behind the NDP's vision for a better Canada, a Canada where families are a priority and where no one is left behind, a country Quebeckers can identify with, that reflects their progressive values. I humbly accept the mandate they have given me. That is why we are here today instead of in our ridings. I wish the people of Berthier—Maskinongé a happy national holiday, even if the calendar in the House shows that it is still June 23.

On this Quebec national holiday, I would like to wish my constituents, the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, a very happy holiday, surrounded by family and friends. I had in fact planned to join the people of my riding to take part in activities organized for the national holiday. This morning I was supposed to attend celebrations in Lanoraie for the first time as a member of Parliament. I had hoped to say a few words there during the flag raising. I wanted to thank Dominique Bellemare for all his efforts in organizing the events for the national holiday, even though it is raining cats and dogs there.

I would also like to thank Céline Bastien, the people of Sainte-Ursule who invited me to attend the festivities for the 175th anniversary of the canonization of Sainte-Ursule. I hope to be able to join everyone on Saturday to celebrate the pride that the people of Sainte-Ursule feel towards their municipality. Once again, I thank them for their invitation and I wish them a happy holiday.

Instead of being with them, I am here in the House of Commons to stand up for the rights of Canada Post employees, and we are proud to be here. As we discuss this situation, it is important to understand it and to know why we are here. After the Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes, the union offered to put an end to its strike action if the corporation would agree to reinstate the previous contract during negotiations, but Canada Post Corporation refused.

On June 15, Canada Post decided to lock out its employees and shut down services. On June 20, the Prime Minister introduced regressive legislation in order to impose a contract on Canada Post employees that actually includes wages that are lower than what the employer was offering.

This is not a strike, but a lockout.

Let us turn to Bill C-6, the back-to-work legislation introduced by the federal government to penalize postal workers and to reward Canada Post for locking out employees and stopping mail delivery nationwide.

The bill legislates wage increases below what Canada Post had put on the table. The final offer mentioned a 1.9% increase for 2011, 2012 and 2013 and a 2% increase for 2014, well below the 3.3% rate of inflation.

Under the bill, the Conservatives are proposing increases of 1.75% in 2011, 1.5% in 2012, 2% in 2013 and 2% in 2014. According to CUPW, Canada Post's focus on concessions make further negotiations impossible.

CUPW members are fighting because they do not want loopholes in their collective agreement, and they are against the wage cutbacks Canada Post wants to impose on future employees

Here is what Denis Lemelin, national president of CUPW, had to say:

We believe in free speech, free association, and free collective bargaining. [It is important.] This legislation hurts the values that our country stands for and is an attack on workers’ rights and standard of living.

New Democrats also believe in these values. That is why we are here, in the House of Commons, standing up for the rights of Canadian workers.

Let me give the House some examples from my riding. When we talk about this situation, it is important to recognize the impact it can have on all Canadians. I have a few examples from my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé.

Jacques Meunier, owner of Chroma Peint in Saint-Alexis-des-Monts, explained to me that his operations were being disrupted by the Canada Post lockout. Since he owns a body shop, most of his business comes from customers who were in a car accident and have made a claim to their insurance company.

Insurance companies cannot mail cheques because of the lockout. Mr. Meunier has to cover the cost of the various parts he orders from his suppliers without knowing when he will be able to collect the insurance payments and receive the fees that are owed to him.

For a small business like his, the situation is quite serious and difficult.

Mr. Meunier also told me that this week, despite the situation at Canada Post, he received a statement from Revenue Canada. That is a double standard.

I have another example from a student from my riding.

To go on a school trip to the United States, a student in my riding asked Quebec's registrar of civil status to issue her a birth certificate.

The person in charge assured her that if the postal services were interrupted, the certificate would be sent by courier. However, the certificate was mailed before the lockout and was never delivered to the student.

Since the birth certificate was mailed, Quebec's registrar of civil status could not do anything about it. The student and her family were very worried, but the mother made several telephone calls to the authorities to ensure that her daughter could go on the trip.

The population of Berthier—Maskinongé is aging and a number of municipalities are seeing an exodus of young people to the large centres. It is hard because seniors do not use the Internet as much as young people do.

Many voters in Berthier—Maskinongé chose to place their confidence in the NDP. We are here to work for people.

We have to work together for all Canadians. We simply want the lockout to end and people to go back to work.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her first speech in the House of Commons. It is a great moment for every member of Parliament to make that first speech. For all of us who have made one, we hope it is some sort of debate or issue that we will remember into the future.

Mine was on the private member's bill to erect a statue to John Diefenbaker outside. That was a great moment for me. I am sure the hon. member will, as will many other new members, will make speeches in the House of Commons, but she certainly will not forget the subject matter of her first speech. I congratulate her on that.

I was pleased that she talked about some of the challenges that the lockout and strike is presenting to Canadians. I appreciated it when she talked about small businesses. She is probably hearing from individuals as well who still need the mail.

Could she comment further on the fact that we all have to work together to bring this to a quick end for everybody's interests.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this affects everybody. It is really important that we work together. We were all elected by Canadians. We are all here for a reason. We have to work for them. Let us just do it. Let us stop the lockout, move these negotiations along and let us get everybody back to work.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her speech, particularly in light of the history of the right to bargain collectively. That is a very important right.

This system is not ideal. When there is a lockout, as there is now, or a strike, the employer and the employees both suffer economically. Since what is proposed in the bill is unfair, does the member believe that there is a possible alternative, for example, arbitration, to find a fair resolution?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

When I think about this, I try to put myself in the shoes of the workers. Then I think about it from all perspectives. I can see that not being able to get one's mail is hard.

However, being a Canada Post worker, being locked out of work and having one's rights violated like this is brutal. That is not right. We really have to stand here and fight for their rights. We have to stop the lockout. Let us get back to work.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on her speech. I am very proud of our caucus, particularly our new members and those who are under 30, who are behaving and acting with such poise, intelligence and composure. I thank them for that. It is refreshing.

The member reflected on what a lot of people are concerned about, which is people have been forgotten in this. The people who have been locked out have been forgotten.

I have been on the picket line before. I know what it is like. It means we cannot bring home a paycheque. It means we have to sacrifice.

We have to establish the fact that this affects every day people and the people who work to deliver our mail, as well as small businesses. I would like to hear her comment on that.

However, she said something very important. She said we must end the lockout. How can the government end the stalemate and get people back to work?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thousands and thousands of people work for Canada Post. It is a unionized business. If the government can do this to a unionized business, if it has the control and is able to lockout workers, which has such a big impact, what will it do to everybody else?

It is important that we work together. We could do this. We were elected by Canadians and we work for them. Let us all work together, stop this lockout and get back to work.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to take a moment to wish all Quebeckers, and especially those from my Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier riding, a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

This holiday is a special opportunity to spend time with our families, our loved ones, and to celebrate our pride in being a part of the Quebec nation, which has a rich heritage and culture. I especially want to thank the municipalities of Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval and Saint-Casimir for inviting me to attend their holiday celebrations.

I would have really liked to take part in the activities organized throughout my riding over the last few days, but I absolutely had to be here, in the House of Commons, to support the Canada Post workers with my NDP colleagues who are working very hard. We are working very hard for those people today.

Despite everything that is happening in Quebec, it is very important for me to be here in Ottawa and join the Canada Post workers in defending and retaining their basic rights. Those rights include the right to free association, the right to collective bargaining—which seems to have been forgotten in this case—and the right to safer working conditions and fair wages.

The current situation is utterly deplorable, but we have to remember that this is not a strike, as I heard some of my government colleagues say repeatedly during the night. The workers are instead facing a lockout imposed by Canada Post. This is something we must remember and always keep in mind as we debate this situation. The executives are the ones who made the conscious decision to lock the doors and deprive Canadians of their mail services, despite the fact that these are so essential.

Canada Post workers, even when they were holding rotating strikes, always made sure that Canadians received their government cheques and other important documents. The union even offered to end the strike if Canada Post agreed to let the expired collective agreement stay in effect during the negotiations. To my mind, that was a very obvious sign of good faith.

It is only since Canada Post ordered a lockout that service has been suspended; prior to that, it was not. It is because of this lockout that Canadian individuals and small businesses are not receiving their mail anymore.

Now the Conservative government wants to impose an agreement on Canada Post employees. The Conservative government's special legislation is unacceptable. It is an irresponsible bill that runs counter to the fundamental and inalienable right of workers to negotiate a collective agreement in good faith.

These actions of the Conservative government are depriving both parties of any opportunity to negotiate their own agreement, an agreement they are going to have to live with and work under during the next few years.

In addition, the Conservatives' offer adds insult to injury, as it is worse than what Canada Post had offered workers before the government's useless and unnecessary intrusion. Lower salaries, job insecurity, an attack on their pensions; this is what the Conservatives are offering Canada Post workers. It is a complete disgrace.

Do my Conservative colleagues realize that Canada Post workers deserve better? Improved occupational health and safety, decent salaries and a pension; is that really so much to ask? Apparently so, according to our fine government.

But should the Conservatives' attitude in this matter really surprise us? This is far from the first time that the government has shown such utter contempt toward workers, in particular when it comes to pensions.

In my riding, I do not have to look very hard for a tangible example of the Conservatives' dismissive attitude in recent years. We need only look at what happened to the workers at the AbitibiBowater plant in Donnacona in the spring. Unfortunately, it was announced last spring that the plant would be torn down. As the hon. members are all probably aware, 9,000 pensioners are literally watching their pension benefits disappear before their very eyes because of AbitibiBowater's financial difficulties. Even though their pensions are nothing more than deferred wages, wages that the employer formally agreed to pay them when they retired, in accordance with the terms set out at the time of their hiring, the big bosses at AbitibiBowater have no qualms about dipping into the pension fund whenever it suits their needs.

What have the Conservatives done to help these pensioners? Absolutely nothing. There were calls for help, but nothing was done. To this day, those pensioners are still experiencing problems.

Back then, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River introduced Bill C-501, which sought protection for workers' severance and termination pay in the event of a restructuring or corporate bankruptcy, as in AbitibiBowater's case.

In short, Bill C-501 would have given pension funds, as well as severance pay and termination pay benefits, secured creditor status, making them a priority in the event of a bankruptcy. Employers would have lost the ability to choose to reimburse all subcontractors before paying their own employees their deferred wages, as companies should have always done from the outset.

Despite lingering in the House for some time, being debated and seemingly receiving approval, the bill was ultimately defeated by the Conservatives, of course. Shame!

The Conservatives are clearly turning their backs on Canadian workers. Last spring, it was the Donnacona retirees who suffered because of the Conservatives' indifference and contempt. Today, it is the Canada Post workers who are suffering. Who will be next? Which group of workers will the Conservative government try to impose similar working conditions on next? Who will the government try to control once this special legislation has been passed? Everyone is in trouble. Make no mistake. It could happen to anyone, to any group of workers. We need to be very wary.

Personally, I am disturbed by the Conservatives' current attitude. I think that many of my colleagues and fellow citizens from across the country share that sentiment. I am worried about the future of workers' rights when faced with pressure from an employer.

The government's reckless actions are a direct attack on Canada's labour organizations and only serve to reinforce my belief that we need unions that are dedicated to defending the rights of citizens who, like us, work tirelessly to improve their communities. I do not feel that members on the other side of the House are ready to stand up to defend workers' rights as all of my colleagues did throughout the night last night, and as we will continue to do throughout the coming days.

As you know, unions have fought for many years to ensure that our children can go to school instead of having to work in factories, that the salaries workers receive are fair and just, and that workers have safe working conditions.

Very important rights were won through many fierce battles, and these rights include the right to negotiate as equals and in good faith with their employers in order to establish a collective agreement that works for everyone.

It is high time that the government stop eroding the rights of Canada Post workers by interfering so brutally in the collective bargaining process. The government must stop continually siding with management, and it must take concrete action to ensure that the conflict is resolved quickly and satisfactorily. The government has the authority to demand that the lockout cease and that the two parties return to the negotiating table.

Canada Post workers are ready to return to work. They know that they provide an essential service to Canadians and they are aware of their responsibilities and importance in their communities.

All they are asking for is to return to work with dignity and that their request be heard and respected. It is a very small request in the current circumstances. It is high time to end the lockout. We must respect the right of workers to collective bargaining by ending the lockout that prevents the workers from exercising their rights.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to set the record straight. The Conservative Party values the hard work of Canada Post workers. We value anyone who is willing to work hard to put food on the table.

Today I was on the phone with a constituent of mine. She runs a small business and has been running it for 11 years. She was on the phone with me three times today. Cash flow has become critical. She runs a mail house. Her revenue evaporated earlier this week, she is looking for some stopgap financing and on Monday she needs to decide whether she is laying off 16 people.

I am here today to implore the opposition to please allow this woman to get back to work and allow Canada Post workers to get back to work. She questions what really is being achieved by continuing these debates for some 17 or 18 hours. The point has been made. She really sees this as theatrics.

I am here to put the question to the hon. member who just gave her speech to please help me make sure that this woman's employees can continue working for us and to put food on the table for their families.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question.

We want to help this person. We have a solution that will help this person make decisions and resolve the situation, and that is to end the lockout and allow the workers to return to their jobs.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a number of calls from constituents from my area. One of the things they are telling me is they want to get their mail on time. They asked me to tell the government to unlock the doors so they can get back to work. Has my colleague been getting any calls like that?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from a number of Canadians, people who work at Canada Post and others who support the Canada Post employees who are fighting for their rights. These people want to see the satisfactory resolution of this situation, but it must not be at the expense of workers' rights. People worked for generations before us to obtain these rights and to ensure that everyone has better living and working conditions. We will not arrive at a solution by violating their rights. The solution is clear—end the lockout.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her great speech, but if we thought great speeches would have solved this about 24 hours ago we would have been done.

There are some terms we use around here that the public does not quite understand, whether it is filibuster, legislation or debate, and how we do it. Even some of us in here do not understand some of the terms we use, whether it is lockout, rotating strike or back-to-work legislation.

What the public knows is they are not getting their mail but want to get their mail, and we have put forward legislation that can make that happen. Let us vote on that legislation and get out of here.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comment.

I do not believe I heard an actual question. However, if the hon. member is asking for clarification of the terms we are currently using, I can provide that information quickly. It is very clear what a lockout means. The employer locks the door and prevents employees from doing their jobs. What we are doing right now in this House, which the public understands, is very simple. We are defending the rights of workers and we are speaking on their behalf. We are their voice in the House. What we are doing right now is explaining the exact reasons why we have to put an end to this lockout.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member think that it was disrespectful of the Prime Minister to make a truly partisan choice by celebrating both Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and asbestos in Thetford Mines rather than remaining in Ottawa, as our leader did, and defending his own bill?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this very pertinent question.

I think that Canadians can make up their own minds from what they are seeing in the House. They see which party is standing up for the rights of workers and people like them and which party is not prepared to do so and puts partisanship above the discussion we are having here.

Progress can still be made. Changes can be made to this bill even though I am not yet getting that sense here.

As for the question of lack of respect, I will let the hon. member answer that himself.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to extend best wishes for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, a very important day of celebration. Many francophones from coast to coast celebrate it, and it is an important day on which to stand up and recognize the day and commend all of those who are involved in the organization of the day so that many Canadians, from coast to coast, are able to participate in the many different celebrations across Canada, in particular, in the province of Quebec.

I come from a very unique city when we talk about labour. Many will recall the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 and the impact that strike had on the whole labour movement here in Canada. When I consider the type of legislation that we have before us today, it is hard not to reflect on so many different labour leaders.

When I talk about labour leaders, I am not just talking about those who hold formal positions within the labour movement. I am talking about those who have been involved in the grassroots of our union movement, not only in the last decade but over a number of years.

I believe that Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, in many ways has been very progressive with regard to coming up with areas of labour policy that have in fact been of great benefit both for workers and for businesses, I must add.

I want to comment very briefly with regard to postal workers. l recognized yesterday when I had the opportunity to speak, and I wanted to reinforce, what I believe is a very important point, something that is being lost. This should not be about a filibuster or anything of this nature. What this should be about is the employees who are working for Canada Post and Canada Post as a corporation itself. We would have loved the opportunity to allow those two entities to sit down in a collective bargaining fashion that is free in which an agreement would have been achieved.

We believe that the government would have known, and I suspect possibly even supported, Canada Post's decision to lock out its employees. That is really where the problem began. At that point I believe a lot of people lost faith in what was taking place. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the government did have a choice. The crisis we are in today is a crisis that has been created by the government of the day. I believe that to be the case. I do not believe for a moment that the government would not have known that Canada Post was going to lock out its employees. At the very least, Canada Post would have informed the minister responsible. If not, many might even suggest that the minister responsible might even have had some discussions with Canada Post prior to Canada Post making that particular decision. There is a great deal of concern with regard to what actually has taken place there.

All I know is I have had the opportunity to meet with and have discussions with Canada Post workers over the last number of months, and I made reference to some of those discussions yesterday. I should say “today” because we are still on Thursday inside the House. When we talk about the issues that were important, I listened to what Canada Post Corporation had to say when it came to Parliament and made its presentation, but I also intentionally took the initiative to go out and talk to some of the letter carriers and others concerning what they thought Canada Post's new, next generation of services is going to be like.

They raised concerns, and there were two different sides. The one that came to mind, which I made reference to yesterday, came from not just one letter carrier but a few letter carriers who raised the identical issue concerning how they are going to have to carry the mail door to door. It was a one-pack system. Now it is going to a two-pack system, which is very difficult to carry in their arms because of the way they flip through the mail to put it into mailboxes.

Suffice it to say there are many different issues that we in the chamber are not necessarily aware of. It is important that those issues be brought to a table wherein there is a sense that the bargaining process is going to be fair. Say what one will, I suspect that at the end of the day the employees of Canada Post believe that the government has not been fair and has directly intervened.

It is not to say that there is no place for back-to-work legislation. It has proved to be an effective tool in the history of our country, whether it is in the House of Commons or other provinces. In fact, we will find that there are political parties of all stripes, Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals, who have all used back-to-work legislation. Every political party inside this chamber when in government has in fact used back-to-work legislation.

What makes this back-to-work legislation so unique is that it has been taken from the perspective of the arbitrator. Limitations have been put in that will prevent legitimate negotiations. As a result many would argue, and I would argue, and I believe the leader of the Liberal Party argued, that it could even be unconstitutional. By the time it hits the court everything will likely be resolved, but I suspect that given the way in which this legislation is worded it could be unconstitutional. There is a need for us to amend and change this legislation.

I still cannot get over the fact that the government locked out the employees of Canada Post. That is a hard pill to digest. I do not think the postal workers will ever digest that particular pill because it was premature at best, not warranted.

Having said that, I believe that the legislation and the way in which it is worded if taken to the Supreme Court I believe would be unconstitutional. The government cannot put the workers in this position. It shows its bias toward management. That is why it was interesting to listen to what the New Democrats had to say during the debate as they addressed the amendment that is being proposed, the six months' hoist.

We have been asking questions, and in terms of the responses they are interesting because we are looking for ideas. We want to see how the workers can benefit by ideas and discussions within this chamber in terms of how we could resolve this thing. We could tell Canada Post to take the locks off and end it. Then the union and Canada Post could get back together and try to resolve this through mediation. I think that is a viable option. The leader of the official opposition has talked about bringing amendments. There was even one member who stood up and said that there were amendments submitted to the government. I think there needs to be a little bit more transparency in terms of what we are talking about.

If we continue to have this debate for the next number of days, I am game for that. I was in the Manitoba legislature in 1988 when we had the final offer selection debate go for hours and hours and days and days. It was interesting to do the comparisons where they had the six months' hoist. It was a Conservative government and an NDP opposition. I have been there and I can say that there was a great deal of frustration because there was not the transparent debate that is necessary to provide comfort to not only the employees but also to the corporation.

I think we have to start to be a little fairer in our comments and start saying how we can resolve this as opposed to trying to add to the division by saying we are either for the union or the corporation. I believe at the end of the day we need to be more sympathetic in terms of what it is that our letter carriers have to go through in order to be able to communicate their messages, in order to be able to continue doing the fabulous job that they currently do. How many smiles do they put on people's faces when they walk up to their doors to deliver the mail? They are ambassadors to our communities in very many ways. They do not get the recognition that they should be getting. In essence, through the lockout, the government is trying to demonize it when its members talk about it being a strike when it is not a strike.

I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I am thankful for having had the opportunity to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of people have been reading things from their ridings. Well, I heard from a postal work in my riding who said that no one in his station voted in favour of striking in the first place, that they were happy with the offer management presented and understood that without modernization their jobs would be gone. He called the union corrupt and said it counted all non-votes as votes to strike. According to him, the union charged $80 a month in fees and was not accountable to anyone for where the money goes. The union, he said, organized conferences for its top brass in places like Fiji and Maui. He thought that the union ought to be investigated and that if employees had been able to vote on this online the strike would never have happened.

Will this member join me in calling on CUPW brass to put Canada Post's most recent offer to a vote by its membership?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean by the divisive nature of politics. The people do not appreciate it. What they want to see are results arising from this debate. For example, the government has in the legislation the amount they can pay, and it is actually less than the corporation was proposing just a few weeks ago.

If the government wants to contribute positively to the debate, why do they not make that amendment? Then they would be sending a message to both Canada Post and the employees. The employees are the people who are out there every day ensuring that we get our mail. They would be giving them something tangible, something that would make a difference and show that we are not just wasting our time.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North a question.

Can he explain to us the impact that such a bill would have on upholding and preserving workers' rights and what impact he thinks it will have on our democratic system?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Any back-to-work legislation has to allow for free collective bargaining in some form or another. That is the most important principle we have to recognize when we have back-to- work legislation. We have to be realistic. Political parties of all stripes have seen the value of back-to-work legislation. It is a question of making sure that it is fair to both sides. If it is done properly, everyone wins.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is a quite a bit of noise in the chamber. I realize that members have other conversations to take on, but I would like all hon. members be able to hear the questions, comments, and speeches.

Questions and comments: the hon. member for Markham--Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague not only for his excellent speech but also for his recent re-election in a riding that for many years was regarded as an NDP stronghold. Given the orange wave of the last election, it was quite an achievement on the part of my colleague.

My question has to do with who should bear the major responsibility for the lock-out. As a former minister responsible for Canada Post, I can tell you that there is no way Canada Post would ever order this lock-out without the agreement of the government. At the other extreme, it is perfectly possible that the minister responsible for Canada Post called up Canada Post and ordered the lock-out. So it is somewhere between acquiescence and order.

My question to my colleague is this: even though technically it was Canada Post that ordered the lock-out, would it not be more realistic to say it was a government-ordered lock-out?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I truly appreciate the question, because it gets to the core of the division that the government has caused. We need to be clear on that point. There is no way Canada Post would have done the lock-out without the blessing of the Prime Minister and the minister responsible. That is one of the points that is being lost in this whole debate.

Who is the government trying to kid? Canada Post would not have locked out their employees without the blessing of the government. I truly believe that. When we focus on the division that has been caused, all we need to do is look at that point.

I appreciate the question and the compliment.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today, not because I do not want to represent the workers, but because I believe this repressive bill should never have been tabled. As I said earlier in the debate, with this move the government has shifted the race to the bottom into high gear.

I want to take a moment to thank my wife, and I will try not to be emotional. Yesterday was our 11th wedding anniversary and I was unable to be with her, but she understands the importance of my taking part in this debate and said, “Dear, I will see you in a week or so”.

I am so proud of our Quebec caucus for making the significant sacrifice of giving up their important holiday and their chance to meet and enjoy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day with their constituents. I am sure that Quebeckers who chose the NDP in the election are also proud of their choice. They see each member from that caucus in action in the House defending workers in the province of Quebec and in Canada. I want to thank them.

I spent 28 years in the labour movement and this is very emotional for me. In 1988, I spent over 17 weeks on strike. I decided to script myself, because if I do not, who knows what I might say?

With Bill C-6 the government has broken a tradition in this place, a tradition of balance. With this bill the government has chosen to thumb its nose at the rights of the workers of Canada Post. These are workers who simply want to achieve a fair and balanced collective agreement.

I suggest that the remainder of Canada's workforce serving Canadians under the jurisdiction of the federal government should be very concerned. Those same workers who ensure that Canadians receive the services they need and deserve are now facing the most ideologically-driven government in the country's history.

There is a labour relations chill emanating from the government as result of Bill C-6 that will be felt across this great country. It will be felt most in the homes and lives of good hard-working Canadians. These Canadians thought they could count on their federal government, a Conservative government, for a fair and even-handed approach in the times of significant labour disputes. Sadly, things have changed with Bill C-6 and today Canadian workers will begin to realize how wrong they have been about the Conservative government.

Throughout this debate I found out just how terribly uninformed the Conservative members of Parliament are in regarding the union's role, its legal role, in collective bargaining. I want to take a few moments to offer a Coles Notes version. Since workers as well as employers are represented, it might be worth the Conservatives' while to understand this.

Prior to setting a national strategy for negotiations, all locals post bargaining proposal sheets on their union bulletin boards. These forms are used to seek union membership proposals for changes to the collective agreement. Members will note that I said “proposals”, not “demands”.

The employees work under and within the terms of their collective agreement and where they find shortcomings they make proposals to their local union officers. An elected bargaining rep from the rank and file of the union compiles these proposals, as do all other locals across the bargaining unit. The union then holds a local meeting where all members can support or reject their co-workers' proposals.

The proposals that are passed at these meetings are forwarded to the central bargaining caucus. The local union bargaining representatives, who are elected by their local, attend this caucus where all the proposals from the local meetings are presented, prioritized, and voted on by the full caucus.

After the bargaining caucus has sent their packaged proposals to be presented to the employer, they elect a bargaining team in whom they place their trust. The bargaining team then meets with the company and they exchange proposals.

Again, it is “proposals” and not “demands” or “offers”. Of course, the media, the spin doctors, call these proposals “workers demands”, while what the other side brings to the table is described as a “company offer”. Do members see the difference?

Now that I have set out the process for union member participation in the bargaining process, I would like to remind members that one thing that comes up repeatedly is the question of how the union gets a strike mandate.

Unions hold secret ballot votes for their members, most in advance of presenting proposals to the company. Some do so after a final offer. Either way, it is a secret ballot vote.

The wording on the ballot usually says that a member who votes “yes” authorizes the bargaining committee to meet with the company and to take action up to and including a strike if they fail to reach an agreement. The point is that this process is open and democratic from beginning to end. More important, it clearly indicates the trust that the workers put in their bargaining committee. For workers, the strike is the last vote, the last tool in the box.

I would suggest in this debate that the uninformed government members have shown more of what they do not know about collective bargaining than what they do know. This stands out when we hear the old clichés about old union bosses. Well, I guess I am an old union boss.

I proudly served my membership in Local 42 of the communication workers, and later CEP, for 28 years. I am also proud to say I was the longest-serving president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, where we had 105 different local unions. In all of that time, the workers trusted me and I never lost a single motion, because we were always honest with one another. They never called me “boss”; they called me “brother”. I trusted my members' judgment when they took positions at our meetings, and they trusted me. As they said, they were the only boss in the room.

This has been a lengthy way to begin my intervention on Bill C-6 and on the damage it does to all labour relations with this government. This bill is first and foremost about the future of the workers at Canada Post, the posties, the good, hard-working people that Canadians have for generations entrusted to ensure the delivery of our letters, cards, and packages.

As will often be heard from the NDP in this place, these good, loyal workers have followed the rules. In good faith, they have proposed changes to their collective agreement and submitted them to their employer. Throughout the bargaining process their representatives have worked hard to resolve these matters.

In the bargaining process, there are few options for employees to ensure that their proposals are given proper consideration by the employer. If workers decide that the company is not taking their bargaining committee seriously, they can choose to work to rule, for instance.

In this case, in a most responsible manner, instead of an all-out strike, CUPW decided to use rotating strikes to draw the attention of the public and the government to their situation. They were trying not to overly inconvenience the public. Since they were not shutting down the whole system, they proved that point. During the impasse, the union agreed to deliver essential mail such as pension cheques so as not to inconvenience Canadians.

Let us be clear: it was Canada Post, the employer, who locked out the posties. Even when the posties had agreed to stop the rotating strikes and work under the old contract, Canada Post and this government said no.

To be clear, one has to ask what is happening. Why is the Conservative government so quick to trample on the rights of Canadian workers? At least in my opinion, the ideology of the government has overtaken them. Why else would they turn upside down the historical practices of this House?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

It is truly an honour to rise on this debate and speak to this topic.

However, first I would like to bring to the attention of the House some important news happening in Manitoba. I want to announce that the NHL franchise will be called the Winnipeg Jets. I am very happy about that.

I am also going to talk about this important debate. I listened to the member's speech. My question is mostly focused on entrepreneurs and the people who run small businesses. These people drive our economy. When I was an entrepreneur, I relied on the mail quite often. Every day one would expect information on incoming sales, and marketing information was going out.

My primary question for the member is this: does the hon. member not see that what we are going to accomplish through this bill will have a net benefit to our country and to our economy?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only way it could be better is if the team came to Hamilton.

Going directly to the question, it is not the fact the government decided to force workers back to work, it is how fast it did. There appears to be, and I use the words “appears to be” a complicity between Canada Post and the government for the lockout in the first place. It may or may not be the case.

It is how quickly Conservatives moved and the fact that they are legislating a worse offer than what the group had. It is breaking the traditions of this place.

Why not trust the staff arbitrators that the Minister of Labour has at her disposal to settle this dispute?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to think of what the link is between the labour stoppage at the post office and hockey. All I can think of offhand is my shot is a bit more like regular mail than email. That is the best I could come up with. It is not all that fast.

I would agree it would be nice to see Hamilton have a hockey team. It is great that Winnipeg is going to have an NHL team again. Next, of course, Toronto will want one, as the joke goes.

Considering the fact that, in my view, this legislation sends an unbalanced system of arbitration, recognizing that when there is a lockout or a strike, even a rotating strike, there are impacts that are negative for the employer and the employees.

Does the member think it is possible to have an arbitration that is imposed where a fair result could actually be achieved?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the collective bargaining process there are provisions for an arbitrator to make a ruling on the final disposition of collective bargaining. In this country it is important the government allows that to proceed without a heavyhanded approach.

By the way, when the letter carriers are on strike, they are not like the people who are not getting the letters. The letter carriers are not getting a paycheque. No one wants to be on strike. The reality is it is not good for anybody.

Why does the government side not listen to the proposals that have come from our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, and help us come together so that we can resolve this situation?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek very ably outlined some of the processes in collective bargaining.

An email says that: “CUPW took a vote to ratify our demands pre-negotiation. We then debated these demands at two levels, locally and regionally, and voted on each one. Our members then got a strike vote, 94.5%, the highest vote ever, highest turnout ever, and we gave our national executive board the authority to vote on our behalf and it gave us the opportunity to vote on an offer and when they vote on that the contract is adequate enough for us to vote on”.

It talks about the fact the postal workers themselves are not in favour of this lockout. They offered to stay at work and continue to negotiate.

I wonder if the member could comment on that process within a collective bargaining unit.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I have a bit of experience I would like to talk about. In 1988, I was on the bargaining committee for the communication workers with Bell Canada. We negotiated every day for nine months and then we had a 17 and a half week strike. I understand very clearly the seriousness of this situation. But it is a democratic process. It is an open process, contrary to what is said.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a great national holiday to my constituents. I hope they are seizing this opportunity to celebrate the Quebec nation with their family or friends. I can say that, in electing an NDP member, they voted for a Canadian who respects and shares their language and culture.

On June 3, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes. However, even though workers were fighting for the right to a decent salary, they continued to provide a service that remains important to Canadians. On June 15, Canada Post decided to impose a lockout, thus depriving Canadians of postal services. Five days later, the government introduced back-to-work legislation that provides for a salary increase lower than the one offered by Canada Post during the negotiations, and also sets strict limits on the arbitrator's mandate in settling the dispute.

Through this action, the government has shown its contempt for collective bargaining and for the rights of Canadians who are waging a legitimate battle for their rights as public service employees. If the bill is passed, the Conservatives will have changed the rules significantly.

During the negotiations, Canada Post tried to impose certain working conditions on its employees, thus adversely affecting their quality of life and that of their families. For its current employees, it wanted to end the Workers Compensation Board's contribution for injured employees, to replace the benefits paid by the employer with an expense account for health care, to abolish the seventh week of annual leave, to eliminate sick leave and to impose a short term disability plan. For new employees, it wanted to reduce job security and social benefits, and to lower pensions and salaries.

Even though Canada Post gave up on certain reductions during the negotiations, it never took into consideration the union's demands relating to staffing, health and safety and working conditions. The fact that the government refuses to admit that this is a lockout, and not a strike by employees, confirms that there is no will to bring concrete solutions to these issues. Let us make one thing clear: it is the government that locked the doors at Canada Post.

Canada Post belongs to all Canadians, and its mandate is to guarantee postal service to all Canadians. The government is headed toward privatization, despite the fact that there is no alternative for fulfilling the mandate of Canada Post. While we in Canada pay 59¢ to mail a standard letter, the same service may cost up to 88¢ in countries with privatized services. In addition, it should be noted that Canada Post is profitable. Last year, its total revenues were $281 million.

Why should we punish postal workers and reward Canada Post, which imposed a lockout and was basically responsible for the shutdown of postal services? In addition, the back-to-work legislation calls for lower wage increases than those proposed by Canada Post in its latest offer: 1.9% in 2011 and 2012-2013 and 2% in 2014. The Conservatives' legislation proposes lower increases of 1.7% in 2011, 1.5% in 2012 and 2% in 2013 and 2014. I want to point out that both offers are well below the 3.3% inflation rate.

According to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, that legislation would cost a typical full-time employee $875.50 over the four years of the agreement. Is the government here to reduce wages? Is it here to create a precedent that will enable it to interfere every time to cut wages?

I am very proud to represent the beautiful Quebec riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Many families who live in this riding are already heavily in debt, and they are having a great deal of trouble maintaining their modest lifestyle. Many of my constituents are worried at this moment. In fact, they are telling me that if the Conservatives are prepared to impose an act like this one on postal workers, then they would definitely be prepared to show an equal lack of respect for workers across the country. They elected me because they wanted to build a country in which workers had better working conditions, in which the elderly could live in dignity and in which young people could be confident about their future.

Today, we can see clearly that the Conservatives have a very different view of things. They supported a two-tier pension system that was initially put forward by Canada Post management, a system that would allow existing employees a defined benefit pension plan whereas newly-hired employees would have a defined contribution pension plan. Since then, Canada Post management has revised its position, but it is still asking for a five year increase in the retirement age.

If this bill is adopted, it will be a major setback for all workers, including those who live in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. If the bill is passed, it will be sending a clear message to my generation: we are going to receive less stable pensions than previous generations. The manner in which the government intervened in this matter is blatant evidence of its lack of any political will to defend the next generations.

The Conservatives imposed the lockout on the pretext that the dispute at Canada Post threatened to cause serious harm to the Canadian economy. If that is true, why did they lock the doors to prevent employees from going to work? The Conservatives measure the strength of the economy in terms of the profits made by their friends, but my NDP colleagues and I believe that the strength of our economy is measured in the ability of ordinary families to make ends meet.

If we take away from workers the right to use legitimate means to defend their rights, we will continue to increase inequities. The government has attacked the defined benefit pension plan and has shown itself open to reducing wages and benefits. If this trend continues, Canada will become a country in which people of my generation will no longer be able to rely on dependable pensions when they retire, and in which the quality of life for workers will deteriorate.

The trend can already be seen. The wages of workers today are already proportionality lower than they were 20 years ago. According to Statistics Canada, between 1980 and 2005, full-time wages for this group dropped by 20.6%. Last evening in the House, the leader of the official opposition pointed out that the gains made by workers in recent decades needed protection. It is these gains that must be built upon.

It must not be forgotten that in 1981, CUPW was the first union to obtain paid maternity leave. It succeeded in obtaining this benefit after a 42-day strike, and once this was achieved, it set additional standards for all other employees. We cannot ignore the fact that this bill comes on the heels of other bills introduced south of the border in Wisconsin, Texas, Michigan, Idaho and Arizona. This is our Wisconsin, and we must stand up on behalf of workers everywhere in Canada.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the new member to the House of Commons. It is wonderful to see her here today.

A constituent from my riding wrote to say that results of medical tests she had been expecting were hung up in the mail. Some of the tests involved mammograms. Tests that go between hospitals and different clinics are sent via the mail and they are in a holding pattern right now.

I know this is the first bill for the member. I know she is very mindful of the health of Canadians and wants the best for Canadians. I ask the member to encourage members of her caucus to get Bill C-6 passed right now so we could get the mail delivery moving.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that this is a lockout and not a strike. I would like the member's caucus to make it clear to Canadians that this is a lockout, that the government has put the locks on the doors of Canada Post, and that the government can take them off anytime it wants to.

I would like to remind my hon. colleagues of those facts. I would like to remind Canadians that it is a Conservative government that is preventing Canada Post employees from going back to work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, prior to my question, I just want to join with the member for Winnipeg South in recognizing the Winnipeg Jets as the formal name of our NHL hockey franchise, something that many Manitobans wanted to see.

The question I have for the member is in regard to whether or not the NDP would maybe support the amendment that would take out the clause dealing with the amount of money being suggested for Canada Post employees. I assume that they would support it given the fact that at one point a number of weeks back there was an agreement with Canada Post that would have seen a better pay increase.

Would the member support an amendment of that nature?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague knows that Canada Post employees are ready to go back to work right now. I think my hon. colleague is also aware that we cannot discuss this matter right now.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has just spoken about wages, and the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles also spoke about working conditions. I spoke to the union representative in my riding yesterday, who said that there had been a 1,000% increase in work-related injuries after their assignments had changed recently, requiring them to simultaneously deliver many things other than envelopes.

These work-related injuries are likely to increase, under the new conditions Canada Post would like to impose. Employees, therefore, have good reason to want to negotiate their working conditions.

I would like to ask my colleague whether, as the members on the other side of the House claim, we are opposed to the resumption of services or whether we are fighting against the manner in which this is being done and the fact that it is becoming impossible for workers to bargain for their working conditions.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is obvious that workers took legitimate means to claim their right to reasonable wages. It is really up to the government to put an end to this lockout and to allow workers to return to work.

I would like to add that when I speak to young people in my riding, they tell me that they are worried about their future because the bill in question is creating a very dangerous precedent. They have the impression that we are witnessing a downward slide.

I am worried for the young people in my riding as well as for future workers.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to my hon. colleague across the way. I have numerous letters from my constituency as well. Postal workers are complaining that their union is not giving them an opportunity to vote on the offer that is on the table.

However, most importantly, I wonder if the opposition member actually understands that the longer this goes on, the more that businesses and Canadians will find alternate ways to deal with this work stoppage. That can only undermine the ability of Canada Post Corporation to go forward, which would undermine the ability of the CUPW workers to have a job.

I wonder if the member understands that the longer this drags on, the worse it is for everyone involved.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague when the government will be ready to put an end to this lockout and when the government will be ready to allow these workers to go back to work and keep serving Canadians the way they have been doing.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, I am rising to speak on Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. It is important for us to continue to emphasize the importance of a healthy environment for fair and collective bargaining. This back-to-work legislation undermines that process.

Why do workers need to continue to have faith that they have the right to a fair collective bargaining process? It is about working conditions. It is about protecting those hard-won rights that workers for many years have fought for. It is about trust in the democratic process.

This country has a long history of needing to work toward protecting workers' rights, of needing to protect worker's health and safety. I want to provide a bit of history about why this is so important and why workers need to continue to have their rights protected.

I am from the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. Tomorrow there is a miners heritage picnic put on by the South End Community Association. In part, this miners picnic is about remembering our history in Nanaimo—Cowichan and honouring the proud history of miners in contributing to the development of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, and other parts of the riding. I want to go back a bit in history and talk about the protection of workers' rights.

I have an article dated Friday, April 1, 2011, titled “Nanaimo is no stranger to deadly fires and disasters”. The article talks about what happened to workers when their rights were not protected and when they did not have the safe working conditions that are so important to them and to their families.

The article states:

A massive explosion had torn through Nanaimo's No.1 Esplanade mine, instantly killing dozens of men while leaving those trapped to die from carbon monoxide poisoning over the next few days. When rescuers finally made it inside, they found final messages to loved ones scrawled on shovels in coal dust; the miners had known they would never escape those dark caverns alive.

This tragedy on May 3, 1887 marked one of the worst mining disasters in Canadian history. In total, 153 men died....Local historians say it's important to never forget about these tragedies. They often highlight the need for better working conditions or improved regulations....The 1887 tragedy, caused when a spark ignited methane gas, had the highest death toll but several other mining disasters also resulted in numerous fatalities.

Seventy-seven miners died on Jan. 24, 1888 at the No.5 Wellington mine at Diver Lake when a miner-fired shot ignited gas or dust. Just over a decade later, 32 more miners were killed in an explosion at the No.2 West Mine at Extension; in 1918, 18 miners died when a mine collapsed near Protection Island.

We know that mining conditions in Canada have substantially improved since that time. We also know that in recent memory we had the Westray disaster, which resulted in the Westray mine bill in the House being brought forward over a number of years by Alexa McDonough until the House adopted it.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

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

I am trying to be very attentive, as I have been all day, listening to the speeches from across the way. I am wondering about the relevance. I did not know the debate was about mining. I thought it was about postal services.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member. Obviously there is a standing order that urges us to keep our remarks in the context of the question before us, and I am sure the hon. member is getting near that point.

Carry on.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for that intervention because I was about to make the link.

This brings me forward to modern days. I was setting the context for the importance of the trade union movement in this country in terms of protecting workers with safe working conditions and fighting for regulations that keep workers safe. Here we are, fast-forwarded to modern day.

I have an email that states:

I would love somebody from the government side to comment on the increased levels of injury that have been documented in every province since the Postal Transformation was initiated a year ago...the new delivery system which was referred to earlier in a somewhat derisive way requires that one arm balance two bundles of mail while the other is needed to sort the mail while going from point of delivery to point of delivery. This new method of carrying the bundles effectively removes the free that was needed in the past to navigate up and down slippery stairs. This has contributed to more injuries while the restructures associated with lessening the work force has led to forced overtime which has contributed to increased injury levels.

The email goes on to say:

...I can assure you that at least 10% of the work force, at any given time, is either sick, injured, or on some kind of modified duty or disability related to the onerous workplace conditions.

In 1887 we had miners dying because of unsafe work practices. In modern day we still have workers injured or being killed on the job because of unsafe work practices.

It comes back to the importance of the trade union movement and a collective bargaining process that protects the rights of workers and continues to fight for the rights of workers to ensure that those conditions stay in place. I hope the member can see the relevance of continuing to protect these rights.

Now, other workers in Canada continue to be abused by their employers, but many employers in this country provide safe working conditions. They respect the labour standards in their particular provincial jurisdiction. I do understand that. However, some employers are terrible employers.

I want to turn to an article entitled “Abuse of foreign workers must be stopped, says labour group: Alberta government action needed in light of new criminal charges, says AFL” .

This is an article about some of the working conditions for some of the most vulnerable workers. They often do not have protection. They do not have the protection of a trade union. They do not have the protection of a collective bargaining process. Fundamental to part of what we are talking about today is the collective bargaining process, which is so important to the rights of workers in this country from coast to coast to coast.

In this particular article, dated April 16, 2011, it states:

News of criminal charges being laid in relation to welders and machinists from Poland and Ukraine working in Alberta is more evidence of widespread violation of employment laws and the abuse of foreign workers, says the province's largest labour group.

It goes on to state:

Foreign workers are vulnerable because they fear deportation and are not always aware of their rights.

It further states:

Last year, the NDP revealed government documents that showed 74 per cent of Alberta businesses hiring temporary foreign workers that were subject to inspection had violated the labour code.

It goes on:

Workers are charged thousands of dollars in illegal fees, often live in homes owned by employers or agencies who charge outrageous rents, are told to work long hours while being denied fair rates of pay--but are afraid to complain because their employer can lay them off and have them deported.

Of course, in this country right now, because they are temporary foreign workers they are not eligible to be covered by a collective bargaining unit. It is shameful that these kind of conditions, with two-tiered labour practices, are allowed to continue in this country.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers almost feels like a test case for the government. If it gets away with this, what is it saying to workers across this country in terms of being able to be protected by their union, by their collective bargaining process, by the understanding that they will continue to have those rights protected in this country?

Another case again concerns people coming from outside the country: “Caregivers urge 'wage theft' victims to go public”. We have a program here called a live-in caregiver program, and in some cases it is tantamount to slave labour.

There were a couple of cases recently where people went public because of the conditions they were working under. In this case, the claimant said she cared for an elderly woman and her two adult children with developmental disabilities for 10 years. In the last four years of working for them, she alleges that she was living with them and putting in--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member for Kitchener—Conestoga is rising on a point of order.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Earlier in my colleague's comments she was challenged about not getting to the point of the debate. She immediately linked it well, but I think she has lost the link again. I would ask her to please get back to the issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair recognizes the fact that relevance is an issue and that at times members take detours or circuitous routes to the business at hand. I have every confidence that the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan can do that.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of this demonstrates that there continue to be working conditions in this country that need to be protected by the work the trade union movement does. It is important that New Democrats and others in the House continue to fight this back-to-work legislation, because it undermines the collective bargaining process.

We have heard from members opposite that this situation is undermining the economy and that we should support the legislation. I need to remind those members and others who are watching that what we have here is a situation where the workers were locked out. If there is that much concern for the economy, then these workers would be allowed to continue to work while the negotiation process went on.

I urge all members in the House to vote against Bill C-6.

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have been made about the member deviating from the issue at hand, and that is because what we are seeing here is just a good old-fashioned filibuster.

The opposition party is not acting in the interests of Canadians. If they were serious about helping Canadians, serious about helping postal workers, serious about ensuring that Canada Post can function in the future, they would pass the bill as it now stands.

There has been eight months of negotiations. The government has watched the two parties. They have not been able to come to an agreement. The legislation provides an opportunity to bring the parties together so Canadians can get their mail.

Will the opposition stop this filibuster and allow Canadians to receive their mail immediately? Pass this legislation.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government were serious about getting the mail moving, they would unlock the doors.

Members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers had offered to remain at work while negotiations continued. Instead, Canada Post chose to lock them out, halting mail delivery from coast to coast to coast.

If the member is serious, his government would support the hoist motion put forward by the leader of the official opposition, take six months, unlock the doors, allow the workers to go back to work and get the mail moving.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my honourable colleague for her great speech.

Although hon. members on the other side of the House do not always see the link between the importance of the work that the unions have been doing over the last few decades, even a century, many of the benefits that we get now right across the country are thanks to unions. I want to thank the member for bringing that up.

The important thing to understand right now is that we are seeing unfair legislation. The government is trying to legislate lower wages. They need to take that out of the legislation. I would like to hear my honourable colleague's comments.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sudbury for that question. Of course the member's community is no stranger to what happens when workers are locked out or workers need to go on strike because of the conditions they work under.

I appreciate my colleague raising the question about the relevance in this day and age of what working conditions are like for some workers in this country and why we need to continue to support the rights of workers to collectively bargain fairly and not have government interfere in that process.

What we have In this back-to-work legislation is an effort by the government to impose wages on workers outside of the collective bargaining process. How is that a fair collective bargaining process?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my honourable friend from Nanaimo—Cowichan if she is aware that just recently, in the last hour, there was a news release from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations announcing their conclusion that this piece of legislation, Bill C-6, would do permanent damage to collective bargaining across Canada.

I would like to ask the hon. member if she has heard of this development and if she has any thoughts.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing that to my attention.

There are others who have written about how this kind of back-to-work legislation undermines the collective bargaining process in this country. Again, collective bargaining is part of our democratic process. It is part of the process where workers and employers get together and negotiate. This is not negotiation. This is imposition.

I would again urge all members to vote against Bill C-6.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from Quebec, who have taken a principled position against this terrible bill. I would like to thank them for defending the rights of workers on Quebec's national holiday.

They are here today in Ottawa—rather than in their ridings to celebrate the Quebec holiday—to represent Quebeckers. They are here to protect the workers of Quebec and Canada. In other words, they are here to do their work. I can assure the constituents who elected them on May 2 that they made a very good choice.

I am pleased to rise today to bring a northern Ontario perspective on this government's horrible piece of legislation. This legislation is truly scary, because it is an attack on the rights of workers in Canada. This Conservative government has always had a fundamental dislike for workers' rights because they have always placed corporate profits ahead of decent wages.

Bill C-6 is designed to cut short the collective bargaining process at Canada Post and offer postal workers less than they are currently being offered by the postal company.

Northern Ontario has a unique perspective on the issue of workers' rights. My generation has made their living as miners. They have been proud members of the United Steelworkers of America and the Canadian Auto Workers union. I am a proud member of USW local 6500, having worked at Inco for 34 years. I proudly held many positions in my union. Whether it was as a shop steward or a picket captain, I took my job and my responsibilities seriously. Health and safety were foremost in our thoughts because our work was so dangerous.

These standards came about because our workers organized and pushed the government to end reduced health and safety standards. The recent deaths of two miners at the Stobie Mine only serves to underscore why we must remain vigilant at all times. With respect to strikes, we have never taken a strike lightly or without a vote.

In 1978 and 1979 my union spent nine months on the picket line. I was married with two young children, and the strain on our family was severe, but at no point did my wife complain. At no point did I waiver in my determination to fight for our rights. And at no point did my brothers and sisters at local 6500 complain. Why? It was because management was unwilling to bargain in good faith. That's why. This is exactly where we are today.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers decided to put in place rotating strikes in part to reduce the impact of a total strike. They undertook these rotating strikes while continuing to negotiate. What happened next amounts to negotiating in bad faith and a concerted attack on workers' rights by this government. Canada Post locked out workers just as the Conservative government was bringing in legislation with lower wages than the postal company was offering. This legislation is contrary to the International Labour Organization conventions and contravenes the fundamental rights of all workers to organize and bargain collectively.

New Democrats believe that this legislation is a clear signal of where the Conservatives intend to take labour relations in this country. Denis Lemelin, national president of CUPW said, and I quote:

We never got a chance in this round of bargaining. Canada Post spent months just saying no and misleading the public about our proposals. Now, as we call for a meeting with Canada Post's President, the Harper government is going to rescue him from a responsibility to negotiate realistically with the workers.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been trying to bring postal proposals to the bargaining table that address health and safety issues around Canada Post's new sorting machines and delivery methods. Contrary to the myth being perpetrated by members of the Conservative government, CUPW has also offered proposals for innovations and expansion of the public postal service.

Canada Post's focus on concessions has made it impossible to negotiate. CUPW members are fighting to keep their collective agreement from being eroded and are also resisting wage rollbacks for new hires. The union has called on the government to require Canada Post to immediately lift its lockout of members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and reinstate the recently expired urban operations collective agreement. Once this is done, CUPW members have committed to returning to work. It is required that Canada Post give their negotiators a new mandate to arrive at a new collective agreement with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that enshrines the principles of respect, dignity, and the sharing of benefits of new technology.

These are responsible demands, Mr. Speaker. Back-to-work legislation is unjust and unnecessary.

In his letter to the labour minister, Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress wrote:

Minister, the proper role for the government in this instance is to tell its own Crown Corporation to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate a collective agreement. It is not to aid the Corporation to achieve, through back to work legislation, its collective bargaining objectives. There is no incentive here Minister, with your actions, for the employer to return to the bargaining table and negotiate.

Your role, as Minister, is to foster the process of collective bargaining and not get directly involved in any dispute. For collective bargaining to work, the parties themselves must willingly negotiate. Your actions have removed the employer's obligation to negotiate which will only serve to further poison already acrimonious labour relations.

I agree with Mr. Georgetti. It seems that the government lacks a true understanding of the impact of wage rollbacks on the economy as a whole. After all, these workers are not sending their wages and pension benefits to banks in the Bahamas or secret Swiss accounts. They are spending that money at businesses in their communities. Decent wages help the housing sector, the retail sector, the transportation sector and help create jobs and spur the economy. They also lead to increased tax revenues for the government. It is basic economics.

Recently, northern Ontarians experienced the longest strike in our history when members of the United Steelworkers were on strike for almost a year. They were fighting to protect their wages and pensions, as well as the pensions of future workers.

Pensions are under attack today and the government is signalling that it will support those attacks on pensions. How short-sighted. Why did the members of United Steelworkers have to go on strike for almost a year? It was because the Conservative government supported the foreign take-over of a successful Canadian company and then refused to defend the rights of workers when the new company laid them off by hundreds, in violation of their condition of purchase of Inco.

Northern Ontarians understand the value of good wages. They understand the value of defined benefit pensions. They understand because they experienced first-hand how good wages and good pensions benefit their communities.

Northern Ontario is essentially a collection of small communities dotted along the highway. Workers spend their wages in these very communities. They get married and have children. They buy their homes and even buy their cottages in northern Ontario. When the government attacks the workers' rights by bringing in legislation that lowers the wages of workers and circumvents the collective bargaining process, I can say that, as a northern Ontarian, I see this action as an attack on our way of life.

This legislation is a classic example of ideology trumping economics. Conservative members have used as an excuse the lack of progress in negotiation as a reason for this legislation. I ask the House why Canada Post would negotiate in good faith if it knows the government will bring in back to work legislation.

The government has actively undermined the collective bargaining process. This intervention will not be forgotten by workers across the country. It will not be forgotten by workers in my community. New Democrats will continue to fight to protect workers' rights in the face of such a concerted attack by the government.

I am proud of the efforts by my leader and his great New Democratic caucus in their determination to protect the rights of workers.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to comments continually coming from NDP members regarding the need to protect all workers and yet their actions today show me very much to the contrary that they have any desire to protect all the workers of Canada.

I give, for an example, the 58,000 workers employed in the print industry that, at the very beginning, was drastically affected through the rotating strikes. Companies were afraid to send out anything via direct mail in advertising forms, things that were date sensitive and time sensitive. It is having an impact on the printing companies already, which is affecting those workers. We have 58,000 workers across Canada affected, a large portion of whom are also union workers.

Are NDP members only here to defend CUPW or are they truly here to defend all the workers of Canada?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are here to protect workers, all workers, unionized and non-unionized workers. All Canadian workers can depend on us to protect them. What Canadian workers cannot depend on is the government to unlock the doors so they can go back to work and protect the very people the member was talking about.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

One of the most troubling aspects of this legislation is the fact that the government is trying to impose lower wages than had been proposed.

Can my colleague tell us anything about the possibility of deleting this part of the bill?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I would like to thank my colleague for having asked it.

Yes, the government is in the process of offering Canada Post employees lower wages. Having two salary scales for employees who do the same work is truly shameful. If the government were serious, it would eliminate this portion of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I read a number of letters that demonstrate that the NDP is not standing up for workers. In fact, it is beholden to a small group of union boss thugs.

I will read a letter from a local postal worker. The letter reads, “I'm a postal worker. As you know, we didn't get the right to vote on the final offer. Why? The union knew we would have taken the offer. We're being held hostage by them. Plus, the strike vote was unfair and unjust.”

This worker is on sick leave and has lost all benefits and coverage because the union will not allow local members to vote. I want to stand up for my local postal workers and demand that CUPW hold a free vote for its membership. Why are members of the NDP standing in the way of that? Why will they not allow CUPW members to vote? How can they possibly contend that they are standing up for workers in this House?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister would use such a word as “thugs”. He is well aware that in the bargaining process for the collective agreement the membership voted for a negotiating committee and gave the committee all the powers to negotiate for them.

When Canada Post comes up with a reasonable offer, the committee will take that offer back to the membership for a vote. However, until that happens, the committee is not obligated to let the members vote because the committee has been given the power to make the proper decision.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a document written by a local postal worker in which he says, “This is for the real workers at Canada Post, not union thugs”. A Canada Post worker used the term.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous support?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a letter that is written by a postal worker from that member's riding that was sent to me because that worker is unhappy with his member of Parliament. Am I allowed to table such a letter?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That is not a point of order.

The member from Timmins—James Bay. I trust this is a legitimate point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your ruling this morning really set the tone for this debate. Some of the members might not have been there but we need to reflect on the role that we are playing in this as people are watching.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you ask members to settle down. We need to have a civilized debate. I was very impressed with your ruling this morning.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would agree that we all ought to give all our colleagues the respect to which they are due.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the citizens of Jeanne-Le Ber who elected me to represent them in this House. I am very proud to be in Ottawa now and to work on their behalf in connection with this important bill.

We hear much talk from the government about the economy, about how important the economy is to this country and about working for the average Canadian.

I do not think the so-called strong, stable majority government, which, incidentally was supported by a minority of 40% of Canadians, is feeling particularly warm toward the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for it.

In fact, I would venture to say that even the 40% who did vote for them were not voting to have stripped away from them their established right to grow and build their own self-worth and value through the accepted and democratic process of collective bargaining.

It is quite frankly beyond me how the current government does not see the conflict of interest in this process of shutting down a well-organized and responsible expression of job action to only then introduce back-to-work legislation.

Let me break this down. The government owns Canada Post. The government is in negotiations with its employees, as Canada Post. The employees, after much negotiation, take job action that sees at least partial delivery through rotating strikes. The government, as Canada Post, locks out the workers. The government, as itself, tables back-to-work legislation. In addition to eroding the process of collective bargaining, it further intrudes in that process by imposing its own views on what these workers should be paid, totally disregarding the agreements already made.

Now, excusing the possibility that the government may at this time be suffering from an identity crisis, what with playing both sides of the fence, does this government truly not feel any responsibility to the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for them?

The government speaks about democracy, but then proceeds to deny the democratic process of contract negotiations, because it does not like how it goes. The government says that it is looking out for the greater interest of Canadians, but then attacks those Canadians it says it is protecting. In case it is unclear, postal workers are Canadians too.

Postal workers are also consumers. In this one-dimensional, myopic vision of the economy the current government practises, I suppose it makes sense to cut out the buying power of a significant number of Canadian consumers to satisfy some ideological belief in the absolute numbers. “We are focused on the economy”. That is a familiar mantra that all members of the Conservative government are well versed in.

I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems that there are many facets to economic growth, including standard of living and morale in the workplace, to name two.

I wonder what kind of Canada can be built when workers' rights are disrespected. In fact, history shows us what that disrespect can yield. It was that type of disrespect that sparked the beginning of the labour movement in the first place.

Is this lockout an inconvenience? Yes, it is, and please, let us remember that it is a lockout and not a strike. Then again, I can see why the government might be confused.

Dare I say that there are many Canadians who would accept some inconvenience to protect the rights that so many Canadians fought and died for. Here are some of the thoughts these Canadians are sharing.

I have been a postal worker for the past 21 years....most people don't know that we have to be casuals without paying pensionable benefits for approximately 6 years. With an average income of $49,000 a year, I will be able to retire in 2024 with a rate of $1,391 a month! Now, in 2024, that won't even pay for an apartment....why would I want to lose more from the new collective agreement? Chopra started this year and will be getting a pay of $650,000 a year with a major retirement off of my back!

When we put in our right to strike notice on May 31st, the corporation retaliated by cutting off all of our benefits including medical. I have a brother-in-law who has progressive MS and couldn't get his meds while he is in severe pain from the waist down. He is paralyzed.

We responded only then after they cut off our benefits within 3 hours of our notice to strike submission, with rotating strikes without intention of harming the mail flow. Only with the understanding that it would delay mail for one day in that city!

It is wrong what the [Prime Minister's] government is doing! They collaborated with the management of Canada Post and took away our right of collective bargaining.

I want to work and I did volunteer, as did many other workers across Canada, only because we do not want to affect Canadians in a harmful manner. I love serving the public, but not at the expense of our pensions! I don't want to be on some government assistance when I reach 65. There is no need with a Canadian Crown Corp that is making major profits off of the backs of us, the backbone of Canada Post.

This is a Halifax postal worker.

I was always taught that one should be careful of the seeds one sews. The seeds this government is sewing are seeds of discontent, mistrust, indifference, and absolute contempt. It is contempt for the workers in this country, workers who, when the need is there, are willing to work with management towards the greater good. We saw this at the beginning of the economic crisis over and over again.

What we do not see, however, is the CEOs and the upper echelon colleagues willing to practise what they are forceably trying to extract from the people who make them rich.

If this government is so interested in participating in the collective bargaining process and feels perfectly justified in imposing lower wages than were fairly negotiated, why not be of true help to Canadians by forcing those same CEOs to convert their pension plans, give up their bonuses, and reduce their salaries. I suppose that this is too socialist for this government.

Human beings by nature are social animals. We need to work together to survive. Although there may be a pecking order, there should always be respect. This is something this government seems to feel does not apply to it.

The economy of this country is, and always has been, its people. They drive the country, both as workers and as consumers. If this government truly wants to help Canadians, then treat workers and consumers, as they are one and the same, as they should be treated.

The government needs to take responsibility for its actions. The government needs to unlock the doors. The government needs to put the workers back to work, not by legislating them but by legislating the government to unlock the doors and the lockout.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate has lowered itself to simply reading e-mails and letters from constituents. I'd like to join in.

I have an e-mail. I am reading this to the member who just spoke. He and his NDP colleagues should realize the havoc they are creating in this country and in the economy of this country. This is just an example.

This is from one Lori:

I'm in the small business community. We can't pay our vendors and we might miss payroll for the first time in 18 years. Lots of our printing suppliers have now laid off their staff.

You have to do whatever it takes to end this useless NDP tactic and get a vote in. Have to get them back to work. Let an arbitrator decide....We have no alternatives here. We are being held hostage. We have thousands and thousands of dollars trapped in the sorting station with respect to cheques that were mailed before this strike. Please, please.

The point of reading this is that the people of this country are getting desperate. Why not stop the nonsense that is going on in this House? Allow the votes to take place.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I am sorry that the hon. member feels that this is a useless exercise. The fact is that while the government wishes to break this down to a simplistic “Deliver the mail”, this is about more than just mail delivery. This is an attack on workers' rights.

I am sure that the person who sent the e-mail would be quite distraught about the fact that he and members of his family might have their rights eroded through this.

If the member really wants work to resume and to have these cheques go out, it is in the government's hands. The government acknowledged this lockout. The government is responsible for this lockout. Thus, the government is the one that can end this lockout. If the government wants the mail to go out, end the lockout.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us how unfair and how unjust it is to lower the wages and how this needs to be removed from the current legislation?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty apparent. The negotiations have been dragging on for so long and they finally actually got to the amount of money they would be paid, the salaries, which is usually the largest and heaviest sticking point.

As a union leader myself, I have been involved in many negotiations. It is always the largest sticking point, but they managed to get to that.

Why does the government not respect that and move forward from there? Why does it have to bring back-to-work legislation that includes lowering their wages? Answer that question.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been here now 36 hours or better. My constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex usually do not have to be told the same thing 120 times. I have listened to the comments that keep coming. We hear the same thing over and over again. It has been said that this is about ordinary families that need to be able to make ends meet and that they do not have the opportunity to make a decent living.

Canadians now pay $3,000 less in tax than they did in 2006. They voted against it. They put forward proposals to raise the EI by 35%. They want to double the Canada Pension Plan, which will cost employers and employees, because they are the only ones who pay for it. They opposed a GIS increase. I think it was going to cost a little more than $200 a year, yet they opposed everything families stand for.

I wonder if the member could help explain why they voted against everything for these same families.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what that question has to do with the issue on the table.

We did not vote against those things because we do not believe in them. We voted against those things because they are not enough. The $1.36 a day, or whatever it is, is not enough to lift a grandmother out of poverty. It is not enough.

If the government really cared about seniors, it would give them the money they need to lift themselves into some sort of dignity. Please, do not twist words.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing a happy Quebec national holiday to all Quebeckers, and in particular to my constituents in the riding of Saint-Lambert. I am not with them today, but they understand that the current circumstances are keeping me in Ottawa and that I will be with them very soon.

They will also no doubt be aware that defending the rights of workers is the basic reason why we are here in this forum this afternoon. Bill C-6 is just one more example of the attitude of an authoritarian government that cares about nothing but its own decisions.

As we know, Canada Post workers are simply fighting, as you or I would, to protect their jobs and their wages. They simply do not want their basic rights to be sacrificed and abused. They are refusing to allow their families to suffer the consequences of the Conservatives’ unjust policy.

In this matter, the unions assumed their responsibilities perfectly. The postal workers’ approach demonstrated respect for the public by holding rotating strikes. Canada Post acted in bad faith by declaring a lockout. Canada Post decided to unjustly penalize people and businesses by depriving them of their daily mail service.

In any company, employees are entitled, through their union if there is one, to negotiate their working conditions with their employer and to arrive at a favourable outcome, which is not the case for Canada Post employees, on whom the government wishes to impose a contract that runs counter to their interests.

This is not normal, all the more so as it is not part of the government's role nor within its jurisdiction to interfere in labour relations between employers and employees, and thus take away the employees' right to negotiate a collective agreement.

The government’s interference in this matter does not give the two parties the opportunity to achieve a negotiated agreement that is in their mutual interest. This is all the more unacceptable given that the government is proposing an agreement in which the wages are lower than those Canada Post had offered.

This is a dangerous precedent for all workers in Canada, who could find unfair contracts, wage cuts and misunderstandings with their employer imposed upon them. No, the government absolutely must stop interfering in this matter, as it is doing, and to give a negotiated settlement a chance, because it is not yet too late.

This matter not only inconveniences individuals and businesses, but also and above all attacks the basic rights of all workers and all unions to negotiate a collective agreement with the employer.

Passing this unfair act would be a major step backward, because Canadians have fought for a long time, too long, for a fair and equitable working environment, and for acceptable wages and benefits.

The Conservative government cannot ignore this and impose a contract that runs counter to the interests of Canada Post employees.

Canada Post is a dynamic corporation that serves all Canadians. Citizens have always relied on this public corporation, which is one of the best postal services in the world. And these merits, it must be recognized, are due to the employees of Canada Post.

Our duty as the official opposition is to defend these workers, who operate this essential service for our citizens: our constituents need to get their mail every day, our senior citizens need to receive their pension cheques on time, small businesses must be able to send out their invoices on time. The Conservative government wants to do away with all of that. It wants to privatize this country’s postal services and ask citizens to pay more for it, even though Canada Post is doing its work well at a competitive price.

The government is now, for purely ideological reasons, against providing our fellow citizens with an essential public service. The reason is clear: to maximize corporate profits at the expense of workers. If there must be austerity measures, the government should look to the CEO of Canada Post and not the ordinary wage earners.

A collective agreement allows workers to enjoy benefits such as working in a safe environment, preparing for a well-deserved, dignified retirement, and having a sufficient wage to be able to support their families and pay their bills.

The purpose of government is to protect workers and their families, not to place them in a difficult position.

This legislation runs counter to the model of social progress that is championed by the NDP, and we cannot allow the Conservatives to do whatever they want because, after Canada Post, who will be next?

This power grab against workers by the Prime Minister and his Conservative government shows Canadians where they really stand.

The NDP cannot allow this to happen and we will fight to protect the rights that are fundamental and essential in a true democracy.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I sit in the House and listen to members opposite, I wonder if they are even reading the same bill that I am reading. It seems that they talk about everything else except what is in the bill.

It is important for Canadians to know what is in the bill. In particular, I would like to refer the member opposite to subclause 11(2) and ask her what it is she finds so objectionable in the guidance that this bill gives the arbitrator. It gives the arbitrator four principles on which to base a contract between these parties: first, that the terms and conditions should be consistent with those in comparable postal industries; second, that the terms provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure short- and long-term economic viability; third, that the terms maintain the health and safety of the workers; and, fourth, that the terms of the contract ensure the sustainability of the pension plan.

I would like to know which one of those four guiding principles that this bill sets out is the opposition so vehemently opposed to.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his question.

I would simply answer that it is not beneficial to wage earners to impose lower wages than they had negotiated at the outset.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech because she touched on some things that are extremely important: what this is, what this is not, and what this is about. This is not about a strike; it is about a lockout. This is about the government setting a precedent in what normally would be a fair collective bargaining process, where it imposes wages, not just any wages but wages that are lower than what was already on the table.

This is something that should seize us all. It is not just about Canada Post but about how we bargain in this country and how legislation goes forward. I would like to hear from my colleague about the implications of this bill if it passes the way it is without any amendment.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I would simply like to tell him that if this bill is passed, there will be very significant repercussions on wage conditions and on all the work done to date, and on everything to do with negotiating collective agreements. In a democratic and free country, such an impact is unacceptable.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened patiently yesterday and today. I have sat in this place for some period of time, and there has been a lot of misinformation with regard to the B.C. Health Services case. I am not going to get into the particulars, but I practised labour law for a period of time, and I would recommend that my friends read the judgment, especially in relation to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's comments, which sets out the particulars in relation to the right to strike, etc.

In this particular case, it is clear that there is a right to associate, to bargain collectively, and a freedom to strike, but there are consequences for that, just like there are consequences for what Canada Post and the union are doing. Clearly, those consequences can be dealt with in the future because we have the rule of law in Canada and people can actually be sued when they do things wrong.

The government clearly has power to do what it is doing. What I want to know from the member is what New Democrats are trying to accomplish. Really, they are wasting time. They are wasting the time of Canadians, especially the time of people who are waiting for the important things that Canada Post can deliver, like seniors' cheques and other things. I want to know what they are trying to accomplish by wasting so much time and money of Canadians, because clearly it is not going to be the result they want.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

At what point will this Conservative government—which caused the lockout—accept full responsibility for its actions?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all Quebeckers a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Today is a day of celebration.

I would also like to say that I am very proud to be working with such a good team from Quebec, and particularly with the new MPs.

I want to start on an issue that I think is important to understand, and that is how we got here. As people know, there were ongoing negotiations, there was job action, and then there was of course the lockout. We have to underline that point, because some would say that if we believe what we have heard today from the other side, there was no lockout. Let us be absolutely clear about what is happening. There was a lockout. There was an offer by Canada Post to go back to work to keep things going.

When we hear from others who suggest that somehow Canada Post workers were trying to undermine the economy or hurt others, it is just not the case. There was a choice made, and the government can make the choice; let us be clear about that. It has the power to do that. The choice it made was to have a lockout, and I think Canadians will hold it accountable for that.

But it is important to also understand that in this country we have fought collectively for fair bargaining. I have been on both sides of the table. I have been negotiating contracts on behalf of members. I have been on the other side of the table when I worked in the NGO sector, where we were negotiating contracts with employees. The guiding principle in negotiations is to make sure you have fair bargaining. Everyone gets that. For those who do not, I am thinking of that commercial where the guy presents one kid with a toy pony and brings the other kid a real one. That is not fair bargaining, for those who do not know what it is. It seems that the government wants to go down that path.

A younger worker will not get the same entitlements for their pension and the same wages as people who are more senior. That really flies in the face of fairness. I think that is pretty clear. That is the kind of issue we will have to confront. We're saying that if you are a young person or a new worker, you will not get the same benefits. That is kind of strange when you think about it. We are asking young people to give up the opportunity to have a decent wage so that they can actually settle in a community, stimulate an economy, and have something that we have all been able to benefit from.

I know the members have young kids. I do too. What do we say to our kids? We say, okay, in our economy we have decided that we will lay hands on certain people and say they will not get as much because there is just not enough. It is like that kid who gets the toy pony instead of the real one. Sorry, we cannot help you.

It does not make any sense. It flies in the face of fairness. In this contract that was imposed it is important to note that; it is important to note that we are talking about a two-tier system.

I want to turn to the legislation, because I know it was important for some of my colleagues across the way to read. It is actually on page 6. When I first looked at this legislation, there were a couple of things that grabbed my attention. One is the final offer selection. For people who do not know about that way of bargaining, it is a method in which both parties agree to--that is the first point--a process whereby they boil down the issues to a couple of issues, put in what appears to be the best offer, and provide it to an arbitrator that has been agreed upon. It is not an imposition. In this legislation, this is being imposed. It is taking a method of bargaining and torquing it such that it is undermining the whole relevancy of what was final offer selection.

It gets better, because on page 6--and it ignores the Canadian labour act in some ways--it says that wages will be imposed. Some people might think that it is not a big thing and that they have to put the wages in there because they could not agree. I think it is terrible and regressive.

Here is the kicker. They impose wages that are less than what was on the table from the employer. If I tell anyone in this country that an offer was put on the table by government, whose role is not to take sides--the role of the government is to be a fair arbiter, and I see other members nodding yes--but then in legislation on page 6 the government put in wages that are less than what the employer was offering, at the least it is confusing. What we have here is a method of bargaining that will change the way in which bargaining is done in this country.

We have to stand up against that. The one thing we have to stand up against is unfair bargaining, and we can do that in this place. Today we are here to make sure the bill is changed.

This is an offer to the government. We can change that, so why not change it? If we told everyday people that an agreement was being negotiated and a wage rate was put in front of the employees, and another party, who is supposed to be fair in arbitrating the dispute, imposes wages lower than what the employer was offering, most people would say that would not pass the smell test. It certainly does not pass the fairness test. It would be reasonable for the government to look at that. That should obviously be dealt with. That is one of the reasons why we are here today.

This is not about us as a party deciding we want to spend a day and night here. This is not our idea of a retreat. If we want a retreat, we will have a retreat. We can do that. This is about a principle, and it is about bargaining and about the direction this country is going.

If the government is going to put bargaining, like final offer selection where there has been no agreement, and put it into legislation, then we have to deal with that. If the legislation is going to impose wages on workers that are less than what is being offered by the employer, then we have to stand up to that.

As I mentioned before, bringing in closure and then bringing in legislation is a little untoward. When government members were in opposition, they fought very hard against closure. Mr. Manning was the leader of the opposition in 1998. He was very strong on this point. He believed that the whole issue of closure that was being rendered upon Parliament was fundamentally undemocratic. He fought hard against that. Preston and I do not agree on everything, trust me. But he had it right when he talked about what Parliament is about and when he said that closure should not be used to ram legislation through, that closure should ultimately never be used. To use it before legislation is brought in is new. That is something we have to deal with.

I think of the people who spoke against closure.

Brian Mulroney's government on closure was a pillar of virtue compared to what the Liberal government has done since it came to power. It continuously uses this hammer. It is not a matter of negotiation. It is just too bad: “It is my way or the highway”.

It is unfortunate the government has decided to go this way. It is a trend. It does not bode well for this institution that the government has decided this is the way to force through legislation, controversial or not. The government is just doing it.

Do members know who said that on November 22, 1999? It was one Preston Manning.

Mr. Strahl, who was in this place not too long ago, said in reference to the government of the day:

It uses closure and time allocation to choke off debate in the House. It stacks committees and committee hearings....How can such a government possibly be pretending to exercise democratic leadership in government when it behaves in that way?

I just say that for the record because it is important to know how closure is being used.

I ask the government to take a look at this legislation, take a look at this imposition, and ask themselves: Is this fair?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments.

Before I get to my question, I just want to point out that I personally have had a very positive relationship with Canada Post workers in my lifetime, whether it was with delivery to my constituency office where Dean delivers the mail with a smile every day, or to my home where Cathy has delivered mail for over 20 years. I have a very positive relationship and I respect the professionalism and the work they do.

However, over the last number of days we have had dozens, if not hundreds, of emails written to this place by our constituents and constituents of members across the way, pointing out the negative impact that this ongoing work stoppage is having on our economy. I just received another one from my riding. It says:

We currently have hundreds if not over a thousand shipments either stalled with Canada Post or are unable to ship.

A secondary issue is receiving payments, sending invoices and payments. These are problematic, but obviously not as crucial.

He goes on to ask us to move quickly to bring this work stoppage to a halt.

Small businesses are at risk. Seniors are at risk. Charitable groups who do such good work for us are at risk. How much longer will the New Democratic Party cause these groups to suffer?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that will be when we see we get some fairness. Simply put, every single small business operator I know, and my sister is one, works extremely hard. They are looking for the government to do a very simple thing: pick up the phone and call the person they appointed.

This is a point I have to make. The head of Canada Post was not hired by Canadians; he was appointed by the Prime Minister. Guess what happens when the government wants something to be done? It can do whatever it wants in terms of direction, and I think we heard this from the former Liberal minister, that it just picks up the phone and says what it wants to happen.

This government could, if it wanted to, end it right now. It could pick up the phone, call the head of Canada Post, and it would be done. It is that simple. That would help all the people who are concerned, whom the hon. member mentioned.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for most of the last day and much of last night. I have heard from both sides and I hear one common element, which is the importance of getting the mail service back and the importance of ensuring that average Canadians, senior citizens and small businesses are not impacted. That should be our primary goal here.

To get through this, we can throw rocks at each other for days. I think the government understands that we are serious about fairness. However, we both have to look at the issue of compromise in order to put senior citizens and small businesses first.

I ask my hon. colleague, because of his experience, if he thinks that it would be fairly straightforward for the Prime Minister to take out the clause that forces wages down in the back to work legislation. Could he take that out, call on Canada Post to unlock the doors and send both parties to mediation and arbitration?

This could be settled immediately. I think it is incumbent upon us to show Canadians that in this 41st Parliament we could actually get something done for the good of the people of Canada.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are at that point. I think we need to ask the government what is reasonable, what is fair and how we ensure that we all do our jobs. Is the government going die on the hill on this particular contract?

Again, the main focus of my speech was around page 6 of the legislation, where it has the salary grid laid out. In fact, it is lower than what was on the table in negotiations.

I think we could see some form of agreement so that this House could do its job. We could get through the next number of hours, not by debating points back and forth, but perhaps by ensuring that we do get a resolution to this issue. We could ensure that Canadians get their mail and have postal workers back doing their job. We could ensure fairness so that all of us could go back to our constituents and say that we all did our jobs and be proud of that as parliamentarians.

That is what I think Canadians are looking for; that is what we should be doing; and that is what I think is a reasonable offer. It is something that should be done. We ask the government to take a look at this.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this today.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as my colleagues in the House know, especially my friend from Peterborough, I like to think the glass is half full. He knows that is true.

I just want to point out to everybody in the House that over the past 18 hours or so the government is no longer referring to this as a strike. It is now referring to it as a lockout. That is a very positive step forward, for that is exactly what it is.

Speaking of that, I had an email from someone who publishes a weekly paper in my riding. He asked why, if the government was going to lock people out, it did not give notice to people like him. That is a very good question. We have had that question in the House a number of times. Why all of a sudden did things get stuck at the post office? Things were not going anywhere. People were upset. It was a hardship for many, including this small business owner in the west end of my riding.

Why did the government not give notice, for example? That is in the spirit of compromise. That is in the spirit of saying that the government may have to do something, so we had better sit at the table and work things out.

Why did the government not do that? I do not know. I told the fellow who owns that weekly paper that I would ask that question today. Perhaps in the question period we will have a chance to do that.

The government's insistence on locking out Canada Post employees and sending them back to work is not just an attack on collective bargaining rights. It is also an attack on young workers and an attack on the retirement security of all Canadians.

I want to talk about what the bill says about imposing new hourly pay guidelines on the workers at Canada Post. It is significantly below Canada Post's last offer, which makes no sense at all. In fact, over the four years of this contract, $35 million will be taken out of the pockets of Canada Post workers and their families. That is important: it is workers and their families. That is $35 million that will not be taxed. That is $35 million that will not be spent in the local economy.

What this boils down to is fairness. That is what we are really talking about today and tomorrow. We talk about the younger workers coming into Canada Post and not getting the same deal, getting partial deals of what the older workers get.

We do not have a two-tier system of rent in this country. We do not have a two-tier system of mortgages. We do not have a two-tier system of going to the grocery store and buying groceries. We do not have a two-tier system of filling up our gas tanks. It is outrageous to say that young workers in our country should be paid less than their older counterparts. It is outrageous. They are doing the same work.

I want to say something about pensions, an important element of this, and about the pension changes that the government is trying to impose on workers at Canada Post. In the last legislative session, pensions and retirement security came to the fore in just about every discussion. Bill C-501, my bill, came to Parliament, was voted on a couple of times, and was passed those times. I know that there is a will on that side of this place to ensure that Canadians have the retirement security they need.

In fact, before the last election, the government was actually warming toward increasing CPP and making CPP better. Then the Minister of Finance said it would hurt the economy. He forgot that we were talking about phasing it in over seven years. We were not talking about some big shock.

The Minister of Finance has also suggested that increasing CPP is administratively difficult. The president and CEO of the CPP investment board, David Denison, has made it clear that there is no administrative impediment to enhancing CPP. In fact it is quite the contrary. He says private plans will cost significantly more for the same benefit.

In 2007 Canadian RRSP holders paid private fund managers $25 billion in fees, fees that we do not have with CPP. CPP is simply the lowest-cost option. If that were enhanced, the kinds of negotiations that go on at Canada Post on retirement security would be made easier and clearer and we could plan for the retirement security of those beginning work in their twenties.

A phased-in CPP is an increase from $960 a month to $1,868 a month over the next seven years. What would that mean to the average earner? For people who make $30,000 a year, every week over the next seven years they would pay $2.27 out of their salary to ensure their CPP doubled. It simply makes sense.

We have heard some stories from business owners and other people. Let me talk about Canadians who are hurting, and I am not going to put any blame here. I will read a couple of passages from emails I have received from northwestern Ontario.

This is from a postal worker and her husband. She says:

Our sick leave provisions are such that a fulltime employee earns 10 hours per month of sick leave credits. This sick leave accumulates until you retire. At that time, any sick leave you have not used is gone. WE ARE NOT PAID OUT!!!

That seems to be a misconception of many people. Their sick leave provisions in their contracts are protecting them in case of long-term disability. She goes on to say:

Well, last August, my husband...was diagnosed with cancer and shortly went off work on sick leave. Fortunately, he had almost a year of sick leave credits. As such, he has been able to still provide for us by receiving a regular pay check. His drug benefits were still active as well. This has been a great comfort for him as he has gone through months of treatments and surgery and made this situation much more tolerable. He could just concentrate on healing. He was hoping to be able to return to work by the end of the year and work a few more years. We still have a mortgage and bills like everyone else. We put three kids through University...

On June 2, 2011, CPC declared that our collective agreement was no longer in force. This resulted in [his] sick leave and benefits being cut off....

Lest people think, from this discussion, that it is small-business owners, seniors and others who are suffering because of this. Many people who work for Canada Post are also suffering. This means that Canadians right across the country are suffering.

Another person writes, “I am 62 years old, a single mother. Nine years ago, I became partially disabled, only working a half shift at Canada Post”. Her son is just coming to the end of university. She is already poor. She is asking why her employer proposes to make her poorer.

Here is one from a woman in my riding. She says, “I'm currently on sick leave after experiencing a heart attack. I also have numerous other related health issues”. All her benefits have been cut off. She continues to say, “After only two days without my insulin, my glucose levels have doubled and I'm experiencing difficulty breathing without my puffers and heart medications”, which she can no longer afford. That is what is happening.

We, on this side of the House, and I am sure many on the other side, believe in free speech, free association and free collective bargaining. This legislation hurts the values that our country stands for and is an attack on the rights of workers and their standard of living. The proper role is for the government to tell its own crown corporation to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate a collective agreement, but first it must unlock the doors.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite had many good points. However, the one point I would like to underline is what he clearly said about Canadians all across the country hurting, and that includes postal workers. I have had emails from postal workers in my riding and from across the country. They want to go back to work now. They want us to encourage members opposite to stop delaying this and to pass Bill C-6.

Would the member agree that the bill needs to be passed for the good of all Canadians in our country, and it needs to be passed swiftly?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, this is not a strike; it is a lockout. It could very easily be ended by simply taking the locks off the door and getting everybody back to work.

In fact, she will remember that CUPW said that it did not have a problem, that it would keep working with the existing collective agreement, while it continued to negotiate. That would have been fine, too. It does not have to be this way.

My final point is we have proposed amendments to this, which we think will help to solve the deadlock we are in right now. Perhaps if another member from the Conservative Party has an opportunity to ask me a question, I would like to know why the Conservatives have not accepted those.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where we are hearing from people in our ridings. I have certainly had emails and phone calls from constituents who are concerned. I had one from a postal worker who said, “Negotiate, do not legislate”. I can certainly understand his point of view.

I have calls and emails from people who are in business. They are suffering because they rely upon the postal service to bring them reimbursement or payments but they are not receiving. There is a real need to find a way to solve this.

My hon. colleague has talked about possible amendments. It seems to me we ought to be discussing what could bring us together here. We have a lot of back and forth, a lot of rhetoric on both sides about how each side is wrong. We are hearing two very divergent points of view. However, I am encouraged by the talk of amendments. Perhaps we ought to be focusing on what could bring us together.

Would my hon. colleague tell us some more about what his party has in mind as a way to resolve this impasse and move forward?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. We should be talking about coming together, not moving further apart. I think we have achieved that and are achieving that as time goes on.

It is heading into the weekend. We all know this will come to a resolution eventually.

One of the amendments is to ensure we do not have this inequality in the pay. We should take that clause out of the legislation. Canada Post had a last offer. We should go with that offer and move ahead.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank and congratulate my hon. colleague for his incredible work on behalf of his constituents and the Canadian people.

I also thank him for raising the issue of the impact of this legislation on the younger members of the workforce at the beginning of his speech.

The Conservative government vows to fix the Canadian economy, but this back to work legislation will have the opposite effect.

Could my hon. colleague explain for the members of the government the disastrous effects the working conditions and lower wages that the Conservatives want to impose will have on the youngest members of the workforce and ultimately because of that, on our economy?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have already talked about the wage part of the issue for young people, but let me briefly say something about retirement security. We know the retirement security will be the biggest issue facing the country as we move forward over the next 20, 30, 40 years. To erode people's pensions as soon as they start working when they are 20 does not make any sense at all.

We should all be working in this place to enhance retirement security, not only for those who are approaching retirement age or those who are already in retirement, but also for those who are in their twenties and their thirties who probably have not thought much about retirement security. We need to ensure they are ready to retire.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy standing up as I have been in the House uninterrupted without sleep for 31 hours. I mention this not with any sense of bravado, but merely to apologize in advance if anything I say is somewhat less than coherent.

It would also be better if I were not to speak in French, given that I am very tired.

I will speak to the motion in a couple of ways. I find the challenge of being original, after 31 hours of debate, is my main obstacle. We have heard a lot of very fine words on all sides of the House, but it has become, and I hope I do not offend anyone, a little repetitious. Therefore, I thought I would take a different tack.

We do want to stay on the subject, and the subject of the motion is a hoist amendment. It is useful to go back and reflect on the fact that hoist amendments used to be used by the government, not by opposition. They were used most commonly around 1867. That is why most of us had not heard of them before, but we have learned more about hoist amendments.

However, what it comes down to is the fact that to accept a hoist amendment in these circumstances is basically to reject Bill C-6. Why would we want to reject Bill C-6? Those reasons have been well canvassed.

I want to state the position of the Green Party on this as clearly as I can.

We sympathize with all those people who are disadvantaged by the current lockout, work stoppage, however one wants to put it. Small businesses are disadvantaged, some in my own riding. Others disadvantaged are: small operators of all kinds; individual Canadians waiting for their cheques, whether they are seniors, or single parents waiting for child support cheques; the workers are disadvantaged, people who cannot go to work when they want to, who are not receiving their paycheques.

I would like to take it as a given that every member of the House would rather have the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers do their work with a management structure of Canada Post that allows them to do that work efficiently, effectively, with proper supports for their training. A lot of the issues that have come up have to do with new equipment purchased by Canada Post. I hear from Canada Post workers in my riding that it did not provide adequate time or adequate training. There are some structural issues here that are real.

For CUPW, it has not really been primarily about the salaries. We have also heard that. That was not the big sticking point in the negotiations. What then was? Issues of fairness, issues of pensions, issues of this training equipment.

How are we to resolve this? This is where I would like to try to be original. What are our duties as members of Parliament? To whom do we bear allegiance?

It was not long ago that every one of us in the House swore an oath of allegiance. Members may recall, unless they have individual practices within their own parties of which I am not aware, that none of us put our hands on the Bible to swear allegiance to our political party or the leaders of our political parties. Quite simply, we all swore allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

We did that not because we admire a very admirable woman of enormous sense of duty and responsibility, named Betty Windsor, who lives in England and has a lot of grandchildren and some great-grandchildren. We take the oath to Queen Elizabeth II because she represents to us, as head of state, our country. Our primary duty in this place is to our country. As such, I would beg of each and every one of us to think primarily about what is in our national interest, which is clearly to end the lockout, to get people back to work and to stop blaming each other for how we got in this pickle.

The Government of Canada clearly sympathizes more with Canada Post. That is understood. I think all of us in opposition tend to sympathize more with CUPW. However, the opposition is not CUPW and the governing party is not Canada Post. We cannot continue to be proxies for people who cannot get to the bargaining table on their own. We need to fix this for them and we should not fix it in a blunt way, with a draconian instrument, that would cause long-term damage to something we need to thrive, our national public postal system.

I know I have heard from many members, and I am not pretending for a moment that this idea is original, certainly in the official opposition and from some within the governing party that we should be able to bend a little. We should be able to fix this. We should not conduct an ongoing echo chamber in our House of Commons that leaves Canadians from coast to coast absolutely stupefied as to what we are doing here.

Let us surprise the people of Canada by having the members of the 41st Parliament act differently. Let us actually get together out in the corridors, and maybe people are already doing it. Let us remove those sections of Bill C-6 that are unacceptable at least to this side of the House. Let us find a way that gets the postal workers back to work as soon as possible, which satisfies all the needs of the people that we have heard so much about, the people who need their glasses, the delivery of food to the north, services to small communities. All of those needs and hurts will be mended the minute we take the locks off the door and get people back to work. People who want their mail delivered really do not care whether we keep clause 15 in Bill C-6 or not.

I beg of all of us in the next few hours that we find a way to hoist ourselves out of hoist amendments. In studying this I learned to my horror that we could move a hoist amendment again and continue to debate the bill. We could be here for days. That is in no one's interest.

Let us move to unanimous consent on things that make sense and let us solve this problem. Let us get the postal workers back to work and do it in a way that shows a collective respect for them and their work.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, the member said she does not like all the repetition. There is no repetition on this side of the House of messages we are getting from businesses and individuals in our ridings. I received one from a constituent in the riding of Blackstrap who owns and works at a local insurance office, a small business, the type of people the NDP members claim they represent.

The constituent wrote, “We look out for all types of people, seniors, farmers, students, families, small business, churches, and we rely on Canada Post to send our clients their insurance policies and other necessary communications. For many younger individuals and urban families we send correspondence by mail. However, for those such as seniors, farmers, etc., these seniors are rural individuals and now are without the documents that would confirm their interests are protected or are without notice of potential risks they should be aware of. I would be interested to see how many vulnerable individuals would the federal opposition like to put in the position of having their valuables and investments destroyed with no protection so they can champion postal workers having extensive pay increases and receiving lavish but economically burdened pensions.”

That is from one of my concerned constituents in Blackstrap.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing that point of view. If the hon. member can consider that everything I said spoke to that concern, that individual with that difficulty would not be in any difficulty at all if the government benches were prepared to compromise just a bit and tweak Bill C-6 so we can get people back to work faster. That is all I am asking. I am just asking the member to consider that when she reads out valid and important concerns on all sides of the House.

I have received similar emails. I read one yesterday in the House from a local newspaper that cannot get its papers delivered. How on earth does it advance the interest of those mentioned in the email the hon. member read out loud to keep the lockout going by failure to compromise?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister must have Deepak Chopra's phone number because he only just hired him in January of 2011. In fact they scoured the countryside to find a corporate hitman to come in and stir up problems at Canada Post and upset the delicate and fragile balance of industrial relations in a fairly volatile workplace. We know the Prime Minister is now in Thetford Mines revelling in a pile of chrysotile, even though the global community has condemned Canada for--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would like to remind all hon. members that it is not appropriate to comment on whether members are or are not in the House during proceedings.

Would the hon. member quickly move to his question.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague's views on whether or not the Prime Minister knows the phone number of Deepak Chopra, because he hand-picked him and parachuted him into that position in January 2011. Could he not pick up the phone again and tell Deepak Chopra to lift the lockout, let the workers go back to work and the mail will flow?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has me at a disadvantage. I am not in a position to speak to what is in the Prime Minister's rolodex.

I do agree with the hon. member and I applaud his quite valiant work over more than a decade on the asbestos issue. However, on this issue, to solve the lockout we need to be perhaps less skilled in our rhetoric and more skilled in the communication skills that Deepak Chopra is famous for, harmony and co-operation. The rhetorical flourish is fine, but to solve this, I think we should all tone it down.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague, a former fellow Cape Bretoner on entering these chambers and being the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I have been receiving emails from people in my riding in Cape Breton also. The last one I got is from Mr. Richard Andrews. He is asking me to do everything I can to get the mail moving. In Cape Breton we see all the postal workers being locked out with no income and their family members have no medical plan.

There is a lot more co-operation here and I see the NDP made some space so the member could make her statement. I see more co-operation. It seems that it comes down to half a per cent when we look at the difference between the Canada Post offer and what the Conservative government has offered.

If an amendment were put forward regarding that half a per cent, the minister might take a look at it, and we could have the mail moving and people back at work.

The hon. member used to work for a minister here and knows the system. Does she think an amendment is possible which would somehow get the mail moving again?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes. I believe the first step would be for the official opposition to have private conversations with the Minister of Labour. Those conversations should be shared with the House in the hopes of achieving unanimous consent so the workers can get back to work this weekend.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing the people of Roxboro, Île-Bizard, Pierrefonds and Dollard-des-Ormeaux a happy national holiday. I would very much like to be with them this evening to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day at Île-Bizard, as I did so often when I was a teenager, but it will not be possible this year.

Many of my colleagues today expressed their regrets about not being able to be in their ridings, to which the MPs on the other side of the House replied several times by saying it was their own decision. Unfortunately, this allegation is very different from reality, which is not surprising. Indeed, since the beginning of this debate, we have heard a great many unfair accusations and phony arguments from the Conservatives.

For example, they have used the economic crisis to justify the need to act quickly, when it was the government itself that imposed the lockout. The Hon. Minister of Laboursaid on June 15 that she had not received many complaints about the rotating strikes. Another example was from my colleague on the right telling us that they were worried about the viability of Canada Post. And yet, he knows full well that Canada Post earned $281 million in revenue last year. This money goes into the coffers or is invested to modernize the corporation’s infrastructure and equipment, and it all created employment here. We could also point to the fact that we receive excellent service from Canada Post and that our stamps are among the least expensive in the world.

In another phony argument, the legitimacy of the union’s decisions are being attacked. We heard this a lot today. Who is surprised that the Conservatives are taking advantage of this situation to launch a smear campaign in an effort to demonize any workers who organize?

And yet, as the MP for Hochelaga explained earlier today, the union consulted its members about the mandate they wanted to give it. The members voted and the union obtained 94% support going into the negotiations. And yet it would appear that my colleagues on the other side of the House, who boast of receiving support from 40% of the population, are claiming that they have a clear and strong mandate. The union received 94% support to conduct these negotiations.

The Conservatives are also hiding behind reports from worried citizens. They read many such comments to us, and it is touching, but they never say anything about those who support Canada Post employees. Some people might be surprised to hear it, but there are indeed people who support the striking employees, and take them coffee and food. There are also worried workers awaiting the outcome of this dispute, and wondering how the government will react when the time comes for them to negotiate their own working conditions.

I am nevertheless sensitive to the fact that a number of people are suffering because of the work stoppage at Canada Post. I am trying to be very clear. Although we are standing up today for the workers, those at Canada Post and all others who fear for their future working conditions, we are just as mindful of public concern about the lockout at Canada Post, among business owners, people waiting for their cheques and everyone else. We are well aware of that.

That brings me to another false line of debate all too often raised by the Conservatives. They accuse us of prolonging the closure of Canada Post and of not working with the government in the interests of citizens. That is a red herring. Let us get something clear here: the NDP wants postal services to resume just as much as the Conservatives do. No one is in favour of stopping postal services—no one. What we are denouncing today and what is intolerable to us is the way in which the Conservatives want to resolve this dispute.

We are opposed to this bill on the resumption and continuation of postal services. We are not opposed to the resumption of postal services, but rather to the working conditions that this bill imposes on workers, to this government's way of rejecting the workers' right to negotiate.

To sum up, the members opposite have said this is a situation that no one wanted. That's true; we agree. So let us stop the false debates, let us stop the lockout and let us resume the negotiations now.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a bit of inconsistency in the NDP's argument. On one side they say the government should play no role and that we should allow the two sides to bargain. On the other side they accuse the government of somehow being involved in the lockout. Therefore, on one side we are not supposed to be involved, and then they say we are involved. They are all over the road on it.

One thing seems very clear to me. We are calling this a lockout, and my hon. colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac said some time ago that in fact the workers themselves are locked out by their union. They are locked out from having the opportunity to have their say on the most recent contract offer that was made by Canada Post, and I do not understand why. I have letters from postal workers.

I hear the member for Malpeque shouting, but I want to ask this member a very succinct question. I have a number of letters from postal workers in my riding who are experiencing hardship and who want the opportunity to vote on Canada Post's most recent contract offer.

Would this member join me in calling on CUPW to allow its members to vote on Canada Post's offer? Doing that would make this bill redundant.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite, who has just given us further proof that the Conservatives' arguments are red herrings and lead us into false debate. Thanks once again. I heard my colleague say—and I'm sure the translation was excellent— that the lockout was imposed by the unions. I am sure there is something completely distorted and false in that statement.

Yes, unfortunately, there is a lockout, and it was not at all imposed by either the workers or the unions. The unions had a strong mandate from their members, and we must respect their rights and let them negotiate their collective agreement.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by our honourable colleague.

A few minutes ago, I put a question to our colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who mentioned, for example, that the NDP might perhaps be able to reach an agreement if the government could offer the same wages as Canada Post cited in their last offer.

Can she confirm that that is indeed the NDP's position? I also hope we will have some comments from the government on that offer.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for raising the point that this bill on the resumption of postal services indeed suggests giving employees a wage even lower than what was negotiated. That is something we find intolerable and it is an example of the way in which the government is intervening in the negotiations. It is something we find utterly reprehensible. We would also prefer that workers have the right to negotiate, not just Canada Post's workers, but all organized workers.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as soon as they get a majority, they exercise their authority. That's how I would characterize this government's attitude toward its responsibilities. The rotating strike started just one month after the election, to the day. The principle of a rotating strike, of course, is that it lasts 24 hours at one location before continuing at another.

The rotating strike was not supposed to penalize the entire country and would ensure service at all locations, with the exception of the municipality affected by the strike on a particular day, on a rotating basis, one municipality after another.

The government cannot tell us that a rotating strike is worse than a work stoppage forced by the employer. What is happening now is not a rotating strike, but rather a lockout. We can therefore say that everything has been brought to a standstill with the aid of the Conservative government.

The public is not blind. The rotating strike left the door open to negotiations between the two parties, but the lockout does not. The workers decided to conduct a rotating strike because they were aggrieved, as the government had offered them less than their employer, Canada Post.

The workers sought increases at least equal to the rate of inflation, particularly since Canada Post is profitable and therefore would run no risk by improving the situation of its employees. Remember that it earned a profit of $281 million last year.

A number of labour strikes have been harshly suppressed in the past. I can offer the example of the Winnipeg General Strike in 1919, the most famous strike in Canadian history. Within a few hours, 30,000 workers walked off the job. The issues were the collective bargaining principle, wage increases and improved working conditions. In 1949, there was another famous strike, the strike in Thetford Mines, involving 5,000 workers, including 2,000 miners from Asbestos. The issues there were wage increases, the pension plan and recognition for the family. The issues have always been the same.

That was a time when any attempt to organize in the workplace was immediately repressed. It was a time when there was no legislation on working conditions.

I get the unpleasant impression we are reliving that period when workers had no rights.

The current incidents at Canada Post are strangely similar to what happened in the last century.

The government complains of the harm done to small businesses, harm that it has caused through its lockout.

The government is trying to pass this bill as quickly as possible in contempt of the workers' most fundamental right.

The NDP sensed what I would call this totalitarian attitude long before the election. Unfortunately, our worst fears have been realized, and not just once, but twice.

The NDP opposed the budget tabled on June 6, 2011. It opposed the bill to end the strike by Air Canada's 3,800 call centre and check-in counter personnel, which was just barely avoided. It now opposes Bill C-6 because the bill does not enable the two parties to go back to the bargaining table to reach a joint solution.

However, the workers wanted to negotiate with management, and they want to continue those negotiations.

Canada Post wants new employees to accept reduced wages, benefits, job security and pension plans compared to what is offered to current employees. Quebec law prohibits employers from creating working conditions for new employees that are different from those enjoyed by current workers. However, employees of businesses under federal authority, such as banks, telecommunications companies and the Canadian public service, are not protected by that legislation. This “orphan clause” providing for differential treatment made headlines in Quebec a few years ago.

Might we state once again that it was the government that subjected the postal service to a lockout, not the unionized employees? Unionized employees were conducting rotating strikes to avoid harming small and medium-sized enterprises and the public. Unionized employees delivered pension, workers' compensation and employment insurance cheques to Canadians.

“Aimed at the black duck, killed the white, oh, son of the king, you are unkind.” That line from V'la l'bon vent, an old Quebec folk song, is very appropriate to the work required of us today by the Conservative government.

Mail service is of course very important to Canada's economy, and any extended stoppage of that service would call for action by the Government of Canada in the public's interest. But what is the black duck at which the Hon. Minister of Labour is aiming in this matter? What is the cause of this interruption in mail service across Canada?

After a few days of perfectly lawful rotating strikes that had virtually no effect on mail delivery, Canada Post management decided unilaterally to cut back Canada's postal service, violating, with impunity, its own mission to deliver the mail quickly and efficiently across Canada. That decision alone would have constituted grounds for the minister to table a bill to summarily dismiss Canada Post management for incompetence and contempt of public order.

But now the Minister of Labour has drawn her big silver gun in the form of a special act and drafted legislation mistreating postal workers instead of rightly attacking those who are disturbing the public order, Canada Post's senior management.

This legislation is out of all proportion to the harm it aims to remedy. Senior management at Canada Post, feeling supported by such a well-connected accomplice, will thus order a lockout of its workers, putting the finishing touches to its sabotage of mail delivery across the country.

One can just imagine the size of the bonuses those gentlemen will be receiving for that brilliant idea.

This bill is a crude joke that rewards the turpitude and incompetence of Canada Post management. “Shameful,” as our leader would say. In addition, the minister adds insult to injury by getting back at the unionized workers: the legislation even provides for working conditions inferior to those set out in the draft collective agreement.

To vote for this bill would be to show contempt for Canada's unionized workers and to deny them their rights. However, Canadian taxpayers pay the minister's salary in order to protect those rights.

To vote for this bill would be to reward the laziness of Canada Post's senior management, who are more concerned about their year-end bonuses than about the performance of the service they are required to provide to Canadians.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, first, if I could, I would like to congratulate Toyota. In my riding of Cambridge the workers and the management have actually received recognition as being the number one auto assembly plant in the world.

I want to put forward as well an email that I have received.

I [am] writing to you in a hope that you would help intervene in the CPC/CUPW strike. I want to work; the union is not allowing the membership to vote on the generous offer put forward. Please contact the appropriate member and give them the concerns that many postal workers are unhappy with the union's approach and would like the Gov't or CPC to order a vote.

My question to the member is this. It appears to me that the union has locked out their membership in a very undemocratic way. Will the member support a call to her union bosses and the conductors of the socialist party to demand that the union allow its membership a free vote?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while we were all in the House last night, our leader suggested that negotiations resume and that there be a truce so people could have six months to negotiate in a thorough manner. The lockout has to be stopped and the locks removed.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would just remind all hon. members that questions and comments are directed to the person who has given the presentation.

Does the honourable member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles wish to answer the question?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question. Would it be possible to repeat it? I did not hear the question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

This is a period for questions or comments. That was a comment. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what happened was that my hon. colleague requested to hear the question. Because of the heckling and shouting from the Conservatives, she was not able to hear the question, so she said, “Can I hear the question?”

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

After a speech is given, members have an opportunity to ask a question or make a comment. It is widely misunderstood that there is a requirement that there be a question. There is not. My understanding is that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek actually made a comment rather than pose a question, as he has the right to do.

I would also agree that the noise in the chamber made it difficult for the hon. member to hear.

On questions and comments, we have time for a short question from the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member had time to respond to the comment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

We will try this again.

If the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles wishes, she may answer her colleague.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government must really do something and stop this lockout. That is all the parties are waiting for, to resume negotiations, and the unions are waiting to resume mail delivery. As the member at the far end of the House said, people are waiting for their diapers, their mail and their prescription drugs to be delivered. So it is time everyone started negotiating.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, with a short question, please.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her talk this afternoon, this evening, or today, whatever time it is wherever people are.

The fact is that this is a serious issue for all Canadians. I have had the opportunity to be in management and work with a unionized company and I have also been in a union. I had the unfortunate opportunity to participate in a strike for several weeks, walking around the printing plant for a newspaper, from midnight to 4 a.m. It was not a good experience for anybody involved.

The workers lose on both sides of the perspective. The only winners in this are the union management and the company management. I think the fact is that people are being blamed for locking out or striking when everyone knows it is a work stoppage and we need to resolve this issue. The way to get the locks lifted is to pass this legislation.

Does my hon. colleague not believe that the best way to resolve this issue, to get the workers back to work, is to pass this legislation opening the locks so we can resume the delivery of the mail to small businesses--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must give the hon. member time to respond.

L'honorable députée de Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles a la parole.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, to respond to the hon. member, as he said, it is often the management party that emerges from negotiations or strikes in a winning position. There is a power grab here by the management side, Canada Post.

Second, like the hon. member, I have also managed businesses and conducted negotiations. It was done in another manner, not by lockout. We discussed and re-discussed the issues and we ultimately found a solution.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by doing something that perhaps we should have done a great deal earlier, and that is to recognize and to pay tribute to one of the most well-respected, well-known, brave and dignified labour leaders that this country has ever seen, and I make reference to Jean-Claude Parrot, the former leader of CUPW, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

He led a couple of strikes in the mid-1970s against a draconian situation in probably the most hostile industrial relations environment in recent history. He wound up going to prison for his convictions and his beliefs. I met with JC just a few years ago in Geneva, where he was representing Canada at the ILO.

I raise this because our conversation led to growing trends in his home country, my current country. The name of Thomas d'Aquino came up because we were talking about the driving influences, the dynamics, facing the labour movement and the economy generally today, and that seemed to be the wish list of Thomas d'Aquino, the declaration of Thomas d'Aquino on what Canada needs to do.

He was the unofficial prime minister of Canada. He was guiding things during the 1990s. He had 10 or 12 things that he said Canada must do in order to prosper in the 21st century, et cetera. One by one, he was ticking them off, and right up in the top three was that corporations had to get out from under their legacy costs.

“Legacy costs” is code for pensions. Legacy costs are blamed all the time, even when the auto industry got into trouble recently. They never let a good crisis go to waste. The first thing the industry said was that it was not industry mismanagement and not the fact that the industry builds cars that nobody wants to buy, but the legacy costs. If only the industry could get out from under their legacy costs, said the auto industry, it would be as good as Honda and Toyota.

Jean-Claude Parrot, in his wisdom, flagged this for me as we sat having dinner in Geneva. I have been watching his prescient observations come true, because we have seen an unprecedented assault on the very notion that workers should have an expectation of a reasonable pension plan when they retire. It has been systematically undermined and chipped away at.

Here is the modus operandi. First, we get Thomas d'Aquino, or John Manley now, to say something. He will say that we need to get rid of pensions. Suddenly, a couple of right-wing think tanks come along and validate that. Sure enough, a couple of studies by the Fraser Institute say that we have to get rid of pensions. Then, sure enough, the lobbyists are unleashed; let loose the hounds. The lobbyists descend on Parliament Hill. Suddenly, Tim Powers and Geoff Norquay are on Parliament Hill saying that we have to get rid of pensions.

All of a sudden, a neo-conservative government dutifully falls into line and says that we have to get rid of pensions, although perhaps in a nicer, kinder tone, because villainy wears many masks, as we know, but none so treacherous as the mask of virtue, and the government is good at putting on the mask of virtue when necessary.

We will even see the government use that trick tonight as it tries to misrepresent what is really going on in the lockout at Canada Post. Because this is not really about 0.5 of 1% of a wage increase for one of the three years; that in and of itself would probably not be enough to cause an impasse in a national institution. What this is really about is the systematic erosion of a public service pension plan and the benefits and the expectations of that group of workers. They chose to take on Canada Post because, frankly, it has been an irritant for years. It has been a very militant union, and as I said, it is one of the most volatile industrial relations environments in the western world. It has been a sick, sick environment, and I am the first to recognize this.

There was a fragile balance. After the extremely hostile days of the seventies, a relative labour peace, a compact, as it were, was managed, and that survived until about the time the Liberals started demanding that Canada Post pay the government dividends. All of a sudden, the mandate of Canada Post was expanded to not just delivering mail on time and providing good service and reasonable postal rates, but to paying millions of dollars per year into the general revenue.

That is when the government started milking it like a cash cow. That is when the pension started to get starved, et cetera. This has been a problem throughout, but Canada Post did manage to get relative labour peace for a number of years, until Moya Greene was parachuted in. Moya Greene tried to change the corporate culture at Canada Post, but then most recently the government went head hunting.

This is one of the problems with not having a public appointments commission. They went head hunting for a corporate hitman who would come in and do the really dirty work, who would really throw a spanner into the gears of industrial relations, who would stir things up to the point where we would have this impasse and the difficulty we see today.

It is the same as in the movie Wag the Dog. One manufactures a crisis and then points to the crisis and says that the only thing to do is to use the extreme measure of privatization. It is not paranoid to assume that is the ultimate goal here. I have watched the reaction every time we raise it. All those people on the Conservative benches nod their heads saying, “Well, what is wrong with that? It's a given, isn't it? We are going to privatize it sooner or later. We might as well start now”.

Frankly, most of the country does not agree with privatizing Canada Post.

They parachuted in this hitman, Deepak Chopra, not the guru with the incense and all that stuff, but the other one, the corporate hitman. They parachuted him in at $650,000 a year plus a 33% bonus for everything he can squeeze out of the workers in this round of bargaining. That is pretty good change for the CEO of this company.

We had an expression in the labour movement when I was negotiating agreements that we do not want tourists at the bargaining table. We do not want tourists, but we surely do not want an agent provocateur. We surely do not want a saboteur at the bargaining table who is going to deliberately undermine things, deliberately provoke a conflict and then have the government of the day run to the rescue to put the fire out. They threw a bucket of kerosene on the smouldering embers of an old historic labour dispute and then came rushing in with the fire brigade saying, “Put out the fire with back-to-work legislation. It is a lockout, more hose, more pressure. We need more steam”. It is crazy.

I represent the riding of Winnipeg Centre. In 1921 the Government of Canada wanted to lock up J. S. Woodsworth as a leader of the 1919 Winnipeg general strike, but the good people of my riding sent him to Ottawa instead to be their member of Parliament. He stayed there for 21 years and became the founder and first leader of our old party, the CCF, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I am very proud of that history and that tradition, and we are not going to stop that tradition today no matter what we call our party, because we smell a rat in the woodpile.

This is not a normal labour dispute. There is something sinister going on here, and it is not paranoid to assume that. I keep seeing nodding heads on that side every time we imply that what the Conservatives are really trying to do is find justification to privatize this crown corporation either by starving it to death or using it as a cash cow.

It is really hard to understand why there would be an impasse for a cost of living wage increase when the company showed $281 million in profits last year and similar amounts in previous years. This is a stable work environment. The company has shed a lot of labour costs by technological change so its operating costs are actually going down even though its capital costs went up to put in new mail sorting services et cetera.

It does a good job. It is a Canadian institution that we value and treasure. We are not going to let those institutions by which we define ourselves as Canadians be dismantled one by one.

The labour compact in the postwar years led to relative labour peace and an end to wildcat strikes. The deal was when productivity was up and profits were up, workers' wages would go up. That was the deal, and that deal has been eroded and compromised.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I must say I always look forward to the member opposite's grasp of theatre. It is very interesting to listen to some of his comments, and his use of hyperbole is absolutely astounding. However, the factual content is somewhat worrisome.

The facts are that on May 2, this country elected a strong, stable Conservative majority government. Canadians elected a strong, stable majority Conservative government because they had confidence that our government could handle the economic downturn that we are coming out of in such a fragile economy.

Is the member aware that Canada Post is losing $25 million a day from this strike, this lockout? Is he aware that the economic downturn is not helped by what is happening right now? Is he willing to pass Bill C-6 and encourage his caucus comrades to do that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, when we form the first strong, stable majority progressive social democratic government, we would probably pick up the phone and tell Deepak Chopra to cut the bolts on Canada Post's doors. My colleague comes from Winnipeg, and we know that every kid on the street there has a bolt cutter so he can steal bikes. We could borrow one of those bolt cutters and cut the padlocks off Canada Post to get its workers back to work.

Actually, what Canada Post is saving in wages probably offsets anything it is losing in terms of mail volume. However, the fact remains that the solution to this problem is not back to work legislation. The solution to the problem is to accept the offer of the union to go back to work without any rotating strikes, which it has offered to do, which could happen tomorrow morning if the Conservative government told its flunky, Deepak Chopra, to unlock the padlocks.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I too enjoyed the member's remarks and I agree with his last question. It is funny how in this legislation there is really nothing to cut back the massive bonuses that management gets. It is all taken out on the workers.

My question really relates to an area that I know the member is very concerned about. Earlier, the member for Peterborough got up in the House and went after the NDP strenuously in trying to argue that the workers were not allowed the right to vote on the contract. Is that not a major contradiction with what his own party is trying to do when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board? The government is denying farmers the right to vote on whether the wheat board remains or not. Is that not a major contradiction?

I ask the member if he could maybe explain that to the House and to the member for Peterborough?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It does seem to be a glaring contradiction, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate my colleague for raising the question. Let me just answer on a serious note.

The strike mandate given to the bargaining committee at Canada Post was the biggest in its history. Some 97.5% of all the employees gave a strike mandate to the bargaining committee, because they were told there were rollbacks on the table from the company and the mandate was there. It is customary, actually, to negotiate the best deal possible and then take it to the employees.

The lack of democracy here, or the undermining of the industrial relations process, comes from the heavy hand of the state imposing its will on a democratic process and a constitutionally protected process of free collective bargaining.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, I would like to advise hon. members that if they want to be recognized, they ought to wait until they are recognized to make their comments. Otherwise, they will wait for a long time to speak.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how I always draw the short straw, but I always seem to speak after my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre, so I will try to have as much theatrics in my speech as my hon. colleague did.

Before I begin, I would like to wish all Quebeckers and francophones right across the country, but specifically those celebrating in my riding of Sudbury, and especially my wife, Yolanda, and my two daughters, Trinity and Thea, a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Bonne fête nationale.

I speak today with much worry, worry for working families in this country. I worry for people like Todd and Chris and Conway and Steve, as I have spoken to them about their concerns. They worry that their invitations to an important event tomorrow are stuck in the postal outlet.

While today we are fighting for the workers at Canada Post, tomorrow I worry that it could be another union, another working group, or other public sectors workers. Who is next?

Today's debate is to fight for all Canadian working families.

The attacks on Canada's postal workers may not be as bold as what is happening to public service workers in the United States, but they have started. They are as deeply rooted in an ideology as what we have seen south of the border. A troubling aspect of these attacks, whether they are happening in the U.S., in Canada, or anywhere else around the world, is the skewed portrayal of workers.

As Paul Moist outlines,

The large majority of public-sector workers are in health care, schools, social services, and local government. They are mostly women and are far from highly paid.Of the over 600,000 members of CUPE, the average annual pay is less than $40,000.

It takes a certain amount of gall to portray these workers as privileged.

Attacking the workers and attempting to put all responsibility on workers is at best a mistake and is at worst an all-out assault on the middle and working classes.

However, as the current government, try as it might, attacks these workers, people across the country cannot seem to figure out exactly why pensions and good wages are so bad for Canada and why this government is against letting families have a decent living. Why would they legislate lower wages? It is unfair, let alone unjust, and I would encourage the government to withdraw this from the bill.

First, contrary to what various Canada Post management officials are claiming, postal workers are not a cost of production that is some kind of burden on taxpayers. Postal workers, through their labour, create tremendous new value in the economy, just as miners do and just as other transportation and communication workers do. Indeed, as a crown corporation, Canada Post has consistently made a profit over the last few years, despite the fact that electronic mail usage has grown significantly. The contribution of postal workers to the creation of this new value should be praised and not belittled.

That is why I want to praise the CUPW Sudbury Local 612. On Monday, this local volunteered to deliver government cheques to seniors and others in my community, and 5,600 government cheques were delivered, despite the workers having been locked out.

While my colleagues on the other side have called the union members thugs, I would like to mention that the union members in my community and the union members right across the country work hard for their local charities. I can attest that they work for the United Way, for the food bank, and for cancer care. Our union members care about their communities and care about their country, and we reject the idea that they are thugs.

We are seeing the effects of slashing workers' wages, pensions, and benefits in quite dramatic form, but for the CEOs, the story is quite different.

The compensation for the CEO of Canada Post is approved by the President of the Treasury Board. For the last four years, the salary of Canada Post's CEO was as follows:

In 2007, the base salary was $455,000, plus a 25% bonus, equalling $568,750. In 2008, it was $482,000, plus a 33% bonus, or an 8 percentage point increase in bonuses from one year to the next. In 2009, it was $489,700, plus a 33% bonus. In 2010, it $497,100 in base pay, plus a 33% bonus, totalling $661,143.

What does this government offer? It offers 1.75% in the first year, 1.5% in the second year, and 2% in each of the next two years. Obviously, the CEO has the support of this government, not the workers of Canada.

As Dan Charbonneau, the president of OECTA's Sudbury Secondary Unit, wrote to me, he could not believe the legislation being brought in by the Conservatives dictating that they had to return to work. Mr. Charbonneau added:

This government has gone one step further by tilting the arbitration in management's favour by imposing wage increases that are less than those already negotiated at the table.

As was mentioned before, it is unfair and unjust to legislate lower wages. Why would this government not withdraw this from the bill? That is a question we are still trying to understand.

In summary, this is not a strike but a lockout imposed by management and the Conservative government. The government is now imposing a contract on the workers. This is not fair collective bargaining. Along with all New Democrats, I will work hard to ensure that the government recognizes the importance of fair and negotiated contracts.

If the Conservatives are so concerned about mail service for Canadians, especially in rural areas, including ones that fall in my riding around Sudbury, in Nickel Belt and throughout the north, then end this lockout now.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had tonnes of communication from residents in the City of Barrie who are concerned about the strike and how it is affecting small businesses and the economy. I am surprised how one-sided it has been. People have been adamant that we need to see postal workers get back to work to make sure that we do not damage small business and that the seniors we have spoken about get their cheques across Canada, not just in Sudbury.

One letter I thought was very telling. It spoke to me of the many different ways Canadians are affected by the NDP's inability to support this very important legislation and how this filibuster is hurting Canadians. I want to find out what the hon. member thinks about this and if there are similar circumstances in his riding of people being affected.

This is the letter I received today, whose author asked if I would read it. Debbie from Barrie, who is restricted in a wheelchair, asked me to pass it on. She said: “I read your information about Canada Post. I really hope this gets resolved soon with the back to work legislation. My older brother passed away June 6 and he was cremated in Ottawa and his ashes are stuck in the mail. I am sick about this. We had a service Monday without his ashes. Thank you for trying to pass the back to work legislation”.

That was a message sent today. I couldn't believe it. I bet there are hundreds and hundreds of examples of Canadians who are being tremendously affected by the NDP's inability to support this legislation.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course there are many people being affected right across the country. However, it is in the hands of this government.

The hon. member knows that he could easily talk to his colleagues and that they could make the phone call to ensure that locks are cut at the doors of Canada Post, so that the employees could go back to work and distribute the mail. This is a very easy solution. They just have to make the right choice, and they continue to make the wrong choice.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, what has been unfortunate in this debate—it is not a filibuster, it has been a debate—is that the Conservatives have been trying to tell Canadians that the mail has been stopped because of the New Democratic Party. We know what has actually happened is that they locked out the workers and they shut down Canada Post. They introduced legislation last night, and even if it had passed the mail still would not have started today

We have at no time stopped this. Mail is not going to start again until Monday, so that gives us 48 hours to discuss this. It seems to me that the only people who would be discomfited by having to work the weekend to find a solution would maybe be some of the Conservatives. We have been saying all along that we are more than willing to find a solution.

We have 48 hours within this House. Of course it will go past that if they do not want to negotiate.

However, given the fact that the Conservatives have promised again and again that their primary concern is getting the mail running, I would ask my hon. colleague whether he does not think that in this 48 hours before Monday morning they could take a few reasonable steps: for one, sending a message to open Canada Post, and two, ensuring that it pulls the wage clause out of the back to work legislation. They could then go home to the barbecues and the mail would run.

In 48 hours, do members not think we could solve this?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been in this House for three years, and it has been an honour to do so. I have seen this House come together and work as one team to pass legislation quickly.

We have the opportunity, if the government so chooses, to withdraw that unjust and unfair wage reduction legislation and to cut the locks off the doors so the workers of Canada Post can go back there to start getting the mail out.

If the Conservatives want to do this, I am sure we can get this done. They can get back to their barbecues and the mail can get out by Monday.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to wish everyone in my constituency of Pontiac and in Quebec a happy national holiday.

I have listened closely to the debate over the past 18 or 20 hours and have come to the conclusion that it is a debate about the role of government in civil society. On that issue, I believe this government must be reminded of the history it seems so easily to disregard. That is odd for a conservative party.

The 19th century proved that unbridled capitalism was unrealistic. We have learned that we cannot rely on the good faith of big business and management when it comes to workers' conditions. There are good reasons why we have unions. I would remind the government that the higher the degree of capitalism, the more abuses there are. Sometimes the “big bosses” decided all issues for workers, sometimes even life and death matters.

The work week in the 19th century varied from 60 to 70 hours. It was 60 hours in the secondary sector and 70 hours in the tertiary sector. Fifteen-hour days were not unusual. Workers generally did not even have enough time to eat. Children made up 8% of the labour force in Quebec in 1891 and were such cheap labour that demand exceeded supply. They worked to the point of exhaustion in unsanitary conditions, exposed to all risks and without supervision. It was in those extremely difficult conditions that workers established unions to protect themselves from the vagaries of the new, impersonal labour market.

Although the first unions were small, local organizations, they immediately triggered hostile reactions from governments and employers. Governments in fact declared the unions illegal. Union movement sympathizers were blacklisted and constantly subjected to intimidation. That is why legislation was introduced to protect workers. Despite the strength of this opposition, the poor wages and the dangerous working conditions, strikes and protests increased, and the unions became established. It is a heroic story, I think.

The government often played a negative role in this story, and we have learned a great deal about the nature of government thanks to the union movement. The dark hours in the history of the union movement show that the role of the state should be to protect its citizens and to remain neutral in labour-management disputes, but, instead of remaining neutral, this government shows contempt for workers and their hard-won rights.

The truth is that the workers of this country and of the world, the ancestors of the vast majority of us, have bled for the right to organize and protect themselves.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes last week. They have a right to do that. The union nevertheless offered to end the strike if the company allowed the old contract remain in effect during the negotiations, but Canada Post refused to do so.

At midnight on June 15, Canada Post decided to lock out its employees and to shut down mail service. That is no longer a strike; it is a lockout, an unjustifiable lockout because Canada post is profitable and provides high-quality service.

Let us compare the cost of sending a letter in Canada with the alternatives in the private sector. We pay 59¢ to mail a standard letter. In Germany, it costs 77¢, in Austria it is 88¢, and in the Netherlands it is 64¢. Therefore, why put workers into a corner and force them to accept concessions regarding their salaries and benefits, when the corporation is making $381 million in profits and its CEO is paid over $600,000? It does not make any sense.

It is difficult not to conclude that Canada Post is taking a hard line, to the point of putting services in peril, particularly in rural and remote areas such as mine. Again, the role of the state is to remain neutral and to facilitate an agreement. It is not to side with the employer.

I, like many others in the House, have heard concerns from constituents in my riding about receiving cheques and payments. These concerns are well-founded, but the reality is that they are not caused by striking workers.

The rotating strikes by CUPW were designed to ensure that the essential mail was delivered, but Canada Post has chained the doors. The workers cannot get in to do their essential work. They did not ask for this. Canadians did not ask for this.

I invite Canadians and the people of my riding to see the situation for what it is: a tactic on behalf of Canada Post and the government to exert pressure. Instead of acting to bring both parties back to the table and restore good faith, the government has chosen this labour dispute to stomp on the rights of all workers.

It is Canada Post and the government which have attacked the most vulnerable. It is this lockout and this bill. They are the ones depriving single mothers of their monthly child tax benefit cheques. They are the ones depriving seniors of receiving their GIS or OAS payments. They are the ones depriving Canadians who depend on CPP disability benefit payments and low-income Canadians waiting on tax return cheques or, in the case of some of my constituents, their disability cheques and business payments, both of which Canada Post refuses to give them. Those are tactics.

We should also realize that this legislation is not an accident. The fact that the first great labour battle with the government is with CUPW is not an accident. I, for one, salute the great work postal workers have done in the past to ensure social progress in our country. They have been at the forefront of many progressive struggles.

CUPW was the first Canadian union to pass a boycott resolution against South African apartheid. It has also taken stances against the Iraq war, as well as against NAFTA and FTAA. CUPW is also a major reason why we have maternity leave benefits in our country.

If the government is neutral, as it repeats ad nauseam, as if repeating it will make it true, why impose a lower wage than offered by the management of Canada Post in the bill. This goes against the entire principle of collective bargaining. We call for this section of the bill to be removed immediately.

Finally, I will add my voice to that of my colleagues. Take the locks off and give Canada Post workers a decent wage, decent pensions and dignity.

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

Madam Speaker, there has certainly been an awful lot of mischaracterizations about what is going on and how we have arrived at this point. The member in the official opposition continued along that route. He indicated that he thought this was a provocative action in many ways and that it never should have happened.

However, there was no talk of how Canada Post significantly had suffered economically through the rotating strikes, especially when it culminated in Toronto and Montreal. It indicated that some $100 million had been lost by Canada Post. That money belongs not just to the workers of Canada Post, but to all Canadians. That $100 million is real and it really did not have a choice.

This is the position that Canada Post and its workers are in, but it made an offer just last week. The members across the way have constantly talked about the wages in that offer and it seems they are prepared to accept it on behalf of the Canada Post workers. Is that what everyone else is hearing? That is what I am hearing.

I certainly never called CUPW members thugs. I said the union bosses are thugs, the ones that go to Fiji and Maui on—

[An hon. member]

Union dues.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes, on union dues. Why will they not allow their members to vote on that contract?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting his statistics, but Canada Post has made $381 million. One would think that it could pay a decent wage to the workers and ensure pensions. The CEO is making close to $600,000 a year. There are 55,000 postal workers in this country who should have a decent wage and a decent pension, and Canada Post can afford it.

[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]

If we are going to have--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am assuming further to the comments that have been made.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We have at least another 48 hours before Monday comes. I ask the member for Peterborough to withdraw his comment, which he just made when he sat down, where he called people “union thugs”. I am sure the people who work in Peterborough are not union thugs. I would like him to withdraw that comment.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

On the same point of order, earlier I asked for unanimous consent to table a document from a local postal worker in Peterborough who I support, who actually referred to the union management as “union thugs”. I asked for unanimous consent to table it. Can I have it now?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

There is no unanimous consent.

Order, please.

I was unable to hear the comments from either the parliamentary secretary or the hon. member because of the shouting and the heckling, so I would ask everybody to calm down and listen to each other so that we can have a more respectful debate.

Is there a question now? I have lost track.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou has the floor for a question.

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

Madam Speaker, I am certainly going to please members opposite by pointing out that the current lockout does indeed have a significant economic impact. That impact is not just related to the shutting down of postal services, but also to the imposition of certain working conditions on postal workers.

Mr. Stephen Jarislowsky, who manages a $46 billion investment fund, said he was worried about the current economic situation, where the natural resources sector is dominant. He compared this situation to the housing bubble in the United States.

Does the hon. member think that a good negotiated settlement would be a better solution to ensure good working conditions and retirement benefits for our workers, while also ensuring our economic viability?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Of course, Madam Speaker, but first we must act in good faith. We must start off on the right foot and resume negotiations.

How can it be done when the government imposes salary increases that are less than those offered by the employer? It is impossible. The first thing to do is to ensure that workers' interests are protected, so that we can then sit at the table and resume negotiations in a respectful fashion.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, five months ago the Prime Minister of the Conservative government appointed the president and CEO of Canada Post. He gave the president and CEO a half a million dollar salary and a 33% bonus. That means he earns more than three-quarters of a million dollars a year.

Five months later, on June 3, this CEO cut off the drug coverage and other benefits of all employees, which includes those on sick leave and disability insurance. Ten days after that he locked out 48,000 workers. While they are locked out, he continues to get his salary and bonus every day, and that is more than $2,000 per day. Meanwhile, of course, the workers do not get their salary.

Why does a CEO kick out the workers and prevent them from working, you might want to ask, especially given that the company has made, in the last 15 years, $1.7 billion. They are not losing money. It has been profitable. In fact, their profit has come back to the taxpayers of Canada. Remember, the first mandate of Canada Post is to deliver services, to deliver mail universally to everyone in Canada. That is their mandate, not just to make money for us. But they do make money.

Let me contrast that with a letter carrier. The hourly rate for new workers is $19 per hour. That is what is being offered. The current starting rate for workers before this was $23.11, and the maximum dollar amount per hour is $24.15. The offer on the table, given by the CEO of the post office, appointed by the Prime Minister, is 1.9%.

Now remember, the CEO, on average, over the last few years, has received a 4% salary increase. He gets a 4% increase. The annual average rate of inflation is 3.3%. This worker is given 1.9%. The Conservative Party, with the Prime Minister, is rubbing salt on the wound and saying, no, 1.9% is too high; let us lower it to 1.5%. That is what this legislation is all about, lowering the wages that were offered by Canada Post from 1.9% to 1.5%. I do not know how these members of Parliament can justify that.

A letter carrier carries up to 35 pounds. I would challenge any member of Parliament on the opposite side to carry 35 pounds of mail in all kinds of weather--snow, sleet, rain. Do it, and do it for 35 years and see what happens to you.

Let me tell you what happens to the post office workers, the sorters and the mail delivery people. One out of ten of them are injured on the job--one out of 10. That is three times more severe, on average, in terms of injury than any worker in Ontario. This kind of injury is three times more serious.

In all of last year, 6,335 incidents of injury were reported, with close to 3,000 workers being disabled because of injuries. What kinds of injuries? There were 27 concussions, one amputation, one electric shock, 91 fractures, three frostbites, 325 bruises, and 978 sprains. Over 1,000 workers in pain, all in the last year.

These are our public servants that we are talking about. They are not thugs. They are our workers. They deliver service to our public.

Where were they hurt? There have been 405 who have hurt their ankles and 579 who have injured their lower backs. Can anyone imagine carrying that weight? There were 302 of them who have injured their knees, hundreds have injured their hands and wrists, and 10 have injured their lungs and other internal organs.

How were they hurt? They slip. They trip. They fall. They are hit by trucks, cars and carts. They are assaulted. And there were 87 workers who were bitten, stung and scratched by animals and insects. It is not an easy job. It is a dangerous job.

There are many ways for a post office to make money. With regard to postal banking, for example, New Zealand and Italy introduced it. Now, a few years later, 30% of the revenue comes from postal banking, representing 70% of their profits.

There are many ways to make sure that Canada Post is financially viable and that it continues to make a profit. They have to think creatively and try something new rather than targeting the workers. The job of a postal worker is really difficult.

I want to read a letter from a constituent of mine. He is a concerned Canadian, not a postal worker.

He said, “If Canada's economic action plan is delivering results to Canadians and supporting job creation, it does not make sense to support a contract by Canada Post that would hurt Canadians and risk the elimination of thousands of jobs. This is a time when we should be strengthening Canadian jobs and the Canadian economy, especially those jobs that provide a vital service across our nation. As the economy improves, concessionary demands by management should be dropped. Demands for cuts in benefits for new hires, lower rates for current temporary employees, and the replacement of sick leave with personal days and a weak short-term disability plan sharply undermine the hard work of CUPW members and the maintenance of a quality public postal service. Canada Post's behaviour has been unethical and very discouraging. Please ask Canada Post to stop the cuts and accept CUPW's offer. The parties should negotiate a fair contract. It should not be forced by legislation.”

Another note said, “Canada Post should not be allowed to stop mail delivery. The Corporation is responsible for an essential service.”

They want to remind me, and all members of Parliament, that the union was willing to continue to deliver mail on a rotating basis while the negotiations continued. The postal workers are willing to work if the doors are opened.

Given how dangerous their jobs are, and given how little they are paid compared to the CEO who earns 14 times more than they make, what we should do today is to show some respect to the hard-working, beloved postal workers. Let us open the doors. Let them work.

Stop the lockout now and bring them back to their jobs so they can continue to deliver an essential service to all Canadians.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Trinity—Spadina for her lecture on why, in her opinion, the class war continues in Canada.

Before that, we had the member for Pontiac, who has unfortunately departed, giving us a speech—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that anyone should talk about whether a person is absent or present in this House. I could start naming all the people who are absent, but I do not think that is allowed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member. That is accurate.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

I apologize for that.

Madam Speaker, the member for Pontiac also gave us his version of an address to the 15th plenum of the communist party of some country. I have never heard an attack so absolutely outrageous and bombastic against capitalism. He called our system of market economy “savage capitalism”. It takes me back to my days in Moscow.

What we really need to know from the hon. member is if she will extend the same concern for injuries of non-unionized workers to the injuries of business people who are not receiving their mail because of the blockage her party has brought about in this Parliament. Will she express the same concern for the injuries of the Canadian Forces, fighting for our country in Afghanistan? Or is she going to simply focus on continuing to block--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I am concerned about the injuries of all workers.

I want to read a note. This is from a postal worker from Peterborough:

I am not sending this e-mail to my member of Parliament...as it is clear by his behaviour in Parliament that he is against unions and it would only hit his trash bin as fast as back-to-work legislation hit the floor. My MP only adds to our burden by sending us 20-plus meaningless unaddressed ad mails per year. Please do not let this current Bill C-6 pass.

I think that the very insulting lowering of wages being offered from 1.9% to 1.5% should be withdrawn. That is what is in front of us.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

On a point of order, the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has just referred to a document. I would request that the member table that document.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the member wish to ask for unanimous consent to table the document?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have this in front of me. I could send it in, but I think I require unanimous consent.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Just to be clear, there was no unanimous consent on that, and I have asked the hon. member for Churchill to speak.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, if a member refers to a document, as the member did, and it is asked that it be tabled, with all due respect, I do not believe that unanimous consent is required, because the person who read the document has simply to say no and no documents would be tabled.

Therefore, there is no requirement for unanimous consent when a member asks that a document referred to be tabled. I suggest, with respect, that the member has no choice but to table it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Indeed, except for ministers, any member who wishes to table a document must seek and obtain the unanimous consent of the House to do so.

I think we will move on from this point of order.

The hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned by some of the questioning in the House that has this light humourous tone. After about 24 hours of debating this issue, we should all recognize how serious it is and give the respect that is owed to the people on the picket lines fighting for rights that we all ought to have as Canadian workers.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to elaborate on the point she raised about the draconian nature of this legislation. The government has taken a position that it will go farther than Canada Post, farther than management, and give workers who are doing nothing more than asking for a fair wage less than what management has put on the table. What does she think about this measure?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the inflation rate is 3.3%. The union is asking to catch up with the cost of living. This is not unreasonable. The CEO of Canada Post, who was appointed by the Prime Minister, offered 1.9%. However, this legislation would give them 1.5%, lowering that by 0.4%. That is a complete insult.

This means that if a party goes to negotiate, they need not worry, the Conservative government would not only legislate them back to work, it would actually lower the wage increase. This approach would create even more labour conflict.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to rise in the House during debate, I will take the opportunity to thank the voters of Halifax who voted me back with a very strong mandate to represent all the constituents in the riding.

For those political trivia buffs, such as the member for Winnipeg Centre, it is an interesting fun fact to know that I was elected with more votes of any member since Robert Stanfield. That is not bad for a New Democrat.

I am here representing the constituents of Halifax, regardless of whether they voted for me, I have had a lot of contact from constituents since we started this debate in the House, and actually since hours after the rolling strikes began and the government announced in the House that it would introduce back to work legislation.

It is the constituents' voices that we are missing. We are doing a good job, standing up for the workers and for Canadians, but their voices are missing. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to bring their voices to this chamber, to this magnificent place, and actually share with hon. members what they are saying in my riding. Some of them are postal workers, some are not, but they all care deeply about this issue.

I will start with a letter I received from Thomas Beazely. He wrote:

My name is Thomas Beazely and I am a lettercarrier and 29 year employee of Canada Post in Halifax. I urge honorable members here today to reject the legislation before you. Remove this unjust act that impedes the ability for our union and Canada Post to negotiate a fair agreement for both parties. Allow history to show that government allows collective bargaining to resolve issues and does not permit legislation to tip the scales and handcuff the Rights of workers and labour in Canada. Let the record show that all parties here today worked together to make the playing field level so that Canada Post is forced to negotiate in good faith. This has not been the case thus far. We the workers, I a lettercarrier, want to do our work. We want to serve the citizens of this great country, we want to deliver the mail. We did everything we could to ensure our service was maintained with as little disruption to the public as possible while attempting to force Canada Post to negotiate in good faith. They have hidden behind the promise of legislation and today hide behind the act of legislation. They caused the loss of service to our customers and now should not be allowed to hide behind the misleading information they are providing to our customers. Let “nay” be the vote that carries at the end of the debate, let history show all parties are concerned about workers rights. Thank you for your time....

I have another letter I received from a constituent named Scott Mason. He writes:

...I am a mail carrier for Canada Post. I strongly oppose the back to work legislation because it gives the corporation a way out of bargaining in good faith. Why should Canada Post negotiate when they know the Gov't. t is going to side with them anyway. We started out with rolling strikes to put some pressure on the Corp. and very little on the public. We do not have any problem with the public, as a matter of fact we have been getting overwhelming support from the public. If we do not have the right to fair negotiations, what kind of future will we and our families have? What about future generations? It seems like we are going backwards! If the majority of the population is only making minimum wage, where will are economy be? The Prime Minister would be wise to think real hard about this situation, because there is a lot of unions in this country with a lot of votes. We are not asking for the moon, we just want a fair deal. We were ready and willing to deliver the mail, and still are. Now if the Prime Minister would legislate Canada Post to let us get back to doing our jobs, which many of us love and make them negotiate, he would earn a lot of respect.

The next letter is actually from someone in my riding who I know is not a postal worker. In fact, he is a scientist but he wrote to me because he cares about this issue as well.

His name is Chris Majka, and he writes:

A just and democratic society is one that knows how to hear and balance the voices, ideals, and legitimate concerns of all its citizens. The right to collective bargaining by unions representing working people, are an essential component of how modern, progressive, democratic societies work. These rights were hard fought for, and represent a significant triumph for citizens, not only of Canada, but also of nations throughout the world where the principles of civil society are respected. They ensure that working people have a right to be heard with respect to legitimate concerns relating to the conditions of their employment and the remuneration they receive. But they also represent something even more important--dignity. The dignity that is every person's birthright. Dignity to be respected as an individual, as a human being with fundamental rights--and not simply as a mechanical cog within an administrative or corporate machine.

And these rights must also not be toothless. Where collective bargaining fails to achieve a mutually acceptable consensus, unions, and the members they represent, must have the right to withdraw their services, and strike for what they believe in. Without this capacity collective bargaining pales into insignificance. Unions must be able to take a principled position on the picket lines, literally standing for what they believe. Except in demonstrably dire circumstances, this right to collectively bargain should not be abrogated by government.

Forcing workers back to work needlessly muddies the waters of collective bargaining. It disenfranchises workers from the fundamental rights of every person to have to have a role in determining the conditions, circumstances, and remuneration under which they offer their services to an employer.

I submit that in the case of the current [lockout] by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, there is no dire threat to Canada of the sort that would warrant the federal government passing back-to-work legislation.

I urge the Canadian government to respect the rights of workers, to respect the principles of collective bargaining, to respect the right of unions to undertake legal strike action, and to drop its plans to pass such legislation. Canadians from all walks of life are looking to see if this government intends to impose governance on its citizens, or work in concert with them. This is the time to demonstrate good faith and show a commitment to respectful civil society.

Actually, I feel like I could not have said this better myself. People have written really passionate letters and it is a real privilege to be able to bring their voices to the fore.

In the time I have left, I would like to read a little bit from Jim Guild in Halifax. He wrote:

Any fair-minded parliamentarian would have to rise and speak forcefully against the legislation forcing postal workers back to work. Any law that so precipitously and unnecessarily takes away the democratic right of workers to lawfully withdraw their labour would be reprehensible. But this Act is so flagrantly one-sided in favour of the employer -- Canada Post -- that it does discredit to even this Conservative government. And this is a government that most Canadians expect to be unfair and unreasonable.

Not only is the legislation an attack on public sector workers, it is a disrespectful assault on the very public service upon which Canadians rely. This is particularly true for Canadians who live outside our urban areas.

It is a slap in the faces of the very workers who created the Canada Post profits these past years that have flowed directly to the Canadian government coffers. And it insults every new employee before they have even start working for Canada Post.

This is the [Prime Minister's] gift that keeps on taking.

So I encourage any Parliamentarian to do whatever they can to delay, if not prevent, the enactment of this short-sighted and mean-spirited legislation.

As I said, those are the voices of people from my riding who I represent. I think they have put it just beautifully. I urge the government to start acting reasonably, take the locks off the doors and let the two parties negotiate and put an end to this lockout.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recognize the hon. member's passion in her comments but her comments are misguided and reflect her party's focus on narrow interests and even a narrower vision.

We have heard from Canadians overwhelmingly that the government wants us to act on their behalf and expects us to because of the strong mandate that they have entrusted us with. We will not break faith with the Canadian people.

Why can the member opposite and her party not join us in supporting the broader interests of all Canadians?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, Carole Woodhall, from the riding of Halifax, has the perfect answer to that question. She writes to us on the NDP side and says:

Thank you for your support of postal workers who have exercised their legitimate rights to bargain for a fair collective agreement. It would be a grave disservice to postal workers for the government to interfere in the collective bargaining process. The parties should be left to work out their differences without government intervention. What is the emergency? Postal workers were willing and ready to deliver cheques as they had done in past labour disputes during the 1990s.

This is a lockout and nothing else. It is time for Canada Post to cut the locks off.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am getting tired of hearing about special interests whenever it refers to working people across this country.

This debate today is not about just unionized workers. This debate is about all workers. If we want to talk about special interests, we could talk about a government that instead of telling Canada Post to open the doors so workers can deliver the mail, it introduces legislation which introduces a lower salary than that offered by Canada Post. So talk about special interests. Members across the aisle have a special interest, and that special interest is attacking working people.

I would like to ask my colleague to make a comment.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would like to bring up something that a constituent from Halifax wrote to me that directly relates to this question. She says:

“Postal workers have always wanted to continue to deliver the mail and have showed up daily to do so only to be turned back at the door. I ask you, how can the government legislate us back to work when we have never chosen to leave work or strike? I urge you to do what you can to squash this motion, have us legislated back to work and instead a motion that Canada Post be ordered to come back to the bargaining table to work on a fair and collective contract. We employees are not trying to be difficult or impede or inconvenience the Canadian public by demanding that we be treated fairly and with respect, and along with the help of the NDP and others in the House who realize this is wrong, we will continue to fight for justice”.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that my colleague has been reading letters from her constituents talking about the postal strike. I would like to read something from a constituent of mine who is an employer in the area. He says:

“As a business owner in your constituency, I am part of an industry that employs over 58,000 Canadians, and when you consider family members relying on those employees has an impact on some 150,000 Canadians in total. As you can appreciate, in addition to our loss of business, the impact on the cashflow for all small business is an extreme hardship we can ill-afford to face in these challenging times”.

What does the hon. member say to 150,000 Canadians who are in danger of losing their livelihood?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I certainly hope the member's constituent is watching right now, because I would like him to understand that it is her party and her government that has put the locks on the doors. The postal workers have said that they will go back to the table and bargain, but it is her government that put the locks on the doors.

I hope that all the businesses in her riding realize that it is that member's responsibility and that the losses that they are suffering are a result of her party's actions.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a different tack here today in this debate.

We have asked for a debate on what we call the six-month hoist. We heard the leader of the opposition last night give what I would have to say was one of the most magnificent speeches that I have ever heard in this chamber. It probably qualifies as one of the most magnificent speeches ever given in this chamber. He talked about the history of Canada and of the rights of people and of improvements to the lot in life for all Canadians that have been brought about over many years. He put the current situation in that context.

I want to talk a little bit about that. I am going to quote from a letter I received. It is a very moderate letter. I don't know where this individual lives in Canada, but he is a Canadian. He says:

Thank you for defending a fair settlement in the Canada Post Lock-out!

That sounds very bland, and it sounds like something we would expect to see happen. We would expect to see our government promote, and our laws designed to promote, a fair settlement of what is a dispute over a collective agreement. Collective agreement and collective bargaining rights are enshrined in our law. They are constitutionally protected rights. They are rights that are contained in the universal declaration of human rights. We brag about how we are a rights-based society under the rule of law. The rule of law includes the constitutional rules and constitutionally protected rights.

What he says here is,

Thank you so much for your strong stand in Parliament. It makes me proud to be a Canadian when I see that our politicians make personal sacrifices to protect workers in this country.

It makes me feel proud to be recognized that this indeed is what we are doing, protecting workers. From what? In this case from legislation that strips their rights to bargain collectively, that says to them, when they seek to improve by a bargaining position, “Here is what we would like and here is what you would like. Let's bargain. Let's talk about it. Let's trade proposals back and forth. Let's exercise our right to withdraw our labour.” In this case it was through a series of rotating strikes to bring attention to their circumstances and their demands.

What do we have? We have a government agency shut the doors. Now, within days, I think it was two days later, the government gave notice of this legislation. When the legislation comes, what does it do? It says, well, we do not really care about the bargaining that went on. We know that this company that produced a profit of $186 million made an offer to the workers based on its bargaining stance and other conditions. What does the government do? It passes legislation that says, no, you are going back to work, and you are going back to work for less than the company had offered you during collective bargaining.

That cannot be other than taking away the constitutionally protected rights of workers to bargain collectively, because they were bargaining collectively and the government said, no, we are not going to allow this bargaining to take place; in fact, we are going to interfere with this and order them back to work and order an agreement to be put in place--I would not call it an agreement, because it is not an agreement, but order a contract to be put in place that is not agreed to by the parties involved and that in fact gives workers less.

This individual also says:

I must give special thanks to the members from Quebec who are giving up their National Holiday to stay and fight [the Prime Minister's] unjust legislation. Bonne Fête nationale!

I want to recognize as well the sacrifice that our members from la belle province are making to participate in this debate, to defend a fair settlement for Canada Post workers and to make these sacrifices.

We hear about the concerns that people had, about small businesses and others who needed cheques or mail. I am very sympathetic to that. So is this individual. He said:

One point...I understand that, on the first day that Canada Post locked out postal workers, only 23 workers from three very small communities (Smithers, B.C.; Sioux Lookout; and a third from NF) were scheduled to rotate on strike. Without the lock-out, the small businesses would now have their cheques, as the posties ensured with the rotating strike.

Then he asks us to stay strong and keep up the fight. I can assure everyone that we will do that.

What we have here today is a manufactured crisis. The same powers that manufactured that crisis have the ability to make it go away. Just take the locks off the doors. Encourage the collective bargaining process. Encourage a fair settlement.

Instead, the government has tilted the balance. It has made it impossible for there to be good faith bargaining between Canada Post and its workers.

I am saying “Canada Post and its workers” deliberately. I want to say that to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Prime Minister himself, who has unleashed in this House language that I do not think is deserving of this place.

If he is speaking for thePrime Minister when he gets up in this House and talks about “union bosses” and “thugs”, then he is delivering a message on behalf of the Prime Minister that this is his attitude toward workers' representatives who were democratically elected and given a 97% mandate to negotiate an agreement on behalf of the workers. This member comes here on behalf of the Prime Minister and talks about union bosses and thugs. He hides behind a piece of paper that he says comes from one of his constituents.

That is not good enough. The bosses who shut down this operation are sitting over there. They are the ones whose agency locked the doors on Canada Post. They are the ones who are acting as bullies with legislation that takes away the rights of workers to bargain collectively. If there is any thuggery or any bullying going on, that is where it is coming from.

I want the government to tone down its talk and stop inflaming the situation.

[Bob Zimmer]

Stop calling the kettle black.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

It is the kind of language that I am hearing from over there that is inflaming the situation.

I am objecting to that. It does not do them any credit whatsoever and it does not do this Parliament any credit to have a situation like this. Instead of solutions being reached, workers who are exercising their constitutionally protected rights are being vilified in this House. Their representatives are being vilified.

Members who want to understand could have listened carefully last night to the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about the advances made through struggles year after year, over many decades, to give us the kind of Canada that many of us share today.

However, this process and this approach is to say, no, we will not share the advances with the next generation. The benefits that have been won in terms of some security in retirement will not be shared by other people. The next generation that comes along will have to start off with lower wages. We will have a special policy where we will hire people on a non-discriminatory basis. We will bring all these people in on a non-discriminatory basis and give them an advantage in bringing them in. We will bring in aboriginal people, people of colour, disadvantaged people, and we will pay them half or three-quarters of what the current workers are being paid. That is how we will have equality in this country. That is the plan. New hires will get less than everybody else. We will adopt a very proactive policy that identifies and brings in people who are especially disadvantaged and we will pay them less.

That is wrong. However, that is what this leads to.

We need to have a fair settlement. That is what this individual is asking for. That is all we are asking for here. This legislation should be hoisted for six months. That is our motion, and we would like to see it implemented.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, picking up on what the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering was saying earlier, I have my undergraduate degree in Soviet studies and eastern bloc political philosophy and history. I fought with perestroika and I had no further use for it. However, it seems to be coming in very handy listening to the debate over this matter.

With recent polls stating that 70% of Canadians support back-to-work legislation to end this work stoppage at Canada Post, can the member explain why the official opposition is not on the same side with the majority of Canadians but is only repeating its rhetoric with respect to the union position?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thought red-baiting as well had ended some time ago, but I guess not.

Let me talk about the 70% of Canadians. I would be willing to bet the hon. member that 70% of Canadians, if they were asked, would not support this legislation. They would not support legislation that said the government shall move inside the collective bargaining process and order people to go to work so that they would get less money than their employer had put on the table in collective bargaining. I will bet that 70% of Canadians would say that is unfair.

They might want to see the post office workers back at work. If they were asked if the government should take the locks off the post office to allow postal workers to deliver the mail, 90% would agree to that, too.

Let us not play with statistics here. I do not think that 70% of Canadians or any substantial percentage of Canadians would want the government to follow through with this legislation and to do what it is trying to do.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. colleague is about the discriminatory movements I see with respect to this bill and the offer that has been tabled. For me as a young person, as a woman, and as a person who identifies as a person of colour, why is it that, in the opinion of this member, the government seems to be supporting this type of discriminatory behaviour?

I hear comments from across the way that says workers should have taken the first offer. That type of bullying tactic I do not understand. I would ask my hon. colleague to chime in and give his opinion on that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I guess the Conservatives have an agenda, and the agenda is to lower people's expectations. They think they can convince anybody to go along with that by saying we have to get the mail going so we will stop this from continuing, and saying that the workers are looking for too much. Members hide behind other people's quotes that say they are lucky to have jobs, et cetera.

This is all really part of an agenda that ends up dividing Canadians instead of all of us saying we should try to get everybody up with better benefits, better pensions, better rights, and better opportunities. Let us not divide people, one against the other. Let us improve everybody's lot in life.

That is what the union movement is trying to do for its workers. As we have seen historically, this raises up everybody's benefits if it is allowed to happen. The government does not want that to happen.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned when I spoke previously, I am from a community which has historically distanced itself from political issues and from most of the Canadian dynamic. Growing up north of the 50th parallel on an isolated reserve conferred a certain number of advantages that I can gauge at their fair value in light of the situation we are dealing with today. The Innu have always made it a point of honour to oppose any kind of pernicious state interference in community management.

I want to emphasize the word “pernicious”, as it certainly applies here. State intervention in the form of social policy, to help people in need, is essential if we are to ensure that we do not let the neediest and most disadvantaged people fall through the cracks. The state has an important role to play in helping communities, be it through funding infrastructure or collecting data that allows it to determine the socio-economic profile of a community, and thus identify socio-economic problems as well as possible courses of action to solve those problems.

It is ironic to see this government, too often blinded by its ideology, seeking private subcontractors, at any price, to provide services to Canadians and fill the jobs associated with them. Although, in a labour conflict such as this one at Canada Post, market logic should dictate that the government allow both parties to find a solution to the conflict, the government's reflex has been the opposite: it has intervened although it did not need to. And what is worse, the government, by taking this action, has upset the natural equilibrium between the parties in question. The reason we are in this House today is to restore that balance and to ask the government to withdraw certain provisions in this bill, in particular the one that pertains to salaries.

We must allow the arbitrator and the two parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to all. We can restore the balance and reach an agreement so that Canada Post lockout ends and service to the population resumes. In the final analysis, that is our goal here today.

I would like to get back to what I was talking about earlier, pernicious government interference in community management. When the message does not get through and the government takes measures compromising the independence of our management structures and the general self-government of my nation, the members of my community do not hesitate to act and express that independence in a radical way.

I want to make this perfectly clear: I would not want to urge the Canadian population to resort to roadblocks to make its voice heard, even though we are clearly faced with a situation involving government interference with the right to freedom of association and labour relations. I would advocate another approach, that of restoring the balance I was just referring to.

The government is attempting to create a precedent that clearly indicates the type of approach it is going to adopt with regard to the Canadian population during this mandate. As we can plainly see, this approach is akin to the authoritarianism of certain regimes that are currently being criticized by international observers. It is not my intent to quote figures and authorities to support my statements in this House, as my position rests on the heartfelt conviction that is a hallmark of the Innu community.

It is that conviction that enables me to offer a human viewpoint on any situation that arises. We must never avoid the human aspect inherent in the situation that concerns us at this time. The government's interference in the human relations that are part of the dialogue between Canada Post employees and their employer opens the door to improper government intervention in labour relations between all employees and employers.

In this regard I want to come back to the imbalance created by the Conservative government with its special bill. We will recall that the postal workers had offered to extend the collective agreement while bargaining continued. That is what the bill provides, but the bill goes further by setting the parameters within which the arbitrator must operate.

Why do they want to substitute themselves in advance for what should be happening down the road? Why not let the negotiations take their course and give the parties involved room to bargain in good faith? Imposing special legislation is a draconian measure that should be considered only in situations where the Canadian public is at risk of serious harm. That is not the case here; we are not in a crisis. I would caution everyone, however, because a crisis point can be reached very rapidly.

The Canadian public has expressed its views on the role of government in the past, and the current situation in the House of Commons is setting the tone of the social dynamic that is imposing itself on the Canadian public.

The measures proposed by the Conservatives belong to a bygone day.

Labour relations are in a constant state of change, and I suspect that this progress lies at the root of the measures proposed by the Conservatives.

They will have to reassess their positions and policies if they are to keep abreast of the wishes expressed by Canadians.

Obstructing the exercise of the right of association and the flow of bargaining that happens in labour relations is direct repression and negation of the concept of free will.

We can be assured that the presence of the NDP in the House will influence the government's decisions. Therefore, opposition members have not hesitated to debate this essential question and will continue to do so tirelessly.

I therefore urge the Mamit Innuat, the Pessamiunnuat, the Chimonnuat, all Innu in general, as well as the Naskapi, to support the postal employees and to support them massively and visibly. Make yourselves seen, brothers and sisters.

We will see that when we pool our efforts, big things happen.

All Canadians need to heed the warning that this issue is very likely to herald a dark era. It is up to the public to take a position and make the decision-makers understand that they will not remain passive forever.

Quite apart from the interruption in postal services, these recent events will perpetuate the power struggle going on in the public and private sectors. It is essential that people mobilize to support the desire of Canadians to express themselves and to flourish.

If I must, I am prepared to sit until the royal couple arrives, so they can witness the dedication of the New Democratic Party members of this House.

In passing, I salute the superhuman effort made by the party's support staff, some of whom are sleeping only a few hours a night, to ensure that our efforts are coordinated.

Without them, we would not be able to sustain our opposition to the policies of the Conservative government. With their support, we are making history today.

And last, I send greetings to the people in my riding, people of all origins, and I wish them all a wonderful time at the festivities that have been organized throughout the region.

I would have liked to be with them, but my presence is more useful in Ottawa.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that while those members are prepared to sit here until the Duke and Duchess arrive, we are prepared to sit here until they are gone to ensure that Canadians get mail delivery returned to them.

For anybody watching this debate, there must be a confusion about the events that occurred. The fact is, and I am sure members will agree, the old contract expired last October. The union leaders were negotiating with Canada Post and failed to arrive at an agreement.

The old contract had expired. It is quite legitimate that once something has expired, one cannot operate under it any longer unless there is an agreement between the company and the workers. We had the situation where, because the union did not want to continue negotiations unless it could operate under the old contract, it started rotating strikes. Then there was the lockout, and now we have back to work legislation.

The bottom line is we want to get the postal workers back delivering mail across Canada to everyone who needs that mail delivery. We are asking the parties to work with us. Let us try and get the workers back to work and then we will negotiate from there. Hopefully, we will have a good settlement all the way around.

Let us get the mail going again.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would note that this kind of delay is inherent in the situation the workers and the employer are in. Events in that situation were fluid and that is how it should have continued: the parties involved had a responsibility to each other to sit down, and they would have reached an agreement, as has happened in the past. There was no urgency to intervene, let alone interfere, in that practice, which is proper and normal.

[The member spoke in Innu-aimun.]

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Manicouagan for not quoting letters. I think we have proved on both sides of the House that we could have letters stating opinions on either side. Quoting from letters is in fact simply a smokescreen to distract us from the real debate. It is an old trick that was known to the Greeks 2,500 years ago.

We will get back down to business, as the saying goes. Should we not leave the two parties free to bargain in good faith?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which follows on what I was saying.

That is correct, the ideal approach in this situation would be for the parties to sit down together, because in any event this is a power struggle and we are going to see this every day, whether we like it or not. So, it is better that the parties themselves be the ones who ultimately have to decide their fate. That is the normal way of doing things, and in this society it is how it should be done.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments and contrary to what he said, some small businesses do find themselves in a crisis, people cannot pay their bills and they certainly cannot meet their payroll.

We have heard over and over again from our side of the House about the hardship being caused to Canadians and to our economy. We have heard from the other side of the House that government should not intervene. In any negotiations there are two sides, and that is why we have a dispute.

First, the union chose to implement a job action which the employer countered with its job action. Given that the situation has gone on for eight months, how long would the hon. member allow this dispute to drag on to the detriment of families, seniors, businesses and the economy in general? How long, two months, eight months, ten months?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I am well aware of the hardship being suffered on both sides. However, social imperatives must prevail in this case. The effort to make our points is truly worthwhile for Canadians. In fact, that applies not only to this situation, but also to situations that will arise in future. That is why we are here today and we are making these points.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak in this debate. I would like to take the opportunity to wish my constituents in Montcalm a wonderful national holiday, in spite of the bad weather. Certainly, at present, the Conservative government does not seem to want to work in the interests of the Canada Post workers. In spite of this obstacle, I particularly want to mention Quebec's national holiday and say to my fellow Quebeckers that it is great to be a Quebecker at this point in history. I want to assure them that I am with them in spirit and I sincerely hope to meet them in the near future. So I wish everyone a memorable national holiday full of music, stories and legends of our very own.

It is unfortunate that the Conservative government does not recognize Quebec's national holiday, but I can tell you that my constituents recognize the importance of the job I have to do here in Ottawa, supporting the Canada Post workers.

In negotiations, it is preferable for the two sides to find common ground and reach a consensus; unfortunately, I have the clear impression that, since the negotiations began, Canada Post Corporation never intended to bargain in good faith. Withdrawing from the negotiations and imposing a lockout shows its lack of respect for its workers.

A lockout is not a strike. A strike is a protest action taken by workers, while a lockout is the temporary shutdown of Canada Post. It is a decision initiated by the employer.

Canada Post Corporation preferred to wait for the government to intervene by trying to impose special legislation. That approach completely takes away any workers' right to strike, since they would always be afraid of legislation like that being imposed on them, and unfortunately sends a negative message not just to the Canada Post workers but, and most importantly, to all workers in Canada.

Right now, back-to-work legislation will create dissatisfaction and discontent among the workers. They will find it hard to swallow this kind of forced settlement and it will leave a bitter taste in their mouths. And that is without mentioning the poisonous atmosphere that will prevail between management and workers for months if not years to come.

We must not forget that several thousand workers are affected by this lockout. When will the government finally understand that Canada Post Corporation employees are people first—I repeat, people first—with families, obligations and responsibilities?

This bill will take power away from unions, whose primary role is to stand up for employees and look out for their interests. Second, the union must also make sure that information is conveyed to the employees. By doing that, it fulfils its function of communicating between Canada Post and the workers.

Canada Post Corporation is acting as if it is confused by the present situation. That is incomprehensible. They are the ones who brought on this situation. The position the government has taken is quite simply a slap in the face to democracy. What has become of common sense? The workers are locked out, and on top of that the government interferes by trying to pass legislation to force the workers back to work. The Conservative government's true colours are showing.

The Canadian courts have recognized that workers have the right to negotiate their employment contract. The Canadian courts have recognized that workers have the right to form associations with other workers to enforce their rights and their employment contract.

The approach taken by the Conservative government has no basis. This procedure is going to create a precedent that no worker wants. Who is going to pay the cost, ultimately? Workers.

Instead of showing consideration and respect for our workers, the government wants to abuse its powers and give the back of its hand to workers' rights. This is unfair and oppressive.

I do not understand. The Conservatives form a majority government. Yes, they got the support they needed, but did they have the courage to really tell Canadians how they intended to go about governing the country?

Did they say they would come down on the side of the most powerful instead of helping workers? Did they say they would impose their legislation without considering the consequences for workers' lives? Did they say they would not give workers the opportunity to negotiate in the way that prevailing practices provide for union negotiations to take place? Did they say they would bring in a bill to take away workers' rights to be heard and cut their pension plans? Will they continue to impose draconian measures on Canadian workers who try to exercise their right to bargain for better working conditions?

I think that out of respect for the workers and their families the government should withdraw from these negotiations and not impose anything by special legislation, let alone take the employer's side. The Conservatives' way of doing things is clear to see here—it is easy to see who their friends are—and it is at the expense of Canadian workers

It is these same workers who day after day contribute to making Canada Post the postal service we know today. These workers have contributed to their pension plan, and like everyone living in Canada they are entitled to draw a pension when the time comes, and thus to be sure of a peaceful and serene retirement. I therefore believe it is reasonable to expect a little consideration from the employer, and also from the government.

Why not give the two parties a chance to bargain in good faith and encourage communication more?

At present, the employees cannot enter the distribution centres and have no access to the mail, so they cannot deliver it. The doors are barred, that is what a lockout is. Canada Post has to remove the locks from the doors and allow the workers to do rotating deliveries, as was the case at the beginning of the negotiations. Today, the government is attacking the postal workers at Canada Post Corporation; who will be the next victims of the government's extreme decisions? No one wants to have their wages cut and their retirement date pushed back five years.

This special legislation is going to give all Canadian workers cause for concern and uncertainty, since they will always be wondering whether they will be the Conservative government's next scapegoats. This special legislation is going to create a gulf between two generations of workers. This special legislation is going to cause wage inequality and social inequality. This special legislation is going to weaken labour relations, not to mention the poisonous atmosphere the workers will have to endure.

The message the government is sending to workers is clear. It will not hesitate to side with employers, even if workers have a lot to lose. No matter what the situation, employers will be favoured over employees. That message tells workers they have no chance of bargaining fairly and equitably, because if they insist and push too hard to enforce their rights and their collective agreement, the government will not support them. Quite the contrary: it will interfere and force the workers back to work by special legislation. What year is this? These workers have paid union dues for years. The union is doing its best to represent them, but the workers did not expect that the government would use a special bill to try to prevent the union from doing its job properly and would fail to respect their right to bargain their working conditions freely.

I am afraid this approach is an attempt to create a gulf between workers in different generations, and also between employers and employees.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are approaching the 24th hour of this debate. We are coming very close to it. This is the first time in my almost 11 years as a member of Parliament that I have seen this type of exercise carried out in the House of Commons. In some respects I appreciate it. There is good debate between two polarized sides, it would seem. I want to congratulate the opposition member, a new member, on winning, and I commend her on her speech.

My question to the member is this. It seems the NDP's identity crisis is over. In the first couple of weeks of this new Parliament, the NDP came forward with a supply day motion asking us to lower taxes. That is the first time I have ever seen such a request from the NDP, but it was on small business. It seemed that most of the NDP members were uncomfortable with that supply day motion because it was new. It was as if they were trying to show us that they were ready to govern.

The past 24 hours have shown us that this party is not ready to govern. We can see that NDP members have taken every legal step there is, and they have attacked.

My question to the member for Montcalmis this. Over the past number of years we have seen how the NDP feels about replacement workers. It calls them derogatory names, such as “scabs”. We know what they think about lockouts. We know what they think about back-to-work legislation, but apparently revolving strikes are all right.

Why does the NDP show that it is not ready to govern and that it will be forever in opposition by not recognizing what is going on in our economy and by not recognizing the need to get the postal workers back to work?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am well aware that Canadians need their mail; we understand that and the postal workers understand it too; they are professionals. But I think we have to respect the workers, the workers in our communities, the workers who must work outside whatever the weather.

To come back to Canada Post's young workers, I think the new generation deserves the benefits that our parents and their parents fought so hard for.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member for Montcalm, as well as the members of the opposition, that this debate is simply about whether or not we are going to resist the lobby pressure of those who wish to raid pension funds. That is what it boils down to. The pattern is always the same. Everyone makes mistakes, but the important thing is not to keep making them, especially after what happened in Walkerton, where people died because lobbyists took advantage of the opportunity to do their own laboratory testing.

I would simply ask the hon. member to answer the following question: should we always grant the wishes of lobbyists, yes or no?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, simply put, everything we do should be done in accordance with our conscience and to the best of our knowledge. Common sense always has a role to play.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning around 4 a.m. I asked one of our NDP members for an opinion about the fact that seniors and small businesses in my riding were not getting their mail.

Yesterday I spoke with the executive director of the United Way of Leeds and Grenville, Judi Baril. She told me about the United Way. I know that they serve 27 agencies and have 92 programs, and one in person in three in my riding of Leeds—Grenville is served by the United Way. They are suffering serious cashflow issues brought about by this situation with Canada Post.

I ask the member: could her party move this debate along and let us vote on the bill so that we can help the charities, seniors and businesses in my riding?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Montcalm has only 30 seconds left.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the sense they are trying to pin the blame for this situation on the members of the NDP and the workers. I would, however, remind the House that Canada Post employees opted for rotating strikes, in other words, employees in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, for instance, would take turns going on strike. That way, postal service would continue, albeit at a slower rate. So cheques would have been delivered and small businesses could have paid their suppliers and received payments from their customers.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I will comment on the previous member's comment about how one in three people in his community need help from the United Way. That certainly sounds like a prosperous community where so many people are still in need. If we do not stand up here to defend worker's rights, that will be two out of three and eventually three out of three. That is why we are here today and that is why none of us will go home until we can reach an equitable and fair solution.

We must always remember that any kind of negotiation between employees and their employer, whether they are involved in this kind of dispute where the employer has locked out its workers, is about the real lives of Canadians, their quality of life and the lives of their families.

My riding contains one of the largest postal sorting stations in Canada and I have been hearing from many of the workers, both at the plant and at other stations across the eastern GTA. All of these workers have spoken to me simply about fairness.

I have a lot of respect for the men and women across Canada who are responsible for delivering our mail. These very same people who, during the labour dispute, vowed to guarantee the delivery of social assistance and old age security cheques, are the people who offered to end strike action if Canada Post would simply agree to keep the old contract in force during negotiations. That is a pretty reasonable stand to take. However, Canada Post refused.

These are the kinds of people who make up the workforce at Canada Post: people who want fairness so they can support their families, pay their own bills, work in a safe environment and retire with dignity, which is a right that should exist for all Canadians, real Canadians doing a real job for all Canadians.

One of my constituents who is a postal worker summed up the attitude of the workers being locked out by Canada Post and now being forced back to work with this legislation. She wrote to me and said, “Remember, we want to work, we want to deliver, we love our jobs and we take pride in our jobs”. This debate is not just about mail. It is about workers' rights to fairness and collective bargaining, and, for many years, Canadians have fought hard for fairness in the workplace.

In my own family, we have a long tradition of fighting for workers' rights dating back to my great-grandfather who served in both world wars and was a plasterer by trade. He understood that working conditions improve only when people stand up and fight for them. This struggle continued with my grandmother and my grandfather who met and fell in love while working together to improve the lives and conditions in their own workplace. My father was a teacher and an active member of Elementary Teachers of Toronto, and I am proud to carry on that mantle.

It is easier to understand the need for fairness when we talk to the workers on the front line. Michael Duquette, president of Local 602 of CUPW which represents over 2,000 workers in Scarborough and the eastern GTA, has been very generous with his time keeping me apprised of the concerns of his members.

Amother member of the executive board of Local 602 sent me an email detailing some of the unpleasant things Canada Post has done to its employees since CUPW first gave its 72-hour notice to strike on May 31. I would like to share a few of those stories.

One employee, a motorized service courier, was off work on a work-related back injury. As soon as the 72-hour notice was given, his health benefits and sick leave were terminated by Canada Post. At that point, it was discovered that he had a cancerous growth. Now he has no sick leave, no benefits, no income and must apply for employment insurance.

One employee who was diagnosed with terminal cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy was stunned to find out that his benefits were cut off as of May 31. Now he has to pay for his own treatment. This violates the collective agreement and it is inhumane. Of course, he can go through the grieving process, but who, when dying of a terminal disease, would put off treatment to await the outcome of a grievance procedure?

Another motorized service courier who was off work on WSIB-approved leave at the time the 72-hour notice was given, received his pay statement which said that he had received a full paycheque. However, when he went to pay some of his bills he was denied for being overdrawn. At this point, he discovered that Canada Post had only paid him one-third of his total pay, despite that his paycheque said that he was paid in full. I wonder what kind of games are going on there.

Imagine people who are off work on a work-related injury or on sick leave with cancer or leukemia being cut, and finding out that not only do they have no benefits but also no money, even though a pay stub was received in the mail saying they had received the full funds. In the federal sector we have the unfortunate record of having the second highest injury rate next to longshoremen. Now the corporation wants the members of CUPW to give up the top-ups to WSIB. It wants members to accept substandard short-term disability. This is unconscionable.

Canada Post is also trying to take credit for initializing the government cheque delivery program which I referred to earlier, which took place on June 20. This is something which the union had to doggedly pursue in order to get the corporation on board, and then the corporation took credit for it.

The CUPW member I referred to earlier, wanted me to know that the support from the public has been very positive. She wrote, “While on the picket lines outside our facility, members of the public and other businesses dropped off food, hamburgers, hot dogs, cases of water and pop, giant containers of firewood. Even Tim Hortons came over and gave everyone $2 Tim Hortons cards. Vehicles were driving by and honking their horns at all hours of the day and night in support. They also had, in Pickering, numerous people bringing ice cream in the heat. Even McDonald's came by and brought cases of water and ice”.

It seems they are losing support on all sides and they should be aware of that.

People old and young have approached the CUPW member offering their support. They understand this is not just an attack on the workers of Canada Post, but it is an attack on all Canadians and their rights as citizens. People are appalled at the fact that Canada Post would lock out its workforce and then would collaborate with the government on legislation to force the workers back to work with a worse settlement than the corporation was willing to offer at the bargaining table. Also, the corporation is preventing them from going back to work by not unlocking the doors.

These are real stories from real people. They are the people being affected by this draconian back to work legislation the Conservative government is trying to ram through this House and which all of us on this side are proud to oppose.

I fear that the government is out of touch with real people. I fear it does not understand the effect its legislation will have on working people. I also fear, like others here, that this is just the beginning, that we will see further legislation from the government that will hurt working families in the country, making it harder for them to make ends meet and to live with the dignity and security for which they have worked and deserve.

It is important to remember that it was the management at Canada Post that decided to lock out the workers and shut down the mail service.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard members relate the personal stories that have been told to them by different people giving different points of view.

In my case, it is actually my two nephews and niece who are letter carriers in our community. As they look at the total remuneration package they get with Canada Post, they say it is quite generous. They say that it provides them with a great living. It is a great job that is highly sought after. There are people who would love to become letter carriers and would love to have that type of job. That is not to say it is over the top and not to say they would not want more remuneration for what they do, but they are very happy.

I have also received emails from individuals who have told me that they had no choice as letter carriers to decide on the four offers that were made by Canada Post. They were closed out of saying whether or not they would approve of those offers.

When members hear those stories, what is their reaction to the people who would love to be letter carriers, who would love to have such a job in this country? All I have been listening to from the other side of the floor is how downtrodden the letter carriers are.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true the workers at Canada Post are happy with their jobs by and large. That is why they want to go back to work. Why will the government not unlock the doors?

More importantly, with respect to all the people who would like jobs like those, the government has been negligent over the last five years in not creating those well-paying jobs so people can get them and support their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for his speech.

We are going to raise the level of the debate even further, instead of keeping it at the lowest level. J.P. Morgan, the famous American banker who prevented an economic crisis in 1907, said that a company's most senior leader should not earn more than 20 times the salary of its lowest paid employee.

So should we not let postal workers negotiate better working conditions more in line with those enjoyed by Canada Post's CEO?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

There would not be enough money if all the letter carriers were paid as much as Canada Post's CEO. We might agree that the latter should perhaps not be paid until he negotiates a collective agreement that is fair for all employees.

It is unconscionable that people are making insane amounts of money when compared to the workers who are doing all the work.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend I met with a local postal union representative. He was very respectful in his communications with me. He was very open and kind. He invited union leaders from three or four other unions in the area. They were all very reasonable and respectful.

One of the things that is really impressive about the strike from the union side is that it did not do a general strike. It did a rotating strike because it did not want to do any damage that would hurt Canadian people.

I would urge members of the NDP to have the same respect for their fellow Canadians and let the postal workers go back to work by ending their self-serving political stunt. It does not serve the general public nor the postal workers. They should let this legislation go through.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear a member opposite finally acknowledge how respectful union members and leaders are.

Were it not for the Conservative government and for Canada Post and the Minister of Labour locking the workers out, they would still be doing their jobs.

I also spoke to many managers at the postal sorting stations, people who are not protected by the union. They are all behind the union members. They know if the members get a better deal, they will have better job protection. I will not mention their names because they are fearful for their jobs. They are not protected by a union.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I would first like to wish a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to Quebeckers, as well as to francophones outside Quebec.

Why are we here? It is simple. We are here because senior management at Canada Post declared a lockout. Had there not been a lockout, we would not be here debating a special bill. So, if we want to find a simple solution to this problem right now—because everyone here agrees that service must resume—the easiest thing to do is to simply end the lockout. It is as simple as that. Everyone must return to the negotiating table so that everyone can benefit from the service—the workers, the public and small businesses. That is what everyone wants.

However, I am wondering about something. Initially, when this subject started to come up in the House, the Prime Minister spoke about the best interests of the economy. I am wondering whether Canada Post's senior managers were concerned about the best interests of the economy; I am not really convinced that they were.

I would like to get to the root of the problem. It has often been said that the negotiations had been going on for a long time, but it is important to look at why they were going on for so long and are still going on. If they are still going on, it is because this is no ordinary negotiation.

When concessions are being demanded with regard to pension plans or orphan clauses, for example, it usually mean one of two things: the company wants to improve the return for shareholders, no matter who they are, or there is a problem. Canada Post is generating several hundred million dollars in profit, so perhaps the crown corporation anticipates problems in the future. However, if such is the case, perhaps these significant problems should be put on the table. We have yet to see this happen. What is certain is that, given communication technology, Canada Post will one day have to examine its way of doing things and change the services it offers. That is undeniable.

One thing is truly harmful: the orphan clauses. This is a type of discrimination that I find completely unacceptable in the 21st century. People who do equal work should always be paid an equal salary. Period. That is it. That is all. This approach should never be called into question.

I would also like to point out something else. Given the fact that this is no ordinary negotiation, it will clearly take longer than a more ordinary negotiation process. As a result, I would really have liked to have seen the ministers exercise a certain degree of leadership with regard to the challenge posed by this negotiation. I would have liked the minister to recognize the fact that this collective bargaining process was unusual and to make a special effort to invite the parties to put more effort into the negotiations. I would have liked the ministers to have reassured the public by announcing publicly that, despite the rotating strike, services would continue to be provided.

I would like to remind you that, at the start of the Air Canada strike, the first thing management did was take out advertising informing the public that the company would continue to provide service to its customers. I do not understand why the ministers did not stand up and declare that Canada Post would still be delivering the mail. That was not done and I find that leadership was lacking. They could have reduced the losses sustained by Canada Post subsequently. All they did was create panic everywhere and, as we know, when there is market panic, sales drop. There is no question about that.

Before I conclude, I will speak about respect for the employees. We want service to resume and everything to get back to normal, and businesses to have what they need to operate. It is important to look beyond this, to consider the work environment. We must think of Canada Post's productivity. In looking for solutions, it is vital that we consider this aspect as well. We cannot just tell these employees to return to work and forget about it. We must consider that labour relations will be difficult in the next few years. We must ensure that the service everyone is proud of today will continue to make us proud in coming years.

Thus, I would like to avoid dividing people and creating an environment where people are pitted against one another, that is, unionized workers against other workers, or public servants against private sector workers. That is no way to live in a society. I believe that is a rather unhealthy attitude. We should instead focus on what is not working, namely the challenges that Canada Post will face in future, and find solutions to maintain this service and to provide it at a reasonable cost. Like everyone else, I have received emails indicating that, compared to those of their competitors, Canada Post's services are provided at a reasonable cost.

In closing, I believe that public and private enterprises cannot be managed in the same way. The decision to lock out employees cannot be made without taking into account the repercussions on society. I find it unfortunate that this was done. The reason for the lockout was very limited and based on issues particular to Canada Post. That is regrettable. There is more than one way to achieve the same end: there is confrontation, but there is also conciliation and negotiation. This situation should be managed with this in mind.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, opposition members are repeatedly saying that the government chose to declare a lockout. That is absolutely untrue. It was the Canada Post administration that made that decision, just as the union decided to go ahead with a strike. The Leader of the Opposition and all of the opposition members have been insisting for hours now that the government should make a decision that would violate the Canada Post Corporation Act. We cannot decide when to end the lockout. That is up to Canada Post, but they have not yet made that decision. The only way to end the lockout and avoid a new strike is to pass this bill. Can the member for Louis-Hébert finally accept the logic of this proposal, which respects the Canada Post Corporation Act?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the government declared the lockout. Rather, I said that Canada Post had. To respond to the question, if the House unanimously declares that it wants Canada Post to end the lockout, management would take that suggestion into consideration. This decision does not have to be forced on them.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, this issue is about process. It is about how we, as a Parliament, adopt a policy that results in a process that allows parties to actually come to agreements together, which I think everybody on all sides of the House advocates is the best solution to any labour dispute.

It is quite right that there were rotating strikes and then Canada Post responded by a lockout. The problem, and why we are here today and tonight and over the next few days and weeks, if necessary, is because the government has chosen to respond by interfering in that process, by not only proposing legislation that orders one side back to work, but in that legislation prescribes wages lower than what management had offered.

What that does is provide a disincentive to one side coming back to the bargaining table. They have tilted the balance. Now one side knows that if they do nothing and stay away from the bargaining table, they may end up with a deal that gives a better wage package than they would be forced to accept at the table.

I would like to ask my friend to comment on that and ask how he views the government's involvement in this.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comment.

My thoughts on this are very straightforward. I find it unfortunate that this bill does not give the arbitrator the freedom to resolve the situation. It imposes parameters.

The last speaker said that the government should not intervene with Canada Post, but that it would intervene when it came time to set wages. A decision needs to be made: either it can intervene or it cannot. There needs to be some coherence here.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, and I listened with interest. I do not know how long he has been a member of the NDP, maybe a long time, maybe not. I know some of his colleagues have not been a part of the party for a long time.

I wonder if he is aware that the NDP has quite a long and distinguished history of strike breaking. For example, in 1966, the federal NDP supported legislation to break a railway workers' strike. In the same year there was a longshoremen's strike and they supported that legislation. In 1973 they supported legislation to end a railway strike. Perhaps most troubling, in 1975 the federal NDP and the provincial NDP governments in both B.C. and Saskatchewan supported Bill C-73, that famous bill that had wage control measures that not only limited wage increases but rolled wages back. The NDP supported that.

Is he aware of these things? To hear them speak today, that would never be acceptable, yet it was acceptable in their history. Does he think there might be some situations where the government does have to take a role as we have done today?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of our first principles, on this side of the House, is to be responsible. When public interest is at stake, we know how to react.

However, what is important to understand in this case is that Canada Post has declared a lockout and has sped things up.

I feel that the public interest should always come first, with respect for everyone.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish all Quebeckers a happy Saint-Jean Baptiste day on this June 24, although it is technically still the June 23. I especially want to wish a happy Saint-Jean to my Brome—Missisquoi constituents. I am thinking of you, and my heart is with you.

I am in the House today to defend the rights of not only the 55,000 postal workers, but also all workers, including those from my riding. This fight to uphold the rights of workers will affect all workers in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi, in Quebec and across Canada. We are standing up for our vision of a fair society. Minimum labour standards exist because workers fought to further the cause of those who were most vulnerable. Young people, women and seniors have rights because people fought to further their cause.

We in the NDP want to stand up for ordinary middle-class people so as to make things easier for families and improve the quality of life for Canadians. Whether we are talking about health care, education or the environment, we in the NDP are defending the public system because we truly believe in it. Letting the free market regulate everything does not work. Some people are left by the wayside, and only a minority is growing richer at the expense of the middle class, which is struggling more and more because of measures such as the intention of our friends opposite to impose a lockout followed by special legislation.

The appropriate solution is to stop the lockout, which is a bullying tactic, and to bring the employees and the employer together. There is no silver bullet. Everyone must contribute in good faith to move this issue forward, since the special legislation planned by our friends opposite is too hasty. Canada Post is a profitable corporation. Over the last 15 years, Canada Post has generated $1.7 billion in profits, and its postal rates remain among the lowest in the industrialized world. In addition, Canada Post has paid the federal government $1.2 billion in dividends and taxes over the last 15 years.

So why lower wages? I do not understand. We are asking the government to remove that unwarranted clause. The union is looking for nothing more than a fair redistribution of wealth. The union raises the quality of life of every member of society, not just postal workers. In particular, the union helps safeguard fair working conditions and drive the overall economy. What is more, better working conditions for postal workers mean better working conditions for all workers. Through their work, letter carriers actually provide a reassuring presence in the neighbourhoods they serve. I am thinking particularly of the poorest members of society, the elderly. Not only do postal workers provide efficient service, but they also build ties with the public.

No, the government's measures will not go through as easily as the mail arrives at its destination. The government must take the locks off the doors and let postal workers do their wonderful work.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member who just spoke and I have listened to other members of the New Democratic Party. It is all about the union. They have all boasted about how they have done such and such with the union. I understand that. That is part of their platform. That is part of their life.

However, there are other people in this country who are having great problems as a result of what is going on.

A small-business owner from Orangeville by the name of Jeff left a telephone message with my Orangeville office. He said most of his customers' payments are sent by mail and that because of the strike he will not receive payments for orders he has already fulfilled, which will cause grave problems to his business. He may even go under as a result.

My question for the member is this: does he care about the Jeffs of Orangeville, those types of people who are in that situation, the small-business person as an individual or an organization?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member across the way that the locks were put on by the government across the way. Let the parties involved work together and negotiate, and they will find a solution. That would be a tangible step towards protecting all workers, both postal workers and those in the hon. member's riding.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member just said something that is patently false. He said the lockout was imposed by the government. I think he is--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We have been dealing with this for some time now. Statements of this nature are points of debate, not points of order.

Are there questions and comments?

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi, and I commend him for his very worthwhile remarks.

It is very clear that a government agency has imposed a lockout. This bill is totally draconian and unacceptable. The government is trying to impose a settlement on the workers, and we do not support that, plain and simple. It is an affront to their dignity.

Could the hon. member comment further on this draconian bill? I would like to know whether he thinks the government's bill is warranted or whether he feels both parties should be able to negotiate a collective agreement in due course and on an equal footing.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

He knows that, when two parties engage in honest and open negotiations, they move toward a solution that benefits everyone. I think that is the type of solution needed in the Canada Post situation.

We should remove the unjustified wage reduction clause and remove the locks from the doors. The employees want to work. They want to serve the public. We should let them do their work and create the conditions required for the two parties to negotiate in good faith.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague across the aisle very intently. I would just say that one of the problems with socialism, which I understood his party embraced last week, is that once the socialists have spent everybody else's money, then they are out of business.

However, my real concern has to do with the fact that he said that this was imposed to soon.

Is his problem that it is just early days?

Why do we not get this signed and get people back to work, get businesses back in business? That is what this is about.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has only 30 seconds left.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we put a gun to the head of one party, the chances of finding a win-win solution are slim. I support the negotiation process, and it should be the preferred option. However, we should have a negotiating context where both sides act in good faith and are prepared to make compromises.

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

Mr. Speaker, I love your haircut.

This is my first opportunity to deliver a speech in the 41st Parliament, and I would like to begin by thanking the voters of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for the vote of confidence I received in my re-election. No one can say we did not notice.

I remain humbled by their decision and hope to meet and exceed the expectations placed on me by the good people I am fortunate to represent. I also want to thank all those who staffed and volunteered in my campaign. I am extremely grateful to all of them, and of course, my ability to stand in this House would not be possible without the wholehearted support of my family and my friends, and especially the support of my husband Keith, my children Mindy and Shawn and their partners and of course my mother Simone.

As many of you may know, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is one of the largest ridings in Canada at 103,264 square kilometres to be exact. Culturally we are very representative of Canada. There is a significant Franco-Ontarian population and, yes, in my constituency, many communities celebrate St-Jean-Baptiste Day. As a matter of fact, Kapuskasing hosts the biggest St-Jean-Baptiste festival in Ontario. Hence, we are disappointed with the Conservatives for not allowing the House to rise in respect of Quebec's national holiday.

Should we be surprised? I think not, given recent elections called by the Prime Minister for which we saw Elections Canada offices open on Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Easter Monday. It is obvious that the Prime Minister is not respectful of holidays that allow for quality family time together. While workers have fought to achieve days off, this government has continuously blatantly refused to respect even religious holidays.

We also have a strong first nations presence in my constituency and both Ojibway and Cree are spoken. There are 17 reserves in the constituency populated by hard-working people.

While I am talking about the first nations, I want to inform the House of something that came to my attention this week with respect to the arbitrary decisions that this government actually makes, the reason we are here today.

Chief Shining Turtle from Whitefish River First Nation wrote to me and indicated that INAC has given notice to one of the bands in my riding that they now have roughly three months to wrap up a major land claim. Their work plan, which was approved by INAC, calls for wrap-up by next year but not in the next three months. However, that is what INAC wants. The band needs 12 months to properly negotiate the details of this 1850 claim. This is a complicated history to evaluate, and they are concerned and want to ensure that they get it right in order--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Brant is rising on a point of order.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about Bill C-6, not about land claims in this country and who is on the right side of land claims.

This is totally inappropriate.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I urge the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing to bring her remarks to the substance of Bill C-6 as quickly as possible.

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

I will do just that. As I indicated, this is about arbitrary decisions. The chief goes on to say, “My council and I much favour co-operation and collaboration over unilateralism and arbitrary government action which inevitably result in frustration and confrontation.”

That is where my remarks link to Bill C-6.

Most of the work in my riding has traditionally been resource-related, especially in the forestry and mining sectors. There are many farms, including a significant stretch along the strip of land near Lake Huron, and a great many small businesses as well. More and more we are seeing the small businesses pick up the slack created by job losses in traditional resource sectors, which have been devastated by short-sighted government policies over the last few decades.

As I said, we are hard-working people, but it is not all work all the time by any stretch. Visitors to our riding this summer will have no end of opportunities to join in our community's celebrations and cultural events. As you can imagine, with two Great Lakes and thousands of inland lakes, streams and rivers, we have fantastic fishing in the constituency as well. In fact, Chapleau has just won the title of Canada's Ultimate Fishing Town in the World Fishing Network--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member has been speaking for a little over four minutes and I have heard the words Bill C-6 only once. Maybe she can bring the rest of her remarks to the substance of the bill. I think the House would appreciate it.

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

It all comes back, Mr. Speaker, to the first part when I was offering congratulations about being elected.

Usually when I stand in this House to offer some remarks on a piece of legislation, I say that I am happy to speak to the bill. Today nothing could be further from the case.

There is nothing happy about back-to-work legislation, and the piece we have before us now is among the worst this place has ever seen.

It is a blatant attack on workers and pensions and is emblematic of the contempt that the Conservatives display for hard-working Canadians. As I indicated before, this is exactly what the chief had mentioned.

We understand how this government feels about workers. When it comes to picking sides and using legislation to end strikes and lockouts, the government has one gear: overdrive. We have seen this with workers, and we have seen this with first nations as well.

Even Lorne Gunter, a columnist friendly to the Conservative government, stated on Wednesday that they are acting like bullies in the Canada Post lockout. It's not that I agree one bit with his prescription for privatization. He manages to completely ignore Canada Post's mandate when he asserts that the private sector can do the same job as the Crown corporation. I will speak to that in a moment.

What concerns us on this side of the House is that not only is this government choosing winners and losers in this dispute, they are forcing a lower wage on Canada Post employees than the corporation was offering, and the logic behind that has gone missing.

It would seem that Conservatives feel workers do not deserve to make a good living wage in Canada, that only management deserve defined-benefit pensions, and that the interests of the elite far outweigh the interests of the general public. How does driving down wages help the economy? It does not. It lowers the buying capacity of individuals. That much is certain. It makes it harder to buy a house, which in turn affects housing starts. It makes it difficult for children to pay for increasingly expensive post-secondary education, which makes it harder for those children to get better-paying jobs themselves. It increases the divide between the wealthiest and the poorest Canadians, a trend that has gone on for a 25-year run now in the wrong direction. It is another nail in the coffin of the middle class in Canada. It is not a prescription for a robust economy either.

We have to ask ourselves then, if this move does not help the economy, what purpose it serves. Could it be ideological? It would seem so.

Let us take a moment then to look at the main point in Mr. Gunter's article that I spoke about earlier. He suggests that the private sector could easily deliver the same services Canada Post offers, at which point he needs to take a look at the mandate of Canada Post which is to guarantee postal service to all Canadians. When people call for Canada Post to be privatized, many are looking at the $281 million the corporation made last year, and they are licking their chops.

If we privatize it, will all Canadians still receive postal services? I do not think so. I have already spoken about Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing. It is a vast rural riding and is exactly the kind of place that would suffer the most if Canada Post were to be replaced by the private sector. In rural and remote areas, postal service is arguably more important than it may be in larger centres.

Many people in my constituency have limited or no Internet options and they still write and receive letters. They cannot go online to do their banking or pay their bills. For them postal service is an integral part of day-to-day life. This is the actual postal service that this government, under another government agency, has locked out.

If we imagine what might happen if we privatize postal service in Canada, we can look at two different scenarios for places like Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing. Under one scenario there would not be postal service at all. Let us face it: there are postal routes in Canada that are not contributing to the $281 million Canada Post made last year. Most of those are rural and remote. If we allow for the private delivery of mail in Canada, I cannot imagine many people busting down doors to get their hands on the rights to deliver mail in places like Hearst.

Speaking of Hearst, right next to it is Constance Lake. It took us a year to finally get a post office there or at least some postal service there after there was no postal service delivered to that area. They had to travel over 40 kilometres. This is how we know that if Canada Post were privatized, we certainly would not see the services in those areas.

What we would likely see is a profitable portion of postal deliveries scooped up in a heartbeat and quite possibly the end of mail delivery in many parts of Canada.

The second scenario is one that sees rural and remote delivery continued but at a dramatically higher cost to the consumer. If we allow the real price of delivery to govern the cost of each piece of mail, the delivery of rural and remote mail will become exorbitantly expensive. It will add to the already high cost of living in these places, which has been exacerbated in recent years by the high cost of basic items, such as heating, and tax grabs like the HST.

We just went through a campaign during which there was a huge response to the message the leader of the NDP brought to Canadians. It was a message of hope based on making life more affordable, and it obviously resounded with the Canadian public, as we now sit as the official opposition. The NDP believes in the need to address the inequities in Canada's rural and remote communities.

Let me speak about Elliott Lake.

I see that the Speaker is getting up.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am anxious to hear about Elliott Lake, but now we will have to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Essex.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can actually talk about the bill in the next couple of minutes.

There has been a lot of discussion today, and members opposite on several occasions have raised the prospect of making amendments to Bill C-6. There has been a lot of talk about one of them being about wages. The member's colleague, the member for York South—Weston, suggested that 11.5% over four years, which is what he said the Toronto police received in a settlement, would be considered a fair wage. The member for Trinity—Spadina suggested 3.3% per year, which would be 13.2% over four years.

Can the member tell us whether the New Democrats will be moving an amendment to stipulate wage increases that are somewhere between 11.5% and 13.3%?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we indicated before during this debate, we are not going to show the government all of our cards at this point. We have indicated what we are willing--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated, we have actually provided some information with respect to a hoist motion. If the government is willing to really negotiate and look at the wage rates, then we are certainly open to its suggestions and will continue down that road. Obviously the government is not willing to move at this point, and that is why we are still here today.

Let me tell you about Elliott Lake, which reinvented itself, as a response to the loss of mining jobs, as an affordable place for pensioners and seniors to retire. For many of those seniors, the incremental increases in the cost of living ate away at the advantage they sought when they moved to Elliott Lake.

What does all this have to do with the debate? It has to do with pensions, which are part of Bill C-6. Price increases to everyday items, such as groceries, are hard enough to budget for. When the Conservative government conspired with the Ontario government to slap an additional 8% on home heating bills, it was a significant shock.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to stop the hon. member there to allow for more questions and comments.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for her very passionate and well-thought-out presentation.

I have a question for my colleague, and it specifically relates to the legislation. The legislation the government has introduced would actually give postal workers a lower salary increase than was offered by Canada Post. I would like my colleague to comment on that and on what kind of impact that has on free collective bargaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, and she is absolutely right. The government is trying to impose a lower wage rate than what Canada Post actually wanted to give them, while the CEOs are actually making a pile of money. In 2010 it was $497,100, plus a 33% bonus. Is that fair? No.

When we think of this, we think of J. S. Woodsworth's famous line: "What we desire for ourselves we wish for all”. Would it not be great, whether we are in collective bargaining or not, to ensure that all Canadians have a decent pension so that they have a good quality of life? We also want to make sure that every worker has a good wage, and a living wage at that.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, finally the hidden agenda of the NDP is revealed. Not only are they socialists and anti-small business, but now we find out that they are simply a party of large-union members.

I come from a rural riding. I would like to ask the member about a small businessman I talked to in the last week who has been drastically affected. Rochester Hatchery has been drastically affected not only by the situation that is now ongoing but also by the rotating strikes. He said that the rotating strikes were as devastating for his small business, with the uncertainty they provided, as what is going on today. The only thing that will help him is if we move forward and get this legislation passed quickly. It has cost his business $70,000 to this point in time.

I ask the member what she would say to my small businesses in rural Alberta that are being affected.

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

What I would say is that this government can come to its senses and remove that wage from its bill, and we will talk.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night we heard a phenomenal speech by the leader of the official opposition. He raised the bar and raised the tone of civility of this debate. He also focused our attention on some of the really important things that matter and that mattered in the last election.

I want to remind those in the chamber of another speech made last night. It might have been this morning; I can't quite remember. It was by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the official opposition labour critic. He talked a lot about the history and culture of working people. He reminded the House and Canadians of the battles that have gotten us to a place where so many people in this country take having a weekend off for granted. He talked about his father, who was a lumberjack. He himself was a miner. I thought it was a really powerful speech, because we forget that nothing comes without a fight.

The government has repeatedly asked why we are here. We are here because we want to bring it to the government's attention that we want to speak for all workers, not just unionized workers.

I want to speak to the fact that I have been a self-employed small-business person. My father was as well.

I represent a riding where there are a multitude of different kinds of small businesses and self-employed people, and they are workers too. They want pensions. They want benefits. They want job security. They would like to have access to EI. If their children get sick, they would like to take a couple of days off to look after their loved ones. This is not an option for many Canadians.

We are here tonight, and for as long as it takes, to focus the government's attention on the fact that workers in this country are hurting. A win for a trade union is a win for all workers, and a loss is a loss for all workers.

There are people in my riding who worked for companies for 23 years, were let go, and now have no workplace pensions. They have none. Do members know what they are doing now? They are competing with their grandkids for jobs at KFC.

The government asks what we are doing here. When we in the NDP see legislation like Bill C-6, which offers workers less than what management was offering in the first place, we have to say that this is not right. The leader of the official opposition, the member for Toronto—Danforth, drew a very clear and respectful line in the sand.

I too have received e-mails and phone calls from small-business people in my riding. For example, I received an e-mail from a member in my riding who publishes two magazines, not one but two. He is dependent on postal service. He e-mailed me to say that we have to stand with the workers at Canada Post and that the principle of collective bargaining is a principle that our grandparents and great grandparents fought for.

Last night I listened to many of the members opposite talk about how their fathers were in the trade union movement. I thought that was interesting. If it were not for the hard work and dedication of men and women over decades and decades, many of us would not have had the opportunity to end up where we are right now. That is very important for us to consider.

Another thing I respectfully ask the members opposite to consider is this. In 1995 a CEO's salary was 85 times the average worker's. That seems a little high. Most reasonable people would think there was something out of whack with that kind of equation.

I know some of our friends across the aisle like to characterize some of us on the official opposition side as some kind of wild-eyed folks that they do not want around their money.

However, today a CEO's salary is 220 times the average worker's pay. Whether one is a small business owner, a medium-sized business owner or a big business owner, or a worker, something is wrong with that.

That brings me back to Bill C-6. If we allow pensions to be chipped away at for workers who have fought for so long to achieve and to protect this benefit, then we will not help workers across the country who have no pension in the first place. If we let this happen, it moves the marker back for everybody else.

I was elected in the riding of Davenport on the promise that I would advocate for, speak up for and fight for, among other things, those who had no pensions, benefits or access to a safety net like employment insurance.

If we look at the data, we see a large-scale migration from the unemployed line of the ledger over to the self-employed line of the ledger. The problem is that for so many people who are self-employed, they are not really making enough money. They are trying to get businesses off the ground.

The government likes to trumpet the fact that it has supposedly created hundreds of thousands of jobs, but it never says whether these are full-time jobs. It never says whether these are jobs on which one can raise a family. We need a means test because one cannot raise a family on a $10 an hour or $12 an hour job. One cannot raise a family on a job where at the whim of the employer he or she loses a couple of days of work. That is happening all across the country.

At the same time, housing affordability has plummetted. It is almost impossible for most young families to afford to live in the city of Toronto.

We have postal workers who are key to our communities, to our economy and we have been asked to agree with the government to chip away at their living wage. We will not do that.

We have many workers in the country who are looking for leadership from the official opposition—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet engaged in this discussion or debate in this place. I have listened to the hon. member's comments quite closely, and I there are a few small corrections that need to be made.

First, with respect to the hon. member, he is not simply elected by some constituents. He is here to represent all of his constituents. This is not a closed shop. This is not a union organization. This is not a non-union organization. Our job, as members of Parliament, is to represent everyone as fairly as possible.

The issue is quite simple. We have a group of workers that failed to negotiate. What the workers could not negotiate, they will now try to get through intimidation, and the tactics with which to intimidate are the official opposition.

I cannot understand for the life of me why those members would not agree to put the postal service back to work so all Canadians can get back to work.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, representing all Canadians is exactly what we are trying to do on this side of the House.

When we have one-third of all income gains in the last 20 years going to the top 1%, who is representing whom? We are very clear on this.

In my riding of Davenport we have real estate agents buying pizzas and donuts for CUPW workers because they recognize they are partners.

I am talking about every day Canadians, whether they are in a union, or they are a dishwasher, a cab driver, a web designer or a small entrepreneur, we are all in this boat together. It is the government that is trying to hive off a certain part of the Canadian community and play that one part off against the rest.

We will not stand for that and we have drawn that line in the sand.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member speaking clearly from his heart with very commendable comments. I know he and my other colleagues feel clearly in our hearts that we are here to represent all of our constituents.

While I have been here, I have not heard members on the other side debate their reasons. They will stand and ask questions, but I have not heard debate. It is very rich that they criticize the postal workers who are locked out and say that it is their fault.

There has been a record rate of bankruptcy in my province of small businesses. Rural post offices have been shut down. The services in the cities have been limited. Where have the Conservatives been for the small business people for the last three years?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of us who come from Ontario have seen this movie before. It is called manufacturing a crisis in order to justify draconian measures. We are now seeing it again.

Small entrepreneurs, small business people, self-employed people are not buying it. They see that their interests are very similar, if not exactly the same, as CUPW workers because they need the same thing. They need a living wage. They need an income that can support their families. They need pensions so they can retire in dignity. These are Canadian values and that is what we are fighting for.

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House today. On May 2, I received one of the best presents of my life from the people of Shefford. A total of 27,575 voters put their confidence in me. This is not merely a number. I am talking about people who took time during their day to go and put an X on a ballot. I am taking this opportunity to wish them a happy national holiday. I regret that I cannot be there to celebrate with them.

When it comes to my constituents, my priority is to respect them. “Respect” means to “understand”, and to “understand” means to “listen”. The problem with this government is precisely its inability to listen, to understand and to respect. That inability is illustrated by the fact that it refused to suspend our proceedings during Quebeckers' national holiday.

What do Canada Post workers tell us? I met with them last Friday. They told me they want the government to help them negotiate an agreement, rather than imposing one.

I am going to explain to the government what the term “negotiate” means. It means to listen, to discuss and to exchange views. Canada Post workers have been asking the other side to negotiate to reach an agreement, not to protest on a sidewalk because of a lockout. Postal workers want to deliver the mail. They want to provide that service to the public. They want to help Canada Post fulfill its mandate, which is to serve all Canadians, whether they live in urban or rural areas.

Eight months later, the government has still not figured out how to encourage the two sides to negotiate. The best that it could come up with was to impose unacceptable conditions, within which an arbitrator must try to do his job. The government has imposed salaries increases that are lower than what the two parties had agreed upon, before negotiations broke down.

Instead of ending the lockout, the government gave legitimacy to it. In fact, this is a measure which it has itself used on several occasions to shut down Parliament. The government knows full well what it means. It means that people cannot work and provide the service for which they were hired or elected.

My grey hair speaks volumes about my age. I belong to the generation which wrote its first love letters on paper, not on the Internet. In fact, I still do so. If I am sharing this information with hon. members here today, it is so that they understand the importance of mail in people's lives. To illustrate that importance, I should mention that ever since people began to write, the exchange of letters has played a critical role in discoveries and in the understanding process in a society.

Letters are not only important to people like me and my colleagues. They also play a key role in the creativity of many artists. Georges Dor used to sing:

If you knew how lonely we are at the Manic

You would write to me much more often at the Manicouagan

If you do not have much to tell me

Write the words “I love you” one hundred times

It will be the nicest of poems

I will read it one hundred times

One hundred times a hundred is not much

For those who love one another.

As the words of that song tell us, in remote areas such as the Manicouagan, where workers built a new part of Quebec, letters have always played a critical role and they still do. They have also inspired our artists. That is why we cannot understand Canada Post's decision to impose a lockout.

People in love can no longer write to each other since Canada Post imposed its lockout. The workers could continue to deliver these letters, but they can no longer do so.

Letters bring joy. There are love letters, friendship letters, postcards, and birthday cards. There are also pension cheques, child support payments, tax refunds and so on.

Sometimes, letters are also associated with sad events, such as condolences when our thoughts are with dear ones who are experiencing a difficult time.

As hon. members may have noticed since the beginning of my speech, I am a sensitive man, and I am proud of that. I want to preserve this sensitivity, because to me it is an essential quality in human relations.

All jobs have pros and cons. In the case of a letter carrier, it is to carry one's bag on a rainy day, in a heat wave, or when it is freezing, which happens a lot in our northern country, and also when the snow falls relentlessly, forcing those who deliver our mail to zigzag their way along the sidewalks and streets of our cities and towns that are buried in snow. But, no matter what, these men and women are always there to do their job.

I was able to see it for myself on numerous occasions, because I worked flexible hours. I had the opportunity to see my letter carrier when he would bring the mail to my house.

After my election, while I was waiting for my riding office to open, he took the time to come and explain the procedure to follow regarding all correspondence with my constituents.

This brings me back to the beginning of my speech. What exactly are Canada Post employees asking? The answer is simple. They want both sides to negotiate in good faith. They want the clause setting salaries for postal workers to be withdrawn. They want the lockout to end immediately, so that they can start delivering mail again and serve the public, since that is the reason they were hired. Finally, they want the previous collective agreement to remain in effect until the negotiations end and an agreement is reached.

Canada Post is not a bankrupt corporation that must urgently restructure itself at the expense of workers, as too many companies have done in the past.

No, Canada Post is a profitable business that has a duty to listen to the public and to its employees.

In closing, I wish a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to all francophones across Canada.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the member opposite, and I do believe that there are a lot of love letters going around: between the big union bosses and the ex-union bosses on the NDP front bench. That is where the love letters are being sent this week.

Earlier it was said that our government has never stood up and said that it has created full-time jobs. It was asked what percentage of jobs have been created. The Minister of Finance said in question period that we have created 560,000 new jobs. We are the only country other than Germany that has already replaced all of the economic output that was lost during the recession. I think our government can stand on firm economic ground. Canada has had a great recovery from the recession, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

I have a question for the member. We have heard from a lot of NDP members who are standing up here and questioning the fact that we brought in back to work legislation. I would like know, if the NDP ever were fortunate enough to form government, would there ever be a situation when that particular party would bring in back to work legislation, if not in the Canada Post situation?

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It is important to understand that, in this case, Canada Post employees did not choose the situation they find themselves in right now. It is Canada Post that decided to impose a lockout.

Canada Post decided that Canadians would no longer receive their mail. It is preventing letter carriers from working. The Government of Canada went one step further by setting lower salaries. The workers did not need that. They make the economy run. They are the engines of the economy—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I must interrupt the hon. member so that we can hear other questions.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the hon. member for Shefford for quoting the great poet and songwriter Georges Dor, who put into words the situation that was experienced by thousands of Quebec workers during the 1960s, on the remote jobsites of Manicouagan. That project is a great achievement. It is a major part of our heritage and also an expression of our culture.

Speaking about expression, let us not forget that, in this House, we can express our opinions and ideas freely. Members opposite are free to make up causes for this dispute, just as they have the right to say they believe in Santa Claus. However, they also have the responsibility to look at the reality, and the reality is that a lockout was imposed.

I want to ask my colleague what he thinks of the behaviour of this government, which prevents the two sides from negotiating in good faith and coming to an agreement.

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that we have a government that does not know how to listen and that does as it pleases.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on this side for their passionate presentations, and I am appalled by the old socialist doctrines expressed over and over again by the NDP, with clear Marxist-Leninist overtones. We have heard that 97.7% voted for a strike. That is very close to 99.9% of some failed socialist administrations.

Until when will the NDP keep Parliament hostage instead of serving the interests of Canadians? Let Canadians have their mail.

Could the member please explain to the House how he can justify his party turning its back on the rest of Canadians and so clearly taking sides with the union bosses and not with the workers and Canadians?

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could turn the question back to the hon. member. That is precisely what we are asking. Why does the government not end this dispute by simply ending the lockout and reopening the doors for business?

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

Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf, and as the critic on francophonie, allow me to first wish a happy national holiday to all Quebeckers. This day has been called the national holiday for the past few years to be more inclusive of all minorities in Quebec. My age is betraying me here. I am sometimes a little nostalgic and I miss what used to be called Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Today, I feel a great deal of empathy for all the francophones of this wonderful country who are celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Happy celebrations to them also.

It is no secret that, before May 2, my life was totally different. I wore two hats: I was a teacher in a Trois-Rivières high school, and I was the union rep for the teachers at that institution. Therefore, I have some experience in collective bargaining. I negotiated at least four collective agreements, each with a term of five years. They were referred to as “institutional peace”. At the end of each of those negotiations, and despite the clashes and the differences of opinion, we always managed to find a win-win solution and both sides could come out of the process with their heads held high. They may not have obtained all that they wanted, but they had improved their lot.

On May 2, a majority of voters in my riding elected to me to represent them in this House. I was perhaps a little idealistic in thinking that I was coming here to help create and draft legislation that would ensure the well-being of all Canadians. In the few minutes that I have, I am going to show how Bill C-6, now before us, contains major flaws that make it unacceptable. Since yesterday, there is broad consensus if not unanimity in the House on the importance of getting postal workers back to work. The Conservative Party, the NDP, the third party in the House and postal workers themselves all hope that the workers can return to work. Everyone hopes they will go back to work. Why is that not happening? Probably because this specific dispute involves a lot more than just the conflict at Canada Post.

Canada Post is a very large corporation. Yesterday, I listened with great interest when the Minister of Labour described this corporation. It became clear to me that what we have been debating for hours will set a precedent. Indeed, whether it is another crown corporation, a private venture, a small, medium or large business, or any type of business in this country, what is going on right now is setting a precedent. The government is setting the rules for future negotiations.

While I was preparing these notes, I put my history teacher hat back on, to see when these mean unions were born. Of course, I am being ironic when I use the term “mean”, because that word was used in reference to me during many years. I suppose it will be used again against me in the next few minutes, in addition to the term “socialist”, but I have no problem with that.

At the beginning of the industrial revolution, at a time when those who had money were creating businesses, workers were not listened to by owners. Their working conditions were harsh, their living conditions were miserable and they did not have any access to the sharing of wealth. Whenever they would, individually, try to meet their boss to improve their plight, the door would be shut, or they would just be ignored. So, the solution came naturally. The only way for workers to have a balance of power was to get together and create unions. And how did the employers of the day—at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century—react? Their initial action was to try to pass legislation to prevent unionization.

Thank goodness, they did not succeed in that respect and the union movement was able to continue to develop. A second attempt was made to pass legislation preventing the right to strike. It seems to me that, 200 years later, we are not very far from those actions in the current dispute, since the strike at Canada Post was a very modest one. We are talking about rotating strikes designed to stop mail delivery for one day in one region of the country, and then in another one, so that the whole economy would keep running and businesses would continue to get postal services. At the same time, it allowed employees to show to the public what their working conditions are, while also putting some pressure to support their demands.

Fortunately, unions have made a lot of ground since the industrial revolution, with the result that working conditions are now much better. The work week is reasonable—with the exception of the current one—, living conditions are much improved and wages are decent. As regards salaries, Bill C-6 includes a despicable discriminatory measure whereby young workers would not enjoy the same treatment as more senior workers. It is strange that the government would propose, here in the House of Commons, a bill containing measures that members of Parliament would not accept.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke, who is not here right now but who is the youngest member in this House, the hon. member representing the neighbouring riding of Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who is the dean of this House, and I, who am somewhere in the middle, all receive the same salary, because here we have understood that, regardless of age and experience, the ideas, the values and the work of each member are of equal value and deserve equal remuneration. I cannot figure out why we would not provide for others what we are providing for ourselves. Yet, such is the nature of Bill C-6.

Who benefits from a fair and equitable negotiation process and a win-win solution? Everyone can benefit. Canada Post employees of course, but also management. It would benefit from having a positive working environment for many years and from objective management practices based on a mutually accepted agreement. Moreover, the employees of other corporations in Canada would also benefit, because that successful process would serve as a model.

Let us not also forget the whole category of precarious jobs and self-employed workers, whose numbers are constantly growing because of technological progress. Since these people are alone, they can hardly make demands. However, they are affected positively or negatively by the outcome of the collective bargaining process carried out by major unions.

And here is the icing on the cake. Labour standards provide that the union has the right to strike, while the employer has the right to impose a lockout. In principle, these are the two ultimate negotiation tools. However, these negotiations have been going on for eight months. We have been told for the past two days that it is terrible to have negotiations that have been going on for eight months. Discussions and negotiations are two very different things. One does not have to have been very involved in negotiations to know that the first few months are spent getting to know each other, developing a rapport and putting the demands on the table. Eight months is a very short period to negotiate a collective agreement.

In the escalation process, the biggest pressure tactic used by the union was to begin a rotating strike. The reaction was swift: not only a lockout, but the suspension of the collective agreement, which includes workers' rights and benefits. And they would have us believe that this reaction is fair.

Unfortunately, I am going to stop here, because time flies. However, I will be pleased to reply to the questions and comments of hon. members.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his election and I thank him for his comments.

As the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, I am concerned about the thousands of important documents for immigrants and Canadian citizens that are blocked because of the strike, because of the action taken by the big bosses at CUPW, that radical union.

I am hearing the New Democrats laughing. Maybe they were involved in encouraging the CUPW bosses to block the office of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in Sydney, Nova Scotia, today, barring 700 public servants who have nothing to do with this dispute from going in and doing their work on behalf of Canadians. As a result, there will be further delays.

There are Canadians who desperately need their proof of citizenship, permanent residency cards and citizenship grants. They are waiting to go overseas with these documents. All of that is being held up by the big union bosses in the radical CUPW union, which is being defended by the NDP for narrow ideological reasons.

I want to ask the hon. member how he can justify an illegal action that prevents public servants in my department from doing their job on behalf of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question.

I simply want to point out to him that the day after my election I was invited to meet with the Picazo family, which was dealing with an immigration issue that needed to be settled very urgently. That family was threatened with deportation within four or five days. With the NDP team, I managed to reach the minister's office to try to obtain a stay. I did that without postal services. I used the telephone, the car, the computer and, particularly the useful help provided by MPs in each riding.

If an immigrant needs help, I think that every member of this House, regardless of party affiliation, will provide that help.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like many members in this House, I have received emails describing that even though there were no rolling strikes in Toronto, Canada Post was not staffing stations. Consequently small businesses along Dundas West were not receiving their mail.

It is unbelievable to hear the hon. minister say that somehow we are thwarting small businesses when Canada Post has not been staffing sorting stations and small businesses were not getting their mail before the lockout. Now there is a lockout, and that lockout is up to the government to deal with.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer by quoting a short statement made by Claude Mercier, who is the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers for the Mauricie. He provides a small sample of how Canada Post works in my riding. In his letter, he says that, as regards service to the public, the mail was not delivered in some areas of Trois-Rivières last Friday, because it stayed in the letter carriers' sorting cases and the management had decided not to use replacement personnel.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too have been involved with a union for a number of years. I was a school teacher for 34 years. I was also involved with a political liaison between the Alberta Teachers' Association and the Government of Alberta. There are a lot of things that can happen when one gets people together and one gets them to work.

One of our concerns is that Red Deer was one of the places that did have rotating strikes, and we have felt all of the ramifications of that particular action. We have also had a lot of people inform us that they have considerable concerns as well.

But we have had people on both sides of this issue. I have had some communication from a fellow by the name of Cam who is concerned. He disagrees with some of the things we are saying. He does not like the “winner take all” arbitration, but he is also saying that we should be ordering the employees back to work. These are the kinds of things that we see. We see a lot of different concerns.

A lot of people are trying to get communications out. They put ads and so on into newspapers, but the only way that gets to the community is through Canada Post. They go through the effort of producing the papers, collecting the ads and everything else, but they are having difficulty getting the communications out.

I would also like to talk about one of the events that will be happening in--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I regret that we are running very narrow on time.

The member for Trois-Rivières has 30 seconds left in his response.

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

Mr. Speaker, even though I did not find the question in there, I am pleased to be part of this brotherhood of teachers with my learned colleague. What seems most important in what he said is that when we are part of a union, we can bring people together, closer, and we can create winning conditions.

It seems to me that we, in this House, should set an example. Being unable, after two hours of debate, to put forward a motion or an amendment that would get the support of all parties sends a very bad message to the public.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to wish all Quebeckers a happy national holiday, in particular the people of the riding of Laval—Les Îles, with whom I would really have liked to celebrate tonight, but since the government has prohibited this—we know what is going on, we understand—it will not be possible. They will understand the reason for my absence.

The government decided to extend the work of the House without regard for Quebec MPs or their constituents. It preferred to interfere in the negotiations between the postal workers and Canada Post, by forcing the workers back to work under unacceptable conditions, rather than allowing us to go and celebrate with our constituents.

I am here tonight in order to stand up for the workers of Canada Post who are fighting in good faith to obtain sound working conditions and a negotiated collective agreement. They are faced with the possibility of seeing the government impose salaries that are lower than those that were offered by the employer. I am also here to stand up for all workers who could be facing the same fate because of a government that has no values and does not want to amend its bill.

Before continuing, I would like to specify that unlike Canada Post, which has locked out its employees and deprived the public of an essential service, postal workers never took Canadians hostage. The rotating strikes they held delayed postal delivery by one day at the most. Their goal was to force Canada Post to negotiate. But the employer's reaction was to close the door to negotiation, impose a lockout on its employees and interrupt all mail delivery.

This is a manoeuvre that is putting the most vulnerable people in a difficult if not precarious situation. In spite of the lockout and the threat of legislation imposing a return to work with lower salaries than those proposed by Canada Post, postal workers are continuing to provide mail delivery in my riding. Pension cheques, social assistance cheques and child benefit cheques have been delivered so as to limit the damages. The postal workers are not doing this for money, but out of respect for Canadians who may well depend on those benefits for their subsistence.

I said “respect”, a word that seems to mean nothing to the Conservative government. Government interference and the prospect of special legislation to force postal employees back to work leave the door wide open for the employer, which realizes it no longer has to negotiate in good faith and can hand its dirty work over to the government.

The message to workers is clear: accept the offer of the employer, which is taking away the gains that employees have been able to achieve, not by forcing Canada Post's hand but by bargaining. Today, the government, on whom these workers should be able to rely to stand up and protect them, will impose an even worse settlement on them than Canada Post's offer. It is important to point out that Canada Post is not on the verge of bankruptcy, far from it. It generated nearly $300 million in profits in 2009, and yet it is claiming that it cannot provide its employees with sound working conditions or new employees with fair wages. That is a tough pill to swallow when the corporation pays its CEO almost $500,000, not to mention a performance bonus of more than $150,000, which would climb even higher under this bill. I am certain, by the way, that he still collected his paycheque during the lockout.

Canada Post is a profitable, reliable and indispensable postal service, and contrary to what pro-privatization forces would have us believe, no alternative involving the private sector could ever be adequate.

In addition, the Canadian public does not agree with privatizing a low-cost, high-quality postal service.

I wonder what the government—which is supposed to serve the public and respect its will—does not understand about that.

Finally, I am concerned about the precedent that will be set by this interference. Who will pay the price next time? Unionized workers have every right to expect their contract to be respected. They have every right to expect their employer to negotiate fairly, justly and in good faith. By introducing this bill, the government is opening the door to a dangerous practice that would allow employers to gut worker's rights with the blessing of the House of Commons, or at least one side of the House of Commons.

The Canadian government must set an example in terms of equality, safety and respect for workers. This should be a country that makes its citizens proud and not a land that turns the clock back on the gains made by taxpayers for benefit of company CEOs who already profit from the current system.

Happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to all French Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, as time wears on it appears that the focus of the discourse is becoming increasingly confused. Let me try to bring us back to some important facts.

I would like to suggest that we also focus on the defining offer by Canada Post. Employees hired in the future would be offered wages and benefits that are superior to those offered by competing logistic and delivery companies.

There has been a lot of debate about whether this is a strike or a lockout. I just draw the attention of the hon. members to a June 12, 2011, media advisory from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The union held a press conference saying that workers in a number of locations would be out on strike that night. It itemized a number of areas as well.

I also wanted to also address the definition of “strike”. A strike is the collective organized cessation or slowdown of work by employees to force acceptance of their demands by the employer. Most jurisdictions require that for a strike to be legal, it must be approved by a majority of the employees in a secret vote. I do not recall that this was ever done.

I believe it is the most vulnerable Canadians who are most affected by this stoppage. That includes those with disabilities, veterans, and new Canadians. Does the hon. member honestly believe his party is helping vulnerable Canadians and small business owners by dragging out the passage of this legislation?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are working for all workers across Canada. We are not just doing this for the postal workers. And we are doing this because we thought that the government on the other side would act in good faith, take the wage clause out and take the lock off the door.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just sitting here with my computer when I received an email. I would like to read it. It was sent by a letter carrier from the GTA.

She says: “I am working in Mississauga, Ontario, for Canada Post. I have been working in this company for almost 29 years, both inside the postal plant and as a letter carrier. I have been listening to the government channel and would like to comment on a few things that they are attacking.”

She continues: “First of all, we did not want this lockout. We wanted to work and our high-paid upper management are making these decisions. As a letter carrier, I was in this week to deliver the cheques to our customers that the government is claiming were not delivered. Please report this to them.

She goes on to say: “Ask our government MPs and our upper management to sit in our shoes for a day or two. I think their opinions would change. We're happy with what the MPs are doing when they're saying 'unlock the doors for us to work and force Canada Post to negotiate in good faith'.”

This letter carrier from Mississauga says there is a need for Canada Post to unlock the doors and for the government to not interfere in this collective bargaining process. I am asking if my colleague can comment on that.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

As I said earlier, we are here to ensure that people can negotiate collective agreements, not have ones that are imposed by the government. All we are asking is that the government take the wage clause out and take the lock off the door.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just got a message on my BlackBerry. The sender is wondering if this is a debate between members or a debate between BlackBerrys.

Seriously, the member talked about extending the work of the House. It seems to me we are debating a hoist motion and we are not even debating Bill C-6. If they want to stop extending the business of the House, let us get to Bill C-6. How about it?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comment from the hon. member opposite.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to wish the people in the Louis-Saint-Laurent riding, all Quebeckers and all French Canadians across the country a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

Today, throughout my riding, thousands of people are celebrating their shared values and pride at living in the beautiful province of Quebec. I hope that today was everything they hoped for.

I cannot say the same for myself. Rather than celebrating with them and taking advantage of the festivities to meet more residents in my riding, I have to listen to the government repeatedly attack the rights of Canada Post employees and justify their anti-worker measures with very questionable arguments.

Like many of the hon. members, over the past few days, I have not stopped receiving phone calls and emails from concerned citizens, from people who are wondering what this government is getting us into.

On one side of this dispute, I see people who are fighting for better job security and, on the other, I see a government with irresponsible policies that is seeking to impose an unfair contract on workers and do everything in its power to lower workers' wages.

Last year, in 2009, Canada Post made a profit of approximately $281 million. Its President and CEO earns almost half a million dollars a year with a 33% bonus. And what is being asked? Workers are being asked to make sacrifices that will impact their families.

This government must understand that it is not its role to act as management for Canada Post. It should not have even become involved in this situation since the workers have the right to negotiate with their employer and are able to come up with solutions.

After workers have fought for decades for a fair and equitable work environment, I am wondering whether this government wanted to get involved in the dispute just to create a precedent and move us backwards.

We are lucky to have one of the best postal services in the world. Canada Post employees would like nothing more than to return to work. They have always been there for Canadians across the country, from coast to coast, in summer and in winter. Today, we must be there for them. It is a duty.

We want to work with the government to find solutions but we will not play its game. The workers deserve respect and they have the right to negotiate with their employer as equals.

The reason I am standing here today is that the thousands of men and women who every day brave all kinds of weather deserve better than this special bill. They deserve better than a watered-down pension plan, which will from one day to the next force them to change their retirement date, a date they had been looking forward to for years. After providing decades of good and loyal service, thousands of Canadians must make radical changes to their plans.

What about the promises management made to them year after year? The commitments made in successive collective agreements? Poof! Gone up in smoke. It is not fair to change the rules of the game in such a fashion.

Canada Post workers deserve better than a government that does not hesitate to separate them into two camps according to their age. In other cases, we have heard government members insist that the same rules should apply to everyone. But in this case they have taken the opposite position: they are unabashedly advocating a two-tier system, a position that tells the workers of my generation that their contribution is not up to par and will never be truly recognized.

By imposing these vastly inferior conditions on new employees, this government is digging a wide trench between the generations. It is creating serious divisions between young and older workers and will have created a more troubled work atmosphere when the mail starts to move again throughout the country.

And above all, these workers deserve better than a government that treats them the way they have been treated over the last few days, that is, as second-class citizens. What has struck me most from the beginning of this debate has been the contempt that certain members of the other side of the House have not hesitated to show towards thousands of Canadians who have devoted their lives to their community for years.

The government did not hesitate to depict them as people who are refusing to work, when the opposite is true—it is management that has put a lock on the door and brought all postal service in this country to a sudden standstill.

The government did not hesitate to attempt to turn the public against the postal workers, presenting them as the killers of the Canadian economy, a privileged caste profiting from the cost of stamps, when the opposite is true: they are productive members of the Canadian economy who generate substantial revenues for the government.

These citizens who wanted to continue working are involved in their communities and proudly serve their fellow Canadians, rain or shine.

The government did not hesitate to twist the knife with its special bill that imposes wages that are lower than those in management's last offer. This just does not make sense. The workers kept the postal system going despite their frustration with the slow pace of negotiations, and restricted themselves to rotating strikes that minimally impacted the public. The employer initiated a lockout, depriving millions of Canadians of their postal services and, as my colleagues opposite like to say, that really hurts the Canadian economy.

What does the government do in this situation? It punishes the workers and rewards Canada Post management by reducing the offer that was on the table.

If this government really believed that this lockout was adversely affecting the economy, it would not act this way. It would end the lockout instead of punishing the workers, who acted in good faith throughout this situation.

At present, everyone wants this conflict to be resolved. That is all the employees want. They want the lockout to end so they can go back to work and continue to serve the public.

This bill, however, is not about resuming mail delivery or protecting the economic recovery, or any other reason given by the government. No, Bill C-6 is about eroding some of the most fundamental rights of Canadian workers. This bill is about sending a message to workers across Canada; they are being told to keep quiet because this government will not hesitate to interfere if they want to exercise their rights.

Today, I would like to remind this government that it must support families and help them pay their bills. That is not a favour, it is its job. It is a duty. Unfortunate, the government seems to have forgotten this.

Today, it is attacking the postal workers. Who will be next? Who will be the next victims to have their rights violated in this way?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech.

As the member well knows, our government is concerned about the effect that the Canada Post work stoppage is having on the Canadian economy and the economic recovery.

A number of emails and BlackBerry messages have been shared. I have had numerous messages, but I think it is important that I share this one with the member and would ask for her response.

This is from a constituent who owns and operates two helicopter companies, and therefore pays corporate taxes as well as personal taxes. She asks me to speak on her behalf in Parliament with regard to the current postal strike. She wants them sent back to work, as this is seriously affecting her business in terms of receiving payments from her customers and sending payments to her vendors. She should not have to incur more costs to do business, like paying FedEx or Greyhound bills, just to be able to keep operating.

Why is the NDP trying to block the process of back to work legislation? They are basically closing the doors on this opportunity. Why are they doing that and hurting the Canadian economy? Why are they disrespecting the majority of Canadians who want this settled?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond to the constituent who wrote to you. In fact, this is not a strike; unfortunately, this is a lockout. The workers should not have to pay for this decision, which was made by management. Canada Post just has to unlock the doors and end the lockout and the situation will work itself out.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the last person who spoke to briefly explain what the future could hold if a two-tiered pension system is implemented, or what it would mean in terms of employee relations within a union where some workers, because of their age, would clearly be discriminated against and condemned to a certain life of poverty when they retire.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. Clearly, as a young woman, I cannot help but feel terrified by the idea that this type of precedent could be set at Canada Post. Frankly, young people have the right to their place, the right to jobs with good working conditions and decent salaries. I am truly terrified at the idea that a decision could be made that would create such a gap between the generations and that would have such a negative effect on working relations between employees.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not blame the unions. We do not blame the postal workers. There is one sole organization that has the ability to let the postal workers go back to work and that is the NDP.

I have a letter from Roy Wood, a small businessman. He says:

As of right now I have 4000 “Spring Special” post cards, stamped and addressed......and just sitting on the shelf.

We have to be very careful and calculating with our marketing dollars.... We are losing revenue every day those cards sit. ...will it do me any good to cross out spring and write summer on 4000 cards?

When they do not have business, it is not just he who is losing money, but his employees who do not work are losing money too. We want to ask the NDP to please stop this political stunt and let the post get mailed.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only respond in the same way as I did earlier. It is not the workers' fault. This is a lockout. The only thing that is currently preventing these employees from working and contributing to the Canadian economy is the locks on the doors. Unlock the doors and the mail will continue to be delivered and the situation will resolve itself. Let the parties negotiate.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a sad Saint-Jean-Baptiste for us, and I also find it pathetic that the government has failed to listen to our requests in this matter.

A few seconds ago, I heard the hon. member opposite ask why. One of the reasons we have embarked on this marathon is to show everyone this government's true nature. People will hear about it in the news, 20, 30 or 40 times, and in the end they will understand the government's hidden agenda to privatize the postal system. I say hidden agenda because the government is trying to make us believe it is intervening for the sake of efficiency in the interest of the workers and average citizens. In reality, however, the government's sole motivation is to make Canada more appealing to its friends in big business, on whom it bestows all kinds of tax credits.

Bill C-6 is a disgrace. It is not complicated: the bill is an abuse of power, plain and simple. Now we are seeing the Prime Minister's true colours. I urge all Canadians and Quebeckers to stand together in solidarity instead of fear, because we can all ask ourselves who will be next. Which workers will the government muzzle next?

The Conservatives would not have introduced this bill in the days leading up to the election, because there is no question that the vast majority of Canadians respect the rights of workers. This kind of bill would not go through on the eve of an election, only at the beginning of a government's mandate. The Conservatives have no hesitation perpetrating this kind of abuse. Instead of bringing the parties together, the government is taking an adversarial position against the workers. I remember a statement the Prime Minister made on election night about wanting to govern in the interests of all Canadians. I remember him saying that.

A strong, stable majority government, please.

The government is setting out to shatter our society. Does the government have a hidden agenda to sell off all our resources and the workforce? Are we facing a government that objects to public postal services for purely ideological reasons?

The government is looking to dismantle Canada Post, that is quite clear. It would prefer to privatize postal services, which would have disastrous consequences for Canadians. There is no private replacement option that could fulfill Canada Post's mandate. On the contrary, service levels would diminish but would cost more.

With a crown corporation that makes more than $280 million in profit, how can they be talking about profitability concerns and costs that would be too high for Canadians to bear? Postal services are efficient and affordable, and I think that all Canadians hold these services dear.

While more and more Canadians are using email physical mail remains an essential service and one that Canadians hold dear. But the Conservatives seem to believe differently. I use email all the time but my real mailbox is quite often filled to the brim. I easily receive about 20 pieces of mail a week, which amounts to about four pieces being sent through the mail every working day. I do not believe it is a dying service.

Postal workers are aware of future challenges and they have amply demonstrated that. Rotating strikes were respectful of the public. Pension cheques were being delivered.

On June 3, Canada Post workers started a rotating strike. They are fighting for better job security and fair wages. They refuse to be the victims of tactics to unfairly take back their money. They refuse to allow the rights of 48,000 employees to be violated and have their families suffer the consequences. Canada Post belongs to us all, to all Canadians.

We are lucky to have one of the best postal services in the world. Seniors need to receive their pension cheques and small businesses need to send their bills.

The government needs to take the damned locks off the doors. We are supposed to defend the people who make this essential service work. That is why we are here. Hearing the Conservatives talk about the businesses that are suffering from the lack of service, I would like to remind them that SMEs are run by ordinary citizens and that they also have collective and civic consciences. They are sometimes able to be patient. I would be curious to poll them.

In any case, we do have to bear in mind that the Conservatives look out for rather big businesses like oil companies and big banks, which do not have a social conscience. With its attitude, the government is trying to create an environment appreciated by the big business lobbies. We all know this. Let us stop fooling ourselves. It has been very clear from the start. This is why I became interested in politics three years ago. When I became a card-carrying member of the NDP, I said to myself that this could not be, that we had to stop it. This government takes its orders from big business, and is out of touch with ordinary people. That is why we are here.

I would like to remind members that the CEO of Canada Post earned $497,000 last year and, in addition, he is up for a 33% performance bonus. That is obscene.

How can we ask people to make sacrifices when others are paid that kind of money? That is mind-boggling. That is the right word. We often use that term. We say about everything and anything, that it is mind-boggling. That sure is incredibly mind-boggling. This was put to us seriously, no kidding.

Postal workers do not drive luxury cars or live in mansions. They are ordinary people who have good working conditions because they are well represented. Today, the government wants to break them. That is what they want to do.

Obviously, the government sees nothing wrong with this and it even wants to give more money to the workers' managers, who are asking for a bit of help with this special bill.

The Conservatives cannot see past the end of their noses. In fact, they do not see past their wallets. Short-sightedness is their speciality. For example, last night at around 10:20 p.m., I heard someone blaming the NDP for creating a carbon exchange because it was going to increase gas prices. That is like dancing on the deck of the Titanic or pretending that there are no problems, that there is no pollution. They have been short-sighted from the outset. Their current desire to privatize the postal system is short-sighted. They claim that it will save money. Come on. Why do they not just admit that they want to go play golf with their friends?

Underestimating the magnitude and scope of the measures against postal workers will create an atmosphere in which all workers will feel as though their rights are threatened. It will create a Canada where, one of these nights, a server at Tim Hortons will hesitate to complain about her working conditions. Yes, she has less protection than letter carriers and other postal workers. However, because the government is trying to break letter carriers and postal workers, this server will feel threatened. She will sell donuts and never ask for a pay raise. I guarantee it.

This is also the case for a cashier at a service station just off the 417 where we go to fill up at 3 a.m. Is he protected? How will he feel if this is done to the postal workers? And what about Raoul, who works on the 18th floor of the office building next door and who vacuums with his earphones on? He must also be telling himself that, if this is being done to letter carriers and postal workers, things will soon not be so rosy for him either.

These workers are not unionized. They are already in a corner. Imagine how these citizens, who are often new immigrants, will gradually lose hope. It would be different if we were at least telling everyone that we need to pull together in difficult economic times. But, no. The government is going to buy F-35s because it is cool. It is true. I imagine that going to dinner with the directors of large aerospace and military equipment companies must be much more exciting than eating Timbits with Huguette or a sandwich with Raoul.

I hear the members opposite talk about the people being held hostage and suffering from this postal situation. But let us be clear: this is not a strike, it is a lockout. I will say it again. This is like a game of table tennis: strike, lockout, strike, lockout. We all know the truth—there were rotating strikes, these guys got impatient and said, “No, we will create special legislation,” and that was that.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the longer this work stoppage continues, the more economic losses are incurred.

Would the member opposite please explain to Canadians why his party does not care about the economic recovery. Would he please also tell Canadians how long he would like to see this work stoppage go on before the losses are too great?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only applaud the member's dedication to her party. Honestly, it is admirable that she continues to repeat these comments. It is a real act of faith.

But we all know that is not the situation. Let us stop there, since that is not the situation. If there is anyone who truly cares about their constituents' future and the economy in general and wants everyone to be able to make ends meet, it is us. It is not true that we do not care.

The reality is that there was a power grab on the other side, and we challenged it. That is what this is all about.

If the member would like to ask me her second question again, she should go ahead. I seem to have forgotten it.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I met with CUPW last week in Guelph and every single member said they just wanted to go back to work. They wanted to go through normal negotiations, mediation, arbitration if necessary, but they were not allowed to.

I wonder if the member would speculate as to why Canada Post has refused to do that. Does he think there might have been any collusion with the government in maintaining this position?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to tell the member that I know exactly about this, but the reality is that even my mother knows. Everyone knows that something obviously happened somewhere.

I do not want to sound too candid about this but it was a candid strike. People know they are on strike, but they did all they could so that the strike would not affect everyone too much. We all know how it was. It was great and then out of the blue, suddenly, bang, bang, it became a lockout. Was something organized behind it? I would say so. Obviously it is the case. I am not that experienced in politics, but my mother and my daughter know too.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the theme that my hon. colleague just raised. There are other ways to make sure that the mail gets moving and that would be to pick up on the union's request to Canada Post to end the lockout, let the workers go back to work under the current collective agreement and then continue bargaining a collective agreement. Government members seem to be suggesting that there is only one way to resolve this matter with that effect and that is to pass this draconian legislation.

I want to point out again that this legislation is not legislation from a government that is interested in a fair result. A government interested in doing that would not have prescribed in the legislation a lower wage rate than management was prepared to offer at the table. I have not yet heard a cogent explanation from the government side as to why it would see fit to interfere in that process.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on those concepts.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and I would also like to thank the other two members who asked questions. I am still not familiar with the procedures and customs here.

It is clear that if the government were to agree to take the threat out of this bill, the workers have already said that they are ready to work with the previous collective agreement to come to a negotiated settlement.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the thousands of postals workers who have been locked out by Canada Post. There are three postal depots in my riding, one in New Westminster, one in Coquitlam and another in Port Moody. I would like to thank all of the workers in those depots. I have talked to many of them and know their good work. I know how hard they have been working and how much this affects them and what it means to them.

Now we have proposed legislation by the government that, if adopted, will force those workers back to work. The legislation put forward by the Conservative government basically makes a mockery of the fair collective bargaining processes that thousands of Canadian men and women have fought so hard for.

I have had the honour and privilege to rise in the House many times to speak on critical issues facing our country, but few issues have motivated me more than the issue of pension protection. I believe everyone has the right to retire with dignity. As a society, we not only accept this but have also worked hard to ensure it by legislating public pension plans.

Working families are not looking for a free ride. They have bargained their pensions in good faith with their employers, diverting their wages into pension plans to have some measure of security upon retirement. This legislation denies those workers the fruits of their labour.

We should be bringing employment and the standard of living up, not tearing them down. We should be supporting family-sustaining jobs, not promoting a race to the bottom. We should be building a better world for our parents and our children, not pulling the rug out from underneath them. This legislation is the first volley of what, no doubt, will be a long and sustained attack on public pensions across our country.

However, do not take it from me. My office has heard from many in my riding who would be affected by this legislation. Here is what they say.

Kerisma, a full-time letter carrier in Coquitlam, notes that since the last contract had expired, she, along with her colleagues, has worked to help Canada Post meet and exceed target goals for performance and revenue. She believes that Canada Post has not negotiated in good faith and that this legislation rewards the corporation, one, for refusing to address health and safety concerns; two, for refusing to negotiate; and, three, for locking out its workers and creating this unnecessary halt to the mail.

Kerry is a 17-year employee at Canada Post, who says that his pension is his only hope of living above the poverty line when he retires. He says that they have been subject to large cutbacks in every agreement since he joined the postal service and that if they lose any more, we will have one of the world's worst in the public service. All they are asking for is fair treatment.

Another postal worker in my riding expressed her frustration with the time value system through which workers' current pay is established. Parcels on mobile routes and withheld mail are not included in the calculation, giving postal workers more mail to carry and forcing them to work through lunch to complete their routes on time and to avoid discipline for working overtime. She wants to know why the government is attacking postal workers. Government jobs should be good, respectable jobs that we can be proud of.

Michelle has been a letter carrier for 20 years in New Westminster. She loves her job. She is a single mom with two children who struggles to make ends meet. Her route has 1,233 points of call. After starting at 6:30 a.m. every morning, she is often not finished her route until 5 p.m. when her children arrive home from school. She delivers more mail now than she did 10 years ago, and that does not include the pounds of flyers. She worries about the next generation of postal workers and whether her job will even be viable employment for future workers. She has generously invited the Minister of Labour to accompany her on her route some time, and I would be happy to facilitate such a visit.

Shannon, a nine-year employee, is concerned about her sick benefits and pension plan. She says that the physical impact of doing her job takes its toll on her body. She knows many co-workers who require surgery from work-related injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and knee and hip degeneration.

William, a letter carrier in New West, has worked for Canada Post for several years. He supports a wife and two children. He would like to retire with Canada Post but fears that a forced collective agreement would make that difficult.

Mirko is a 16-year postal worker veteran. He has two kids and a mortgage. He has seen many changes since he began as a letter carrier. He says his route would take an average mortal 10 hours to complete, for which he receives 8 hours of pay. Three years ago, ten and a half routes were eliminated from the area and everyone's route was lengthened. Injuries went up. Sixteen years ago he delivered two trays of about 1,000 letters on his route. Today, he delivers an average of three or four trays.

Leanne is a letter carrier in New Westminster. She has been employed by Canada Post for 19 years. She is 39 years old. She was just re-elected as the secretary-treasurer of the Royal City Local for a third term. This means that she works in the union office at least 10 days a month, doing the financials and the many other office duties specified in her local bylaws. She fully believes that the only reason she is not severely injured from her duties as a letter carrier is the simple fact she gets a break from the physical aspect of delivering mail when she works for the union.

New Westminster, B.C., part of my riding, is a quickly growing community. Indeed, she mentioned that she was looking out the window on East Columbia Street and watching the high-rises go up at the old brewery site as she was typing her email to me. She says that even though they are delivering to many more points of call in the city and to all others in her local, Canada Post has restructured their routes and cut the number of routes in every office for the last several years.

In September 2009, the New West depot was restructured. The end result was that 86 routes became 75, with a wave of management's magic wand. They lost 11 full-time employees, plus one relief carrier, in their depot. Every route suddenly had hundreds more points of call. This meant they were spending hours more every day on the street. They were carrying more pounds of mail every day. They were working 10, 12, even 14 hours a day. They were delivering in the dark, in the snow and on steep hills.

How did Canada Post react? It gave them ice cleats and headlamps.

Through the winter season, approximately one-third of the letter carriers were injured on the job and were either completely off or unable to do their full duties. Canada Post responded by forcing those who still happened to be able-bodied to do compulsory overtime on other routes after they had finished their own.

Canada Post challenged every WCB and WorkSafe claim put in by the members. Many were denied. Many members stopped reporting the injuries; they simply gave up.

Leanne reports that she has been left with plantar fasciitis and wakes up with foot pain every day. She says she can handle all of this, but what she cannot tolerate is the fact that she did not see her five-year-old son during the first week of their new routes.

She goes on to talk about her son and the impacts on him, the fact that she does not see him, that her parents and grandparents are involved in raising her son because she has to work overtime. She talks about being sick and getting hurt on the job. She talks about how Manulife, the third-party disability management provider, is involved in every case and questions every single claim workers put in.

The point here is that the physical and mental health effects of their jobs are affecting them and their families.

The biggest issue she faces now is being legislated back to work. Having that crammed down her throat is something she is appalled by.

These are moments that will define a generation. How will we look workers in the eye when we leave this chamber? This draconian legislation tears down decades of collective bargaining legislation that people in this country have worked so hard to put in place. We have an obligation to honour the agreements we make with workers.

We have an obligation to honour the agreements that we make with workers. We have an obligation to protect pensions. It is the right thing to do. Along with our concerns about protecting pensions, we must act to protect good wages for all workers.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments.

As I had mentioned earlier, I was a union political liaison person with the ATA in the province of Alberta, so I do understand a lot of the different things that go on between negotiating parties.

I would like to read something I have just received. It says:

Hello Earl, I am a Canada Post employee here in Red Deer, and I have been watching the debate on resuming postal services very closely.

I, and my colleagues are very disappointed that this bill is taking so long to pass, and that the NDP is holding things up as they are. I am sure you are all getting very weary of this debate by now.

I constantly speak to my colleagues at Canada Post and we all want to go back to work—

—If members will recall, Red Deer was part of the rotating strikes—

—we are all waiting patiently for this bill to pass so our lives can go back to normal. The fact is, even though CUPW says they cannot come to a deal with Canada Post, the truth is the vast majority of us are happy with Canada Post's last offer and would have happily accepted it. We are at the mercy of CUPW and feel we are caught in the middle of this vicious time.

As part of my daily mail route is delivering mail to many small businesses, there is no doubt in my mind that business is suffering because of the postal stoppage. It is very frustrating times when the all of us 'little people' want to do is to get back to work and take care of our customers, and try to win back the business that is no doubt been lost because of this disruption.

Any further delay on this bill passing by the official opposition is irresponsible, and all it will do is continue to hurt small businesses, citizens, and thousands of Canada Post workers who rely on the mail system flow.

Speaking on behalf of myself and my fellow posties, we wish you luck and speed in getting our postal service flowing again.

I ask—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was quite the question. It seemed like a fairly long statement.

I can certainly empathize. I have heard a number of comments. I have had a number of emails and letters from constituents, from carriers, from postal workers. They have also expressed their frustration. They simply want to have a negotiated settlement that is fair. They do not want the government to impose a deal. They do not want the government involved in this, but want to let the two parties have a negotiated settlement.

I received an email from Barry, who visited my constituency office just the other day to express his frustration with this legislation. He is a 36-year employee of Canada Post in Coquitlam. He said he had tried to contact the Prime Minister's Office to discuss this bill, but when he phoned the office hung up on him. That is how a 36-year veteran of the postal service is treated. When tries to get through, they hang up on him when he mentions that he is a postal worker. Barry is extremely frustrated, just as I have heard from some of these others.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant flaws in the back to work legislation is the fact that the government is taking the position that the postal workers are not worth the amount of money previously agreed with the Canada Post Corporation. In fact, a salary has been set within the legislation that is actually less than what Canada Post offered.

When I listened to the email response from the Conservative member, the first thought that ran across my mind was the employee referring to the fact he was receiving a better offer from Canada Post than in this back to work legislation.

I ask the member to comment on that aspect of the legislation, which we ultimately believe could be questionable in terms of whether or not it is against our Constitution and free bargaining rights.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this deal is worse than what they would even get at the table from Canada Post. The government is offering wage rates lower than what Canada Post offered.

It tramples on collective bargaining rights in our country.

As well, it supports a tax on the postal workers' defined pension benefits plan.

Also, it promotes a two-tier wage and benefits system.

This legislation is an attack not just on postal workers but also on wages, benefits and pensions of all Canadian workers. That is why we are making a stand. That is why I will continue to be in the House every day, as long as it takes, to get a fair negotiated settlement not only for our postal workers but for all our Canadian workers.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by apologizing to my constituents in the riding of Laval for missing the various Saint-Jean-Baptiste festivities taking place throughout the community. I am here today to stand up for workers' rights.

On June 3, postal workers began rotating strikes. They are fighting for safer working conditions and decent wages. They offered to stop the rotating strikes if Canada Post would agree to abide by the old contract while negotiations were ongoing. Canada Post refused to do so. The employer instead decided to lock the workers out and to shut down postal service. That is why Canadians and small businesses are no longer receiving their mail.

It is important to keep in mind that this is not a workers' strike but a lockout imposed by the employer, Canada Post. Workers have the right to negotiate with their employer in good faith. But that is not the case here. The government wants to impose a labour contract on employees. What the government is doing does not give both sides an opportunity to reach an agreement. Furthermore, the government is proposing an agreement with even lower wages than Canada Post's offer.

What type of message are they sending? This debate is not only about mail, it is above all about the workers' right to negotiate a collective agreement. Who will be the next group of workers to see their rights trampled underfoot in this way?

Which leads me to ask the Conservative caucus and more precisely the Minister of Labour if the ultimate objective, the government's true objective, is not simply to create a precedent, a very dangerous one in fact, in order to destroy and annihilate the union movement in Canada.

Canada Post workers want a very simple thing: they want to deliver the mail, to work, quite simply. For the moment, they cannot provide the services they were hired to provide. This raises the following question: why can they not go to work? The answer is very simple: there is a lock on their employer's door. There are locks on all the mailboxes throughout the country.

Canada Post has a mandate to fulfill for the entire population, including people in large cities like Laval and Montreal. Laval residents are already dealing with big problems, because it is difficult these days to get around on the island of Montreal where many Laval residents work. Since the government is not investing enough in infrastructure in the greater Montreal area, the residents of both the south and north shores are suffering.

It would be possible to prevent further problems for the people of Laval, Montreal and the south shore. The government could encourage negotiations and work with the opposition to make the bill acceptable to all sides in this labour dispute.

Canada Post has decided that the Canadian population would no longer receive its mail. In addition to Canada Post preventing the letter carriers from working, the Government of Canada has decided to add insult to injury by setting lower salary levels. These workers did not need that. These workers make the economy go round. These workers are the engine of the economy. They are consumers and taxpayers. They contribute to society, as opposed to the big corporations that are always getting bigger and better gifts from the government.

The time has come to show some flexibility and withdraw the unfair provision regarding workers' salaries.

We understand that the government is in no hurry to remove the locks from the doors, because it likes locks. It locked up Parliament several times because it did not like the way things were going.

The solution to this deadlock is simple. We are asking the government to work with us to encourage negotiation in good faith between the parties in this conflict. We are asking the government to withdraw the clause that sets the salaries for postal workers, and to put an immediate end to the lockout so that mail carriers can resume delivering the mail and providing service to the population. That is what they were hired to do. We are also asking the government to allow the negotiations to continue until a new collective agreement has been signed.

Canada Post is not bankrupt. No urgent restructuring is required. Canada Post is a profitable undertaking with a responsibility to negotiate with its workers. The time has come to put an end to the lockout.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I note there have been a few people reading emails from constituents into the record. I have a few from people who are very upset. I will read one. It states, “We are very upset with the Canada Post work stoppage. This is affecting communication with our senior parents. My mother does everything by mail. She cannot use a computer. My father will not receive a gift for Father's Day. My child will not get graduation photos to family and friends, let alone gifts for graduation.We, the little people, affected by this strike are very upset. We appreciate the efforts of the Government of Canada in this matter. We will support you and the Government of Canada in this matter. I was a federal and provincial employee, but I understand, enough is enough. It costs and hurts us”.

I have another one here that reads, ”I hope you are taking the message to Ottawa that Canada Post has to get workers back on the job. As small business owners with an online retail business, we rely very heavily on the delivery services of our products to customers via Canada Post”.

They are asking that we work to get Canada Post back to work. I have also received a number of tweets. I want to share a couple of those as well. One is from a constituent in Carstairs who says, “Keep up the good work. My family has very important mail that we cannot get right now. Very disappointing for our son”.

I have another one that I want to share. It reads, “Thank you for your work. I might not use Canada Post much, but my clients do and, therefore, that means the cheques are in the mail”.

I just want to point out that that would be a hashtag NDP fail. What do the NDP say to these individuals who need to have postal service so they can get their businesses working and get their families' mail?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member across the way would be surprised to know how many emails I have received from all over Canada, from workers who are demanding that the government put an end to the lockout so that they can receive their mail. That is the only solution: if the government puts an end to the lockout, the negotiations can resume properly and everything will get settled.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a question I have been wanting to put for quite some time and I would be interested to hear the hon. member's response.

Earlier in the evening, the Associate Minister of National Defence raised a very interesting point which I am not sure really came home to everyone in the chamber. He suggested that the salaries that had been negotiated for the postal workers should be clawed back to the level proposed in the legislation because they would be more comparable to private couriers. Perhaps he showed his hand out of turn from what the PMO would have wanted. It leads me to believe that this is the first step. Maybe the Conservatives are setting the salary range for a sell-off and to privatize Canada Post.

We have been informed in this House that it is a mere $857.50 per postal worker that they are seeking. I have just learned that the government, along with the Government of Alberta, have just gifted almost $1 billion to Shell for one project to try to meet its carbon target.

The government can give $1 billion to Shell, but it cannot give $857.50 to a postal worker? Would the member like to comment on that?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and honourable member from our side of the House.

You should know that I come from a union background and that I have some experience in this, as I lived through the imposition of a law by the provincial government of Quebec. Let me say this at the outset: when salaries are being negotiated, it is not advisable for one party to have the upper hand. We went back to work dragging our heels.

Their ultimate objective here is to put an end to the union movement, privatize the business and offer ridiculous salaries.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we continue with debate, I will give a helpful hint for some members. There are often a lot of members who would like to get up on questions and comments and, with only five minutes, it is good to keep your question at around a minute and that gives the respondent about the same time. We might be able to get three questions in on questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers held a rotating strike so as not to prevent Canadians from receiving their mail. The union offered to end the strike if the company would agree to keep the former collective agreement in effect during the negotiation process; however, Canada Post refused. Why did it refuse?

Employees are locked out; they are not on strike. Their right to strike has been taken away, and this is unacceptable in 2011. Locking out employees does not seem like a good idea when negotiations are underway. We must not forget that Canada Post belongs to all Canadians. Why is the government imposing legislation that will give the workers lower salaries than what was offered by Canada Post? Why decrease their purchasing power when we know that the cost of living never stops increasing? You can see it at the grocery store each week.

We are asking the Conservative government to respect the rights of workers. We are hoping that what is happening at Canada Post is not a prelude or a severe warning to all Canadian workers. We must allow both parties to come to an agreement for everyone's well-being. Will the Conservative government allow this to happen?

We know that a lower salary means a lower pension. After I was elected, employees in my riding asked me to protect their jobs and to ensure that Canada Post was not privatized. They explained to me what they are experiencing and told me about their concerns. They said that they have been feeling the pressure for a long time already. My role as a member of Parliament is to listen to them and bring their message to Ottawa.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, who do the hon. member and the NDP think they are helping by causing this delay in getting our postal workers back to work? Because they are not helping Canadians. In fact, 70% of Canadians are against this. They also are not helping postal workers.

I have done the math, and 25% of the annual increase is lost every day that the NDP delays the postal workers getting back to work. That means that, in four days, the entire annual increase for the postal workers is gone as a result of the NDP's delay in getting our postal workers back to work.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the mail may be late, but we must protect the rights of workers. I know that a large part of the population agrees with us and wants the workers to be able to negotiate a real contract and not have one imposed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know there are many people watching this debate with curiosity. We are looking for ideas. I understand there was some movement, in that the New Democratic caucus has provided some potential amendments to the government caucus. I think there seems to be an appetite to find out what kinds of ideas might be flowing. The leader of the Liberal Party talked about constitutionality, and we have talked about the wage factor and other aspects of the legislation.

Is there any way the member could share with the House ideas the New Democrats have that they would like to see in the current legislation?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have participated in a debate in the House. It is quite interesting. In light of what we are going through and what our employees are currently going through—because they are our employees—I believe that we absolutely must support their actions. They want a contract that is signed in good faith. We have to support them in this.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple.

All members agree that workers have the right to draw a pension and to live comfortably and safely. They are entitled to that because they have worked for their retirement pension. My question is as follows. What will be the impact of such legislation on workers' pensions?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, reducing their wages will mean that their pensions will be smaller, and thus they will have less money when they reach retirement age. This week, we spoke several times throughout almost an entire day about the poverty of seniors. Therefore, I do not believe that we should decrease workers' salaries because they will then retire in poverty.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague realizes that we are not even debating Bill C-6; we are debating the hoist amendment.

I also wonder if all the speeches we have heard for the last two days will be repeated again when we actually debate Bill C-6.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will repeat what we have said: it is to protect workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to take advantage of the few minutes I have to try to explain the concepts that some of my Conservative colleagues have obviously not understood, even after several hours of debate.

We are here today to vote on a bill forcing workers to abandon their right to bargain, forcing them to return to inadequate health and safety conditions at work, conditions that need to be improved, and forcing them to be quiet.

This back-to-work legislation means that workers are losing ground and that their rights are being rolled back. We have said this repeatedly in the House, but apparently the words have not made it to the other side of the chamber.

Because of this bill, workers will be deprived of the right to negotiate their working conditions, a right they acquired decades ago. Please note the word “negotiation”, a word the leader of the government needs to examine more closely.

We have to discuss and debate to arrive at an agreement that will satisfy both parties and be fair to both of them, because even if one of two parties has more power, for instance if it is in majority at the bargaining table, the spirit of democracy and justice should dictate that it listens to what the other side has to say, to learn from the experience that informs each of their statements. But this government clearly has nothing but contempt for the word “negotiation”.

For several months now postal workers have negotiated to obtain better working conditions. They made concessions and they agreed to listen to what their employer had to say. They were willing to accept the collective agreement that was in force. They were ready to live with it so that things could move forward.

They demonstrated more commitment to their work and dedication to their fellow citizens than their legal obligations required. And what did the government do in light of these concessions? What did the government do in return for their dedication to public service and the citizens of this country? It treated them with contempt, ignored them and gave them short shrift. And what is even worse, it is offering postal workers even less than what they had obtained in their negotiations with Canada Post. It is proposing a lower salary and poorer working conditions. Why impose worse conditions on the workers than those Canada Post had agreed to?

Let us come back to the reason Canada Post is giving for refusing the union's demands: the argument that agreeing to these demands would supposedly render the company financially non-viable.

Given how broadly Canada Post defines its financial viability, we can therefore assume that the provisions agreed to by management did not directly or indirectly jeopardize Canada's or Canada Post's finances.

And yet, the government decided to retract these provisions. Why? The answer is simple: for profit. This bill trades the security, health and quality of life of devoted workers and their families for profits larger than the $281 million Canada Post made last year. The government is trading the dignity of our workers for a few million dollars extra. Does the Prime Minister think that this is in the best interest of our country?

Has he perhaps forgotten that a country is not a bank? This country is not a pile of money; it is people who work and dedicate themselves to this country, people who have already made concessions.

Where are this government's concessions? Where is this government's dignity? I do not know. I do not see them in this bill. All I see here is a supreme insult to all the workers in this country who get up every morning to keep this country running, to make sure the mail gets delivered, to take care of the sick, to manufacture goods, to teach our children and to ensure that our society and economy do as well as possible. The truth is that the workers we are talking about have shown more concern and respect for Canadians than this government has.

But contempt is common on the other side of the House. Take, for example, the fact that this government was found in contempt of Parliament. We have not forgotten. The contempt this government has for postal workers who did everything they could to continue to provide service to the public even while they were on strike is unacceptable.

Who will be next? Who will be the next to be humiliated and sacrificed in the supposed best interest of the economy, an interest that we clearly do not define in the same way at all?

Who else will be silenced in the name of these supposed economic interests? Or, should I say, who else will be silenced in the name of this government's interests?

Here is one email I received:

It has been a long haul with Bill C-6, and it's with pride that I see men and women standing in defence of what is right, not only for postal workers but for all workers who don't have a voice.

I would prefer not to repeat yet again what this government has been denying for hours now, but we have no choice. It authorized a worker lockout. It prevented workers from doing their jobs, even though they were willing to continue doing work that no essential service legislation required them to do.

Then the government proposed legislation forcing employees back to work, to do a job they did not want to stop doing in the first place. Incidentally, the government took away some of their rights. The right to collective bargaining, the right to a safe working environment, the right to retire at a deserving age, the right to sick leave, the right to retirement benefits pensioners can live on and not just get by on, all of which are and should remain fundamental rights in this country.

Since this debate began yesterday, all of my NDP colleagues and I have been receiving constant emails of encouragement and appreciation. Emails asking us to fight, to continue standing up for the rights of those who live and work in this country.

Now it is my turn to take this opportunity to thank all those people for their support. They serve as constant reminders of why we are here, why we rise in this House one after another and why we are prepared to stay here as long as necessary.

We have repeatedly heard the Conservatives argue that Canadians gave them a clear mandate to justify their behaviour in this House. I think they are sadly mistaken. I see no clear message. Thirty-eight percent of Canadians voted for the Conservatives. But, as I see it, the clear message and the message that should be obvious to anyone who can add or subtract is that 62% of Canadians voted against the government.

Since the hon. members do not seem inclined to hear the voices of those Canadians, I will make their voices heard here. This morning, I got an email from a woman telling me how proud she was for voting NDP, how heartwarming it was to see all of us, here in the House, standing up for principles that she holds dear, such as the right to free collective bargaining, equal wages for equal work, decent pension plans, public services for all Canadians and fighting back against this unfair attack on the working class. She urged us to keep up the fight against this right-wing government, which, in her words, has shown nothing but contempt for the working class and ordinary people.

And there are others.

It says, “My family has watched the debates and we are all amazed and grateful that you will stand up for us, to not be bullied by Canada Post and the government into accepting an unfair contract. Thank you for standing up for who has a right under the law to free bargaining.”

Another says, “Keep on speaking out. Keep up the fight. Keep making clear how the crisis is one which has been manufactured by the Conservative government.”

Please listen carefully to these words. We have heard many Conservative members refer to a strike. Once again, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. As my colleagues have repeatedly pointed out, there was a rotating strike. It had a very moderate impact on mail delivery.

However, the lockout is having more than a moderate impact; it has paralyzed mail delivery. This lockout was not chosen by postal workers; it was a choice made by the executives at Canada Post, under the authority of the state, the authority of our government.

The constant use of the word “strike” rather than “lockout” by my government colleagues shows their obvious and dishonest intent to mislead citizens, to have the responsibility for this situation rest with the workers rather than the government.

The Conservatives have often talked about their concern for small business. All of us here in this House are concerned about small businesses that are being adversely affected by the absence of mail delivery.

My Conservative colleagues have been reading emails from small businesses demanding that mail service resume. But no one asked for this lockout at the outset, no one besides this government. Why not let them know once again who is really responsible for this situation, who supported the lockout, who is really adversely affecting small businesses, who is damaging our country's economy now? The answer is simple: it is the government.

Our hon. Prime Minister is doing harm to small businesses. Our hon. Prime Minister is doing harm to this country's economy. Our hon. Prime Minister is doing harm to this country with a pointless lockout he has the power to end and an unfair piece of legislation. He is not trying to find a solution that would resolve this matter, which would be to take the locks off the doors.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we know that close to 70% of Canadians support this legislation. They support seeing Canada Post back at work. They support getting their mail delivered.

I have a question for the member opposite. It was only a few short months ago that we saw the Liberal Party of Canada totally ignore Canadians and remain out of touch with Canadians, and we saw what happened to that party. It is a shame to see the NDP members so quickly turn their backs on what Canadians want, refuse to be in touch with Canadians, and instead follow their own left-wing ideology.

When will they look at what Canadians want, put aside their political rhetoric and what their union bosses are asking for, and actually work for Canadians? That's my question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that many people hope to start receiving their mail again. That is why I would very much like to ask the parliamentary secretary, even though it is not her turn to respond, why she does not call on her leader to remove the locks. That would resolve the problem and mail service would resume.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have never been part of a union, but in my past life I negotiated plenty of collective agreements, usually acting on behalf of management. We always entered those negotiations with goodwill, with the intention of there being a win-win scenario at the end, realizing that good faith had to be maintained between the parties because they had to live together and work together afterwards.

I am wondering if there is value in letting the workers go back to work and enter into regular mediation-arbitration negotiations, and I am wondering whether that kind of relationship, that good relationship, is retrievable or not, as opposed to forcing this draconian legislation on CUPW right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely true. It would be much more acceptable to remove the locks and to ask the parties to resume negotiations to preserve a good working relationship. I had working conditions imposed on me in 2006 and I can tell you it creates an abysmal working environment. If the locks were removed and negotiations resumed, I think the working environment at Canada Post could be salvaged.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what the link is between workers who negotiate and make gains and the rest of the Canadian population.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this bill is very significant. We are debating what will happen to Canada Post workers, but the underlying debate is about the future of all Canadian workers.

If we agree to let workers' rights be violated even once, we open the door to the government intervening in these issues and imposing working conditions on workers whenever there is a strike or other problem. We are fighting here to preserve all workers' right to negotiate, not the just the right of Canada Post workers.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if she has in her riding any local insurance offices and small businesses, the type that the NDP campaigned on representing. A concerned constituent in my riding of Blackstrap wrote me today, saying that:

...we look out for all types of people; seniors, farmers, students, families, small business, churches...We rely on Canada Post to send our clients their insurance policies and other necessary communications. For many younger individuals and urban families we can send any correspondence by email. However, for those such as seniors, farmers, rural businesses and rural families they do not have such a luxury. These individuals rely on the communications sent through the mail via Canada Post...These seniors and rural individuals are now without the documents that would confirm that their interests are protected or are without notice of potential risks they should be aware of.

Does the member have in her riding such small businesses as the NDP claims to be representing? I would be interested to know.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course there are small businesses in my riding that are affected by this situation. That is why I feel that Conservative members should ask their leader to end the lockout and take the locks off the doors so that Canada Post workers can get back to work, deliver the mail and resume negotiations.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Québec, I would first like to address the 500 Canada Post workers who demonstrated in Quebec City last Wednesday after they were locked out. I understand their frustration and I would like to say to them that I am here in the House of Commons to stand up for them and to pull out all the stops to oppose this special bill, which would deprive them of their legitimate right to negotiate their working conditions.

I was unable to celebrate Quebec's national holiday with them this year. Although I am not present in body, I am with them in spirit. The NDP has promised change. We have promised the people that we will do politics differently. It is for that reason that we are here. We take our duty to represent them seriously and, in the face of injustice, we must stand up for their rights tirelessly, day and night.

I am proud to stand up for the rights of workers and the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians. What is happening right now is very important. We must take action to defend the middle class and fight the disparity between rich and poor. We must defend the progressive values of this country. We must defend the right to negotiate. This is a lockout, not a strike. Postal workers opted for rotating strikes.They chose a moderate means of securing better working conditions. That is to their credit because it had a minimal effect on services. Postal workers cared about their fellow Canadians.

Then, management decided to declare a lockout and put a complete stop to services. That is why Canadians and small businesses are no longer receiving their mail. The postal workers did not want a general strike but they never imagined that the employer would declare a lockout.

To add insult to injury, the Conservative government staged an unprecedented intervention by introducing this special bill to force employees back to work under harsher conditions than those that were on the table. I would like to give an example. It is as though someone was earning $12 an hour and asked his employer for $15. Then, the government stepped in and now the person is making $10 an hour. Is this acceptable? Is it normal to be concerned about such a situation? I think so. I think it is frightening.

People do not just want minimum wage jobs. They do not want to worry themselves sick because they cannot make ends meet week after week, month after month. They want jobs with fitting wages. Families want to be able to count on an income that allows them to pay for a few hours of leisure time and, thus, actively participate in the local economy. They want to have quality time to spend with their loved ones. Canada Post employees deserve to have a decent salary and acceptable working conditions. They are not the only ones, and that is only natural.

I also checked the blogs and other types of social media to see what the public thinks about this. I would like to share some of what I read:

With this lockout, the government is showing that it can do absolutely anything it wants with us. For now, only Canada Post is affected but, one day, they may decide that you were very kind to contribute to your retirement fund but that the money would be more useful to them than to you, and you will be left with nothing. That is what happened in the United States and is likely to happen in Europe and Quebec. If we do nothing now, we are opening the door to other excesses.

And it is a member of the public who said that. Another person wrote:

The postal workers want to deliver the mail. They are demonstrating against this bill that takes away their right to negotiate their next collective agreement.

Yet another person added the following:

The Conservatives are again demonstrating their Machiavellian talent, this time by exploiting people's ignorance. Let us put aside the conditions and demands of the postal union. Mail carriers decide to hold rotating strikes in order to protest and put a bit of pressure on the employer. What is good about these strikes is that they get the employer's attention without the public noticing much of a disruption in service. That is to the credit of the postal workers. What does Canada Post do? It locks them out almost immediately. It is the employer, and only the employer, that has caused the total shutdown of the postal service in Canada. However, the average person still does not understand what a lockout is, or maybe has only a vague idea of what it is. He only knows that his cheque is not being delivered. The public blames the messenger and that is a mistake.

I completely agree with what people are writing in blogs, and I urge them to continue their posts. I invite everyone to continue feeding us with such information. We will continue to fight for them.

As I was saying, we knew that, with a majority, the Conservatives would only obey one law: their own. By taking this action, the Conservatives are showing that all they have to do is pass laws. They do not even care about the Supreme Court, which, in 2007, reaffirmed that the right to negotiate is a fundamental right.

It is shameful. What we must not lose sight of is that this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what this government plans on doing. It will continue to give bonuses to Canada Post's CEO and to others who are already earning a more than acceptable salary. However, in the case of the far larger number of workers at the next level down, it will make massive cuts, widening the already great divide between rich and poor. In fact, the swift and heavy-handed means it is currently using with this special law may be used in all cases. What is happening to postal workers may happen to a good number of public servants and other workers.

Those who might be tempted to applaud the government because it is supposedly fiscally responsible might want to think again. The government is not fiscally responsible, not in the least. This government and this measure are not about fiscal responsibility. Canada Post is a very productive crown corporation. Unlike many businesses, it has dramatically increased its productivity over the past two years. In addition to being able to offer decent jobs, this strong productivity has also generated profits and contributed substantial amounts to the public coffers in dividends and taxes.

People who are thinking about privatizing or deregulating Canada Post are on the wrong track. Multinationals calling for that only want to increase their profits and their market share. What do the people want? A report commissioned by the federal government in 2009 was very clear that people do not want Canada Post to be privatized or deregulated. In a democracy, the people should prevail and that is that.

I would like to remind the members that when this government violates workers' rights, when it flouts the country's laws and institutions, and when it does not honour its commitments to the people, the NDP will be there to keep it in line. We are a united opposition of people who know what it means to work to make ends meet.

That is why I am asking the government to listen to the people. I am asking it to respect workers, who also want to benefit from this country's wealth. I suggest it see reason and not impose this special legislation.

I hope to return to my wonderful riding of Québec with good news. I continue to have hope, because hope springs eternal. I know one thing: more than 60% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservative Party. I know that the people support me and that they are likely disgusted by what the government is doing right now. I want them to know that we will not give up the fight.

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

Mr. Speaker, the more this protracted debate goes on, the more obvious it is becoming to me and I believe to many others that this is just a failed attempt for the NDP to demonize Canada Post, an organization that was chosen as one of the national capital region's top employers for 2011. Some of the reasons for that award are that it starts employees at three weeks' vacation and that it even offers a five-day marriage leave for newlyweds, as well as five days to take care of family. There are a whole lot of other benefits. On it goes.

On the other hand, we have significant hardship being caused to Canadians generally. I just want to mention one, if I may. OneMatch uses Canada Post to send buccal swabs to do the typing for people who submit online applications to join OneMatch. These are for tissue and organ replacements and blood typing for people who are desperately in need of this.

I wonder if the hon. member could indicate whether she agrees that the work stoppage at Canada Post is directly affecting the life of every Canadian. Why are this member and her party continuing to stall the passage of this legislation? Why do she and her party not want Canadians to receive their mail?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Like all other members on this side of the House, I would like the minister to make a call and have the locks taken off the doors at Canada Post. Then service could resume and people could stop going on about how terrible this is. That is what needs to happen. We need to continue to defend the working conditions of these people, who work tirelessly and who are being wrongly blamed for this. It is terrible that the work of these people is not being recognized. They have the right to negotiate their collective agreement. But they are being denied that right and then people are saying that it is their fault the mail is not being delivered. That is what is so terrible.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government side of the House keeps claiming that Bill C-6 is in response to a strike. This side of the House and in fact the entire national media say it is a lockout. Until we get this basic fact straightened out we are not going to move very far forward on this debate.

I encourage members of the government and my hon. colleague to review the stories in the national media. CBC, CTV, the Globe and Mail, National Post, all the newspapers and media outlets of note say it is a lockout. Even the New York Times reported, “the lockout effectively shut down the country’s postal system.” The foreign press is watching us and agrees that this is a lockout.

I wonder if my hon. would comment on this.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for pressing that point because it is the most important one.

In fact, we want the Conservative government to say that this is a lockout and not a strike. If it could at least acknowledge that—as the media,the public and the members on this side of the House have—perhaps we would not need to spend the entire weekend here in the House debating this issue. That would allow for some progress. The government clearly has a mental block. It is refusing to listen to us, and we cannot even imagine how it is treating the people that it is ignoring on this issue.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all Quebeckers a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I would also like to thank the people of the Châteauguay—Saint-Constant riding for organizing festivities for this wonderful holiday. Clearly, I would have liked to have participated but the situation we are addressing here today prevents me from doing so. I hope that my constituents will understand and will not mind my absence.

We have been here since June 23 to hold an important debate on the government's bill to force the Canada Post employees on lockout back to work. We are here on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, which is celebrated by all Quebeckers, because the government did not want to take a break on this day that is so important to nearly a quarter of the members of Parliament. This government continues to show its contempt for the people of Quebec.

There is a reason why most Quebeckers did not vote for the government party in power. The people of Quebec strongly disapprove of the Conservative's actions and values. They are not fools. The actions and values of the party on the other side of the House are light years away from the values shared by most Quebeckers. The results of the most recent election show that this is true. There are only six Conservative members left in Quebec. With the type of decisions, bills and other strategies announced in the Speech from the Throne, the Conservative party is at risk of being completely wiped out in Quebec.

The government claims to be the government of all Canadians but the people of Quebec have this strong feeling, if not the certainty, that the government is leaving them out in the cold. Perhaps it is because of the way the government invests in infrastructure in Conservative members' ridings and proves indifferent toward ridings that do not have a Conservative representative, such as the Montreal region, where aging infrastructure under the government's responsibility is not being adequately maintained. If, for example, the Champlain Bridge were in the riding of the current President of the Treasury Board, it would have been announced long ago that this bridge was going to be rebuilt. I am certain of this, and Quebeckers are too.

During the election campaign, some Conservative candidates openly stated that it is normal for Conservative-held ridings to receive more investments than the other ridings. This is scandalous. Thus, the current government has a long way to go to endear itself to Quebeckers. It is not going to do so with the policies it has announced: there is no significant action with regard to the environment; they want to dismantle the gun registry; they want to build prisons for young offenders; they are buying aircraft no one wants; they give subsidies to big business, banks and oil companies. In addition, they are reducing taxes for large businesses while small and medium-sized businesses, which create almost half of all new jobs, receive no consideration. This government is clearly the government of the wealthy, the privileged and big business. Employees and workers are scorned by government. Bill C-6 is another fine example of this.

It is clear today that this government does not respect workers. If need be, we will forget about all other national holidays in the coming years in order to defend workers' interests. This government will ruthlessly advance its political agenda, even if they have to ignore MPs from Quebec again. But we will be there to block all similar bills. We have been blocking this scandalous bill since June 23 and we would continue to do so until the next Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, if we could. We will do everything to delay Bill C-6, which is completely unacceptable and disrespectful of employees in general. I said in general, because this is just the first step by the government to chip away at employees' working conditions. In this instance, it is attacking the working conditions of postal workers. But which group of workers will it attack next?

In terms of this labour dispute, the government is saying that it wants to end the strike so that the economy is not harmed. It is also saying that it is not biased and that it is imposing conditions that are fair and equitable. What about this is fair and equitable? Does the government believe it is fair to side with the employer and impose lesser conditions than the employer was willing to concede? Is it fair to propose two classes of workers and keep younger workers from having the same wages and benefits as the others?

People are not stupid. Despite the misleading language being used by government representatives, people understand that this government is clearly biased in favour of the wealthy and employers.

People know that the government has a single goal: to privatize crown corporations so that they can reduce services and make more profit. Then a handful of higher-ups can receive huge salaries at the expense of services and workers' rights.

Canada Post is a very profitable crown corporation. We have the impression that this lockout was a government scheme to impose a labour contract that would gut working conditions for Canada Post employees to begin with and then for other groups.

I would like to focus on this scheme to impose a labour contract without consideration for workers' rights by briefly reviewing the events that we are concerned with here today.

On June 3, postal workers began rotating strikes that did not interrupt mail delivery. They simply wanted to use a legitimate pressure tactic to force the employer to advance the negotiations that had been going on for months. The union acted responsibly and with due diligence. The employer responded initially with a two-day-a-week lockout, which was also legitimate.

However, it did act irresponsibly by imposing a permanent lockout a few days later with the blessing of the government. It was good timing for the government because the end of the parliamentary session was in sight. The government thought that it would take the opportunity, a little while later, to set conditions that would benefit the employer by imposing terms that were less favourable than those that management had been prepared to give its employees.

And the government would like us to quickly pass this special bill, the way it is? I have said it before and I will say it again: we will do everything in our power to stop this outrageous bill. We will not help the government resolve the impasse that it alone has created and has blamed on the union.

I find it unfortunate that the Conservative government is holding Canadians hostage by putting the blame for the impasse on the union and the official opposition.

How can what started as a rotating strike end by causing great harm to Canadians? The workers chose to hold rotating strikes in different cities so as not to block mail distribution. The rotating strikes did not have much impact on businesses or at least they had less of an impact than a general strike would have. Even the Minister of Labour admitted that the rotating strikes had little effect on mail delivery. A spokesperson for Canada Post said the same thing. It is Canada Post that imposed the lockout on workers who, today, can no longer report for work to deliver the mail.

Now, Canada Post wants to establish a strategy to reduce operating costs. The employer wants to decrease the wages of new employees, reduce sick leave coverage and decrease contributions to employees' retirement, health care and security plans.

Bill C-6 imposes a salary cut on young workers and a salary increase lower than the cost of living and lower than the offer made by the employer on all workers. It also seeks to impose a new pension plan. It is a threat to the working conditions that were hard earned over the past few years and to the negotiations of previous years, a time when negotiations were permitted. Today, the government is taking away the workers' fundamental right to negotiate their working conditions.

The special bill the Conservatives have tabled is unacceptable, that cannot be said often enough. Even if we repeated it a thousand times, that would still not be enough. This bill will set a precedent and will put all Canadian workers at risk. It will give complete power to employers, including the power to impose working conditions on their employees, all with the complicity of the government, and the employees will be unable to bargain their own terms. Workers and unions are being told to give in to unfavourable terms proposed by their employer, or they will have terms that are even worse than all the concessions the employer was demanding imposed on them. And worse still, they will be forced to bear the blame for the deadlock their employer has put them in. They are being told that the government will favour the employer and in fact will reward it, even if the employer is guilty of holding the public hostage. Workers are being told they will be sent back in with a special bill that comes down on the employer's side.

If we do not find a solution to the lockout that has been imposed, the terms of employment in the previous collective agreement could still be continued. So let us allow the parties to negotiate without holding the public hostage as the employer and the government have done.

We are also very aware of the concern and worry that Canadians are feeling, and we understand that the lockout at Canada Post and the interruption of mail delivery is causing hardship. I repeat, however, that this is because of the lockout imposed by Canada Post, with the complicity of the government, that is preventing the workers from going back to delivering the mail. This situation could end tomorrow morning if the government lifted its imposed lockout and allowed the employees to go back to work on the terms in the previous collective agreement.

There was no urgency for imposing this special legislation. We can end the lockout by allowing the parties to bargain in good faith. The government will not succeed in making the workers bear the blame for this deadlock. The Canada Post Corporation is the one that locked the employees out, and it is the one that has caused these consequences. So why is this government rewarding the employer by coming down clearly on its side?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke about holding Canadians hostage. Yet tonight we are debating an NDP-led motion that would significantly delay this very important piece of back-to-work legislation.

I have received many comments from constituents in my riding regarding the necessity and the importance of postal service. They speak of holding Canadians hostage. I wonder if the member opposite could please explain how delaying this important legislation would help get around that.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say to the member that we are trying to resolve the situation for the employees of Canada Post. How can we do that? We have said it dozens and thousands of times: open the doors, stop the lockout and allow the employees to go to work. That is how this deadlock can be broken.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the speech given by our colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. Clearly we are in a situation where a crown corporation has imposed a lockout. That is undeniable. Everyone understands that, at least on this side of the House.

The government has supported the lockout with a draconian bill that is going to impose terms that are simply intolerable. These are terms that will not be negotiated. This is an affront to the dignity of the workers of Canada. That is not tolerated on this side of the House.

What does my colleague think of the idea that a collective agreement must be negotiated rather than imposed by a bill?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Yes, negotiated terms always provide a better work atmosphere than a situation that is imposed. I was a union representative in recent years and I was acquainted with people who had had terms of employment imposed on them by special legislation, and the atmosphere that produced was simply unliveable. It created enormous tensions within the company and significantly hurt productivity. It is therefore important, and in fact essential, that there be a negotiated employment contract, not one imposed like this, particularly not by this method.

The employer was prepared to offer better terms and the government is imposing worse terms. That is outrageous.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over 90% of the union employees voted in favour of a strike. Because they felt that negotiations were going nowhere, they implemented rotating strikes. That is their right. Canada Post, as the employer, implemented a lockout. That is its right.

The federal government can implement back-to-work legislation. This is about representing the majority of Canadians. Who are the NDP representing?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all represent Canadians. We represent large and small businesses, but also, and most importantly, the workers. We want justice in this country. We want favourable terms for workers, not terms that are imposed. We represent the workers. We represent the majority of the people, not the big businesses and the wealthy in this country.

[For continuation of proceedings see Part D]

[Continuation of proceedings from part C]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this conversation, having listened to so many of my colleagues illustrate not only the history of workers' rights in Canada but the clear and present danger the government, in its treatment of postal workers, represents to all working people across this country.

This is a proud moment, not only for me personally but for New Democrats across the country and for the four and a half million people who gave us a clear and solid mandate to stand up for working people. I invite the Conservative majority to see what it looks like when there is a stable, solid, dedicated New Democratic opposition when things go wrong. Gone are the days of having the red-flag-waving surrender monkeys sitting in these benches. One “boo” and they were gone to their weekends. We now have an opposition that is dedicated to standing up for what is right in this country.

I am also quite encouraged to join with many of my new colleagues, whom I have been most moved and inspired by. One would think that after many hours of debate, some of our newer members, and maybe some of our older members, might be feeling some fatigue. Yet every time I tune in, and every time I come by the House, not only are we not fatigued, we are gaining in our energy and enthusiasm.

This must be so difficult for my Conservative friends as we sit through this debate. I almost want to put quotation marks around the word debate, because debates are usually judged on the merits of logic and intelligence. This is not a fair fight we have going on here. Time and time again we have Conservative members standing up with so-called questions, which are more like diatribes. They ask why, if the economy is so important, we cannot get these workers back to work. They know full well that the power rests in their own hands. Rather than deal with the situation, the Prime Minister has gone off to barbecues.

If the economy were so important and so sacred, if it was so necessary, given all the quotations from their local citizens, business owners, pensioners, and charitable groups that are worried about not getting their mail, if all of that were so important to the government, one would think that this government would bother to pick up the phone and tell the head of Canada Post that rather than lock out the workers, which has been done, the corporation should open the doors, get the mail moving, and return to the bargaining table for what has been established, in the highest court of the land, as a proper and fair collective bargaining agreement and arrangement. That has not been established by any measure of Parliament alone. It has been established by the blood, sweat, and tears of working people across this country, year after year, who have fought for the basic right to collectively come together and together rebalance the equation between employer and employee. When the employer does not offer a fair term of work, those people can come together and exercise a democratic right, have a vote, and bargain in what we call good faith.

Does this sound familiar to anybody else? A company comes into a negotiation for a new contract and begins an exaggeration process, a public posture, saying that things are not so good at the corporation. The company says that it is not making much money anymore. Times are tight. Things have changed. People are not, in this case, sending letters anymore. The company begins to amp up the rhetoric and begins to set the stage for what it knows is coming, which is a downgrade of the opportunity it will offer its employees, who are, ironically, the very employees who built the company to its current state of prosperity. The company knows that in its back pocket it has a very powerful and willing accomplice that is waiting for an opportunity as the company sits at the bargaining table, week after week and month after month, not bargaining in good faith or offering a give-and-take situation. It is more a take situation.

The company knows all that time that it has a hotline to the Prime Minister to say that it is going to lock these guys out and to get legislation ready, which is what was done. The legislation was ready before the lockout even started. When the company does not bargain with its employees in good faith, the government can come in and simply force them back to work under terms that are worse than the terms the company just offered.

Does that sound familiar or ironic at all? The reason it sounds familiar is that there is a sad and sordid tale of business relations with working people in this country. Businesses do this time and time again, but it only works if they have a willing accomplice in government.

It only works if they have a government in their pocket that is ready to operate on their behalf and is ready to side with them.

As the Minister of Labour—that has to be in quotations—said the other day, “...there are in fact 45,000 members of the union and in reality there are 33 million Canadians”, as if somehow those Canada Post workers, when they went to work that day, gave up their rights as Canadian citizens. How dare a labour minister stand in the House of Commons and take one group of Canadians and exclude those people from our society because they are doing what? They are standing up for their rights.

We hear constantly from the government that it somehow believes that it has a majority mandate from Canadians, that 40% of the vote somehow equates to 100% of a tyrannical majority, and that this is justifiable in all cases. I welcome the Conservatives to a new reality. I hope this gives them pause the next time they try this, because believe me, my friends, there will be a next time. There will be another dispute. There will be another transgression the Conservatives do not like and their friends on Bay Street do not feel comfortable with. The Conservatives say, “Never mind. Never worry. We have a majority in Parliament. That gives us 100% of the power. We will just steamroll over any other democratic institutions we feel are in our way”.

Note that this is a pattern with the government. There are the so-called arm's-length watchdogs. My friends laugh, but we all remember the case of the nuclear safety watchdog in this country who raised concerns about a certain reactor nearby. When the government did not like what she was saying, it fired her. Lo and behold, a few months later, the reactor went offline. Why? It was because of the very things she pointed out.

The government must understand that when people stand in opposition to its ideas, that is not a bad thing. Those people do not need to be shut down, cut off, or fired. They do not need to be locked out or forced back to work. Their issues need to be debated and entertained in this place and in the broader dialogue in this country of Canada, because it is through that dialogue that we come to better resolutions.

New Democrats do not believe that we have all the answers, but we know that these guys do not. It is time for them to get a little humility.

It has been clearly said by many of my colleagues that this goes well beyond the particular interests of the workers of CUPW in the Canada Post dispute. This speaks to something much larger. It is a much larger struggle for people around the world and in this country who for many decades did not have any rights. It was okay for employers to send kids to work. It was okay for employees to die while on the job. It was okay for employers not to pay employees a fair wage for a fair day's work. Those things, through struggle and time and sometimes blood, were established as wrong. It was confirmed that an evolved and advanced society understands that for the good of the economy, for goodness' sake, you ought to pay your workers a fair wage. How radical an argument is that?

The NDP is saying that fair pensions are good for the Canadian economy, and the government argues otherwise. The NDP says that a fair wage and safe working conditions are good not just for the workers but for the Canadian economy. The government argues otherwise.

Time and again we see excuses thrown up by the government that suggest that Canadians are not on our side. A friend of mine sent me an e-mail from a person I don't know who lives in my riding that said,

Keep on with the good work on behalf of the workers at Canada Post. This proposed legislation punishes the workers for being locked out while they were exercising their right to strike (in a manner that provided minimal interruption of the postal service)...and strangely enough, rewards the employer for the action of locking their workers out (whereby the employer shut the whole postal service down).... SHAME!

That is absolutely right.

We are getting many e-mails from members in Conservative ridings, which I quite enjoy reading, that say that they have sent their members of Parliament, their voices in this place, much correspondence on this issue saying that they are wrong, but the members will not read them out. The government somehow will not express that there may be dissent in this country over the idea of locking out employees and bringing in a sledgehammer to force them back to work.

I ask my friends on the government benches to be amenable to the changes the NDP is proposing. Be amenable to the idea that it is not always right. Be very much open to the idea that the arrogance that can come with a majority government can be overplayed and overstated. If the Conservatives continue to do that, New Democrats will be in our seats day after day, pushing them back.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted the member talked a lot in his speech about a number of issues surrounding the work stoppage. I noticed the one thing missing in his comments was an indication about the Canadian public, about the small businesses, charities and other individuals who are adversely affected by this work stoppage. It is very unfortunate that was lacking in his speech.

I would like to share an email I received from a constituent, a small business owner, who wrote:

“We hope the government will stand up for Canadian small business owners and ensure that Canada Post, a national mail service meant to serve the Canadian public, needs to go back to work. Our business has dropped immensely since even the rotating strikes, and the uncertainty of delivery service is impacting small business across Canada in different ways. I appreciate your time and hope again that you will take this message to Ottawa and to Canada Post”.

These are the kinds of emails I am receiving. It is affecting businesses in this country. It is affecting individuals. It is having a detrimental effect. This government is trying to put them back to work so we can see the effect on the Canadian public stopped.

We are all here in this place. We should all be at our homes and with our constituents, visiting with them at meetings and functions over the course of this weekend where we would be hearing these kinds of things from constituents. A number of individuals contacted me in the last couple of days about those issues. They say the NDP members are acting like a bunch of pirates holding Canadians hostage.

I would ask--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that we check the sound equipment here because in fact I did mention charities and businesses were suffering from the lack of postal services in this country. I will then suggest that my exuberance hopefully carried my voice across to where the hon. member is sitting.

I would ask the member to do the following, because he has the power to do this, to walk five rows to his boss and tell him to take the locks off of Canada Post, get the mail moving for all those charities, small businesses and constituents he claims to care about because we know where the decision lies here.

We know that the Prime Minister appointed the fellow at Canada Post, who is doing this right now. The hon. member knows it was the head of Canada Post who locked the employees out and stopped the mail service entirely. We know where the decision lies for the government to have a little humility, understand there is reason for this debate, that the government does not have it perfect and the bill before Parliament is not exactly correct in every single syllable, period and comma. The government should put a little water in its wine, realize it is wrong in this case, step off the cliff and get the posties back to work.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts tonight are about our asset, Canada Post Corporation. The main asset of this corporation is its employees, the people who work there. That is the main asset that belongs to the people of Canada.

Is the government taking care of this asset? Is the government respecting this asset? Is the government taking the steps to ensure this asset, these human beings, are well protected and covered in the work they are doing? The profit from the company for the Government of Canada is fairly large and works out to about $6,000 an employee. Why is the government treating these employees in this fashion when they are the main asset of our great corporation?

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

Mr. Speaker, conveniently the Conservatives would very much like to forget the human face in this conversation. It is somewhat ironic the government says that somehow these workers are the problem and yet postal services from around the globe come to Canada to study the efficiencies and the incredible steps that this postal service has made, year after year.

It also seems somehow that underneath all of this conversation and all of this debate lies an ideology within government that an entire institution can be privatized through starving it, that if it is driven deep enough into the ground so that people start to call out for something else, one would accomplish another thing that had been hoped for in the first place, which is a loathing within the current government for crown corporation and institutions in general. There is the idea that the government has a role to play in any of these places and that the government can do anything well.

It is strange and ironic to have a government-loathing government, but that is exactly what we have here with the Conservatives. They detest the idea and do not like the nature of this. The government rebels very much even at the idea of debate and fair discussion here in Parliament, but New Democrats live on this stuff.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last night, at the end of his eloquent speech about workers' rights, the leader of the opposition proposed that we take a break in our consideration of the draconian legislation proposed by the Conservative government. That proposal took the form of a motion to postpone consideration of the bill for six months.

For several hours now, many of our colleagues on both sides of the House, either in their speeches or in their questions and comments, have contributed to our consideration of the advisability of postponing passage of this horrible and counterproductive bill. I myself believe more than ever that we must postpone all consideration of it, for the numerous reasons cited by all of our colleagues.

It is in fact the most enormous bad faith for the government to claim that it has to force the workers back to work when it is this very government, acting through a crown corporation, that is preventing them from working and putting them on lockout.

Apart from the bad faith that has characterized the approach taken by the Conservative government since the outset of the dispute, it is essential that we note the consistent manner in which the courts have sanctioned and penalized the bad faith and misconduct of this same Conservative government in labour relations cases.

The most recent example is a decision handed down only two days ago by the Federal Court, and in a moment I will read several passages from it. The case involved a situation very similar to the one before us tonight. It did not involve postal employees; rather, it was all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The case is entitled Robert Meredith and Brian Roach, representing all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, v. the Attorney General of Canada. The decision was given on June 21, 2011, by the Federal Court. Justice Heneghan wrote the decision.

In that case, we are reminded that in late December 2008, the Conservative government engaged in a series of fraudulent manoeuvres that it is difficult to distinguish from the situation before us tonight. This same government had legislated to flout the process provided by the legislation, and imposed its own bill to cut back the terms of employment that had in fact been legally agreed to with RCMP members. One crucial point is that the courts found that what the Conservative government had done, in terms of labour relations, was illegal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a fundamental law.

Pages 27 to 29 of the judgment specifically are where we find the references that are most relevant to our work tonight. For those who are interested, I will note that the passages I am about to read are taken from paragraphs 86, 89 and 92 of this very recent judgment, as I mentioned. The judge reviews the terms of what the Conservative government tried to withdraw, by flouting the rights of the members of the RCMP, and concludes as follows, and I am going to read it in English since the judgment is written in that language.

So the Treasury Board withdrew the issue from consideration of the entity that it had created and refused to negotiate on a good-faith basis.

I repeat, “refused to negotiate on a good-faith basis”. That is the pattern of this Conservative government.

It continues: “The unilateral cancellation of a previous agreement also constitutes interference with subsection 2(d) rights”.

Now those section 2(d) rights are, in particular, these.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(d) freedom of association.

For those who follow these issues, I note that this is referring in particular to two leading cases, two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada: Health Services and Support and Fraser.

But this very recent decision sets a precedent. The Federal Court of Canada has assigned blame to this government and ruled against it. So this is a pattern of behaviour that we are seeing here tonight.

A little farther on, the judge writes:

The financial impact of the ERA was not relevant. In both B.C. Health Services and Fraser the Supreme Court focused not on the significance of the financial impact of the legislation, but of the significance of the impact of the interference on the bargaining process.

Finally, in paragraph 92, the Treasury Board's decision in the ERA made it effectively impossible for the pay council, that was the entity that had been created, to make representations on behalf of the members of the RCMP and have those representations, wait for it, here it comes again, considered in good faith. The judge goes on to say that in her opinion this is a substantial interference which constitutes a violation of section 2(d) of the charter.

That is repeat behaviour. That is putting oneself above the law.

It is sometimes said, in common language, that they think they know best. That is what the Conservatives think. They believe they can be the judges, they can be the jury, and they can also be executioners. They show contempt for the most fundamental laws. But as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley put it so well just now, therein lies the rub; the Minister of Labour let the cat out of the bag when she said, as she did yesterday, that there are 50,000 postal workers on one side and 33 million Canadians on the other. I have news for her.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all citizens of Canada, including postal workers. We already knew whom and what we were dealing with when this Conservative government became the first government in the history of the British Commonwealth to be thrown out for breaking all the rules and being in contempt of the institutions of this Parliament: the right of parliamentarians to have fiscal and financial information before making decisions, the right to be given documents relating to foreign affairs, our rights to carry out the fundamental democratic mandate we were given when we were elected to this place.

Tonight, we are considering a bill that they are trying to persuade people is essential to force the workers back to work, hoping that the public would be so easily duped that they would forget they are the ones who have prevented and continue to prevent the workers from doing their jobs. On this side, we will support the motion presented yesterday by the leader of the opposition. We believe it is obvious that this bill, draconian or worse as it is, must not be considered, particularly given that it is clear from the decision handed down by the Federal Court of Canada this week, again, that behaviour that is contrary to the basic rules proves the government's bad faith. Yesterday, in fact, I witnessed this bad faith for myself. To be so presumptuous as to say that the workers are on strike, when they are the ones who have stopped them from working, defies all comprehension.

On this side, we will stand up, unanimous in our condemnation of this pattern of behaviour that flouts human rights in general and the rights of workers in particular.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many times in the debate tonight New Democrats have talked about the possibility of making amendments to the bill. They have taken issue with, particularly, the wage increases that are legislated in the bill. They clearly do not like what the government has chosen. They do not like what Canada Post has put on the table.

However, two NDP members have mused openly tonight about what they think should be the wage increases. The member for York South—Weston thought that 11.5% over four years was probably a fair deal. The member for Trinity—Spadina mused that 3.3% a year for four years would be a fair deal.

Would the member confirm that the NDP members will be amending to increase the wage aspects either somewhere between 11.5% and 13.2% over four years?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, good faith means quoting what people have said in the House properly. That is a pure fabrication and a twisted way of reporting what has been said by people here. On our side, we think the best thing to do, as I said at the beginning of my speech tonight, is to postpone all consideration of this draconian, horrible bill, this bill that is on its face contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for six months.

I have had the opportunity to speak with the member for Essex, who used to be an auto worker. He knows, as do I, that it was thanks to his union and to bargaining, in accordance with the legislation and his terms of employment, that he was able, in those days, to secure adequate wages and acceptable terms so he could raise his family. Why does he want to take those same benefits away from the postal workers?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, less than two weeks ago, in an interview during the Conservative convention, Stephen Taylor asked the Minister of Labour whether there would be special legislation. The Minister said there would not be because it was too soon.

“The two parties have to make real hard efforts to get a deal themselves”. Continuing, she said, “It's about pensions, it's about disabilities, so it is important issues and we have to have serious discussions around them”.

Does the hon. member think that the government took that seriously, or is the government more concerned about its ideology, which amounts to violating workers' rights, regardless of the result for the economy?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that it is somewhat of both, but there is a third factor. Above all, the Conservatives want their Reform Party base to see that they are finally "delivering the goods", bringing good news for the right wing in Canada.

Our right wing in Canada has a little problem of credibility. The Conservatives are the worst public administrators in the history of Canada. The biggest deficit in the history of Canada until this Conservative government arrived on the scene belonged to the last Conservative government. We are in the process of leaving enormous debts for future generations, while inflation has been running at about 2% per year since they came to office five and a half years ago. There has been a constant increase in spending, on the order of 6 to 7% per year. This means that their spending increases, for which they are unable to show anything concrete in return, are running at 300% higher than the rate of inflation. That is called negligence, mismanagement and incompetence.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #25

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment lost.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I can assure you that my comments will be brief. Brevity is the key here.

We have seen over the last 27 or 28 hours an attempt by the NDP opposition to obfuscate and delay this very important piece of legislation. As a result of its delaying tactics, millions of hard-working Canadians are concerned about their financial futures. In fact, they are concerned to the point that many seniors and many small business people have contacted us continuously over the last 27 hours imploring us to get this legislation passed.

We have a responsibility to protect those Canadians. We have a responsibility to protect the Canadian economy. We cannot afford any more undue delays.

Therefore, in order to expedite this legislation, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Once again I rise to speak on C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

As has been pointed out many times throughout this debate, this situation was created by the government and its crown corporation Canada Post. It was not created by the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

Now we have before us a bill that makes a complete mockery of the hard-fought democratic rights of workers in this country. I would like to make it absolutely clear one more time that I support the right to organize, the right to free collective bargaining, and the right to strike. When workers take a risk and stand up to be counted on issues like fair wages, working conditions, and pensions, all Canadians benefit.

This situation is the government's own doing. They interfered in a legal labour dispute. The dispute was having minimal impact on the delivery of mail from coast to coast until the Minister of Labour interfered.

After serving their 72 hours' notice, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers initiated limited rotating strikes. They did this because they knew it would send a message to the employer that they wanted to get serious at the bargaining table. At the same time, the rotating strikes minimized inconveniences to Canadians who rely on postal service across our country.

That is how the process works. The ability to withdraw their labour is the power that employees bring to the bargaining table. It is the counterweight to the tremendous power that the employer holds in the negotiating process.

When the Minister of Labour then intervened and said if mail service was interrupted she would take action, she sent a clear signal to Canada Post that all the corporation had to do was stop the mail from being delivered and she would give them the legislation they were waiting for. That very evening they locked out the hard-working members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and stopped disrupting mail service in its entirety.

It is outrageous. As the owner of Canada Post, the government should have told management to go back to the table and negotiate a lasting resolution to this dispute. Instead, the Conservatives introduced this draconian bill that arbitrarily imposes a settlement that is, unbelievably, less than what Canada Post was offering.

I want to quote an editorial from the Globe and Mail from June 15, 2011, about the effects of imposed settlements on labour relations. It said:

The decision to legislate will not make for a better deal between the companies and their workers. It will mean a sacrifice of labour peace in the longer run. And it will not solve the structural problems affecting either company or its bargaining units--pensions at Air Canada; pensions, and relevance, at Canada Post. The federal government should hold its fire.

I could not agree more. The government should have held its fire. It should have waited and let the negotiations work.

Let us be honest with ourselves and with all Canadians about what this lockout and this rollback of hard-earned wages and benefits are about. They are all about money for the government.

On June 10, 2011, the labour minister was chosen to sit on a committee that is mandated with finding savings in Ottawa to the tune of $4 billion per year. Where do they expect to find all those savings? On the backs of public servants, of course.

Four days after being appointed to this review committee, the minister introduced a back-to-work bill that legislates wage increases that are even lower than those proposed by Canada Post in negotiations. It was not even a strike. It was a lockout.

Why did the minister not just introduce a bill that ordered Canada Post to unlock the doors and let the union continue its responsible job action of rotating strikes that had minimum impact on Canadians?

Even better, why not do as the union had offered: let them go back to work while negotiations continued? It is because the minister saw an opportunity to take advantage of the postal workers and score some points with the Prime Minister by legislating rollbacks. The wage piece alone in this bill represents $35 million from postal workers and their families.

Canada Post corporation generated $7.3 billion of revenues in 2009. It has remained profitable for 15 consecutive years. In the last 10 years alone it paid the Government of Canada almost $400 million in income taxes and another $350 million in dividends. Clearly the government wants even more.

Interventions of this type are particularly disturbing because not only do they deny workers their fundamental rights, but they send a message to the management in all sectors that serious negotiations are not necessary; the government will simply intervene and force employees back to work.

Workers' rights are enshrined in our Constitution, but this so-called law and order government continuously ignores Canadian laws and makes workers pay the price. In the Conservatives' Canada, the rights of workers are always secondary to the rights of corporations.

I cannot help but think of a similar situation in my hometown of Hamilton. At home, it is the courageous men and women of Steelworkers Local 1005 who are paying the price for the government's corporate ideology as we speak. Here is what happened in Hamilton. The Conservative government approved the foreign takeover of Stelco by U.S. Steel, a takeover that has devastated my hometown and left 900 workers, as well as more than 9,000 pensioners, fearing for their futures.

Let me remind members in the House of the details. U.S. Steel bought Stelco in 2007. The purchase included both Hilton Works in Hamilton and Lake Erie Works in Nanticoke. The Investment Canada Act required U.S. Steel to demonstrate that its investment would provide a net benefit to Canada. In order to do that, U.S. Steel made commitments with regard to job creation, production levels, and domestic investment. Once those commitments were purportedly secured, the federal government signed an agreement that committed U.S. Steel to 31 different promises. U.S. Steel started up its operations in 2007, but it was just a year later that the company began laying off its workers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

In 2009 the government started to ask questions, and U.S. Steel responded with a number of different--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

I would ask all hon. members to keep their voices down. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has the floor and it is difficult to hear.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, in 2009 the government started to ask questions, and U.S. Steel responded with a number of different reasons why it should be excused from meeting its previously agreed to commitments. For once, the government did not buy the excuses and initiated court action in July of 2009.

By taking U.S. Steel to court, the federal government acknowledged that it does have a legal duty to ensure that foreign investments provide a net benefit to Canada, and therefore the government does have a role to play in the dispute. Now, production is all but shut down completely, and just like the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, steel workers in Hamilton are now locked out. They are both fighting for fair wages, decent working conditions, benefits, and a defined pension plan. But unlike at Canada Post, the government is completely washing its hands of the lockout in Hamilton. So where is the real similarity between what is happening at Canada Post and at U.S. Steel? Well, this government is picking winners and losers and the price is being paid by workers in our country.

I am proud that union members are not taking that lying down. They are taking a stand for themselves and for future generations. They are fighting against the corporate impulse to race to the bottom, whatever the costs may be, and I am proud to stand with them in that battle.

This is about the future of work for our children and grandchildren, who deserve to earn a decent wage and earn decent pensions after a lifetime of work. Our parents and grandparents were proud to be part of the struggle for our future. Now it is our turn. I urge all members of the House to stand united against this heavy-handed bill for all workers and for future generations.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here tonight.

I just wanted to make a comment about the vote. Fifteen minutes ago we stood and had a vote in the House, and if my addition is right, I think there were only 71 NDP members who were here to vote on the motion. I am just wondering if the member could tell us, after 27 hours of filibustering--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order.

The member knows that he cannot refer to who is or is not here. I appreciate that this is in reference to the vote, but I would ask the member to be cautious in terms of referring to who is or is not in the chamber.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would never talk about individuals either being here or absent from their post, but I think the vote was 71 members of the NDP out of 103 who did choose to vote against the bill.

I would like to ask the chief opposition whip, who is actually in charge of making sure her members are here to vote, why, after 27 hours of filibustering, they had the kinds of numbers show up that they did. Is it because those folks do not want to do their work, or is it because they object to the extreme position taken by the party?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that NDP members are solidly united in opposition to this legislation.

As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, if you have a commitment to allow both sides to arrive at a negotiated settlement, it actually helps to occasionally talk to some of the other parties.

What New Democrats in this House are doing from coast to coast to coast is connecting with the locals of CUPW in their ridings and talking to them about what is at stake in this dispute so their stories can be brought to this House. That is what this place is about. We are representing them in this House, and our members are taking every opportunity to have those conversations.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair appreciates all the passion that members are bringing to this debate, but if the Chair cannot hear the member, I presume that other members cannot hear them.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from the onset of the debate, the leader of the Liberal Party talked about the importance of amending this legislation.

This is an issue of critical importance, and we look to the government to demonstrate goodwill in terms of the whole collective bargaining process. It is something that we believe not only the workers but even the corporation should have a right to. It is something that this legislation is taking away.

We are all so anxious to hear about the possible amendments the New Democrats might have. I asked a question of one member who indicated that they have already shared some of those amendments with the Conservative government.

Is the NDP in a position to be more transparent and share those amendments with the viewing public and in fact all members of this chamber at this time?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the appropriate time for us to bring amendments forward is of course in committee of the whole, and we will be doing that.

It is a bit ironic that the member is talking about how the Liberals are all committed to bringing forward amendments and taking this process seriously when in fact what just happened is that the Liberals voted in support of the government.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, the members who have been here for a while should remember a certain Nisga’a debate we had in this House of Commons. There were 478 amendments brought by the Reform Party of Canada, which delayed this House for over 64 hours. I remember it very clearly. The members of that party said it was their democratic right to be able to do that. I wonder why they are not honouring the democratic right of the NDP to do something to help workers in this country.

I have a question for the hon. member. We have a new cabinet minister in the country now. It is a misnomer to call her the Minister of Labour, as she is now known as the Minister of Management. I wonder if my hon. colleague could tell us why the Prime Minister would change such an important portfolio.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course that question is very apropos, because as I said in my speech, this is all about making sure that the government's coffers are enriched on the backs of workers.

Canada Post has been paying dividends and income tax to the government. The more Canada Post can save, the richer the coffers of the government. It is completely outrageous that we are paying down the biggest deficit in Canadian history, which was accumulated by the Conservative government right across from us, and Canada Post workers are being asked to pay down that deficit. It is completely outrageous.

I agree with the member. The Minister for Management needs to take responsibility for her actions. I would encourage her to come back, become the Minister of Labour, and actually help negotiate a settlement to the labour dispute.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you have observed that this is June 25. You have observed that as a Quebecker, I am proud: I have not apologized like the NDP members who showed disrespect for Quebeckers and French Canadians by sitting in the House of Commons on June 24. I thought the celebrations for this June 24 were extraordinary. Mostly, I spent a lot of time listening to my constituents. That is one of the reasons I am proud today that I voted as I did, to move to second reading, and if there are amendments, to get to them.

One thing is certain: first, people want workers to have rights and want those rights to be respected. In Quebec, people want a negotiated agreement to be possible. What they do not want, for example, is for us to be dogmatic and filibuster for hours and hours when we know very well that the longer we wait, the more harm is going to be done to the postal workers and the public. Today, many in the public are sick of this. That is why there has to be some balance. When the Conservative government is dogmatic and the NDP is dogmatic, everyone loses. That is why the House should sit in committee of the whole post-haste so that amendments can be moved and solutions to the problem found.

I am noticing a lot of talking. We are in a parliament here. Everyone is standing up and talking. I would like to have a bit of order so we can hear. Or maybe you do not understand my French when I speak; that is probably what it is.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are talking when I am talking. Is it okay? You are asking for decorum. I would ask you to please make them shut up so we can talk.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order.

The chair would agree with the member for Bourassa. There is a dull roar in the place. I would ask all hon. members to give the hon. member for Bourassa all of the respect he deserves.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is unfortunate that you understood me better in English than in French. I am going to have to say nicer things in English next time.

One thing is certain: this is a bad bill. The Conservatives keep talking about a strike. It is not a strike, it is a lockout. Clearly the other side of the House does not respect the rights of workers, it does not accept that there is a right of association, and it does not want a negotiated agreement. A rotating strike is strictly a pressure tactic. It is the management of Canada Post that decided to cut mail delivery back from five days to three and then ordered the lockout. Then, as if by coincidence, the Minister of Labour wanted to impose legislation.

The Liberal government had to enact a back-to-work bill in the past, but at that time it was enacted after a general strike that had lasted two weeks. It was an essential service at the time. It must be understood that 14 years ago there was no Internet as there is today and there was no email and no ability to make payments electronically. The situation had therefore caused a huge number of problems, both for small and medium-sized businesses and for seniors, who wanted to get their mail. Today it is less serious, but a solution will still have to be found.

Certainly we hope to have a settlement and an agreement between management and the employees and we want workers' rights to be respected, but we also have to protect the public. The government has a majority. I understand that like us, the opposition is rising and presenting its views, but too much systematic obstruction is as bad as not enough. I will say to everyone who supports this opposition that when we stretch the elastic too far, it snaps back and hits us in the face. People are going to be thinking this is not right. That is the difference between dogmatism and pragmatism.

From the outset, we have said that if amendments were made to this bill, we could perhaps work to find a solution. It is unthinkable to tie the hands of an arbitrator, to require the arbitrator, as the bill specifies, to take either the side of the employer or the side of the workers. If that is the way in which we are going to proceed, we may well ask ourselves what arbitration is. Is it just choosing one side over the other?

Of course, we know full well how arbitrators work. They must be given every ability to work with both parties to reach a compromise. Arbitrators represent neither the union nor the employer. That is why we cannot pass legislation that will tie an arbitrator's hands. That is unacceptable.

It is true that salary provisions were included in the bill in the past. But in the current negotiations between the employer and the workers, Canada Post had proposed a salary scale. Why does this bill propose lesser amounts? If the minister is already on the side of management, why did she include in the bill amounts less than Canada Post had proposed?

For all these reasons, we are voting against this bill. But we look forward to the House resolving into committee of the whole in order for us to discuss whether it is possible to come to an agreement.

We are voting against the six-month hoist because the lockout continues. There is no agreement between the employer and the union, yet we are telling the workers that we are going to wait another six months. What are we going to tell Canadians for all that time? This is why we have to find a compromise, and this is why the Liberal Party is the pragmatic party. We are practical people, and we feel that we must find a better way than to hold up Parliament.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is waving at me. I suppose he is pleased to see me. So I will wave back. Of course, we can work to protect the interests of workers, but a filibuster just wastes time. We have just spent 35 hours on second reading. If we want to spend another 35, we can and they are going to, but they are in no way serving the workers or serving Canadians. That is why we have to find solutions together. As their slogan says, “Travaillons ensemble”. Let us work together.

Let us find a way together, during the committee of the whole, to see if there is a capacity for some amendments.

Of course I do not have a lot of trust in the government, for obvious reasons. However, I trust in people, and I believe that people deserve a service.

At the same time I want to ensure that people realize the workers are also Canadians. When I asked a question to the minister, she said she prefers to protect 33 million people rather than 45,000 workers. These 45,000 workers are Canadians, so I do not know why we have two tiers. Was she saying there are two kinds of citizens?

We must find a pragmatic solution, but night after night of filibustering is not the way to find a solution.

People are saying that there was an election. There is a majority government. We can urge, we can stall, but if we truly want to work together, we must get together in committee of the whole to propose amendments.

People were mad about this filibuster because June 24 is Quebec's national holiday. People were asking why Parliament avoided sitting on a Friday because of the NDP and Conservative Party conventions, but Quebec's national holiday was not important. Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day for French Canadians is not important. We can sit that day.

We must be responsible. We can exert pressure and discuss at length, but there must be an outcome. At the end of the day, we need to serve the public. We can find a compromise, a balanced solution. I hope that we will be able to discuss possible amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the member for Bourassa. This is the same question that his colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt asked in the House. I also asked the NDP the same thing. I think it is very important that we get an answer.

In this place we talk a lot. That's all we do in this place. It's important to match our talk with action.

We never got an answer about this very important question. The NDP talks a lot about the rights of workers, but as I understand it their own local 232 still doesn't have a collective bargaining agreement. This has been years in the making. As a result, many new hires in the OLO and other parts of the New Democratic caucus are being made as management in order to avoid the seniority that comes with being part of a local.

My question to the member is when will the NDP put in place a collective bargaining agreement for some staff and “walk the walk” as they “talk the talk”?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will have to live with its own contradictions and will resolve its problems. What I am interested in today, at 12:45 in the morning, is not showing hyper-partisanship, but finding a solution so that we can first respect the collective constitutional rights recognized by the Supreme Court. And then Ms. Mailloux in my riding can receive her mail. I told Ms. Mailloux that it was a lockout that made no sense, but that I was going to make sure that she got her mail. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. At some point, we must realize that too much is just as bad as not enough.

I would like us to stop with the gobbledygook and set aside partisanship so that we can find a solution. We can stretch things out. The members just have to say the same thing all the time. They have been repeating the same thing for 36 hours. We know the arguments. They are always saying the same thing. It sounds good. The members from Quebec all apologized because they were unable to take part in Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, but they are still making the same arguments.

Can we move on? Let us bring forward amendments, and we will work hard. We want to work so that there is service, but we want the workers to be respected as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the member for Bourassa, how he can play petty politics by saying that it is the NDP's fault we were unable to attend Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day festivities. Our leader moved a motion so that we could take a break for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and return to our families. The Bloc Québécois also moved a motion on that. But both times, the Conservative government refused to let us go.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue must also know that before there are motions, there is Twitter. Some journalists have been tweeting everything we have been saying from the beginning. I said the same thing.

It is a collective problem. The Bloc started things off and moved the first motion. I believe the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour moved the motion. That is not petty politics; that is a fact. I heard a former nurse say that she has had to work on June 24 in the past and I commend her. We need to be consistent, as politicians and as members of Parliament. A resolution was passed in the House to recognize Quebec as a nation. So, if we can suspend for a political convention—which I understand, for we have all done it—we can also respect Quebeckers, French Canadians, as a nation. So members felt that we should not sit on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, Quebec's national holiday. Both sides are to blame.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is actually June 25, but I will not apologize for not being in my riding to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. However, I would like to wish all Quebeckers a wonderful national holiday. I am with them in spirit. I am so proud to be a Quebecker. Let us celebrate our culture and our beautiful language.

Now, to get back to the subject, namely, Bill C-6. I heard the speeches given by my hon. colleagues across the floor. I heard them say repeatedly that the complete shutdown of postal services is hurting the Canadian economy and SMEs and that this must absolutely be resolved. I understand that, because it is completely legitimate.

However, they forgot to mention one important detail in their speeches. The employees of Canada Post never called a general strike. They did not want to stop delivering the mail. Instead, they decided to stage rotating strikes, so that Canadians would still receive their mail. It was the employer, Canada Post, that decided to impose a lockout and shut down mail delivery.

It is even more shocking to see this government try to then blame the workers and the NDP to justify its policy. The employees want to return to work and we know that Canada Post never would have imposed a lockout without the approval of the government and the Minister of Labour, who is currently not here.

The shutdown of mail delivery is affecting the economy. The government has to end the lockout. I am truly shocked to see the government so readily blame every party except his own.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture said that millions of Canadians and small and medium-sized businesses were suffering because of the lockout and that the voters elected the Conservatives, who now have to represent the voters' interests. Are they forgetting that the Canada Post workers also voted for us? Are they forgetting that the workers' families and friends are counting on us? They too voted for us. Are they forgetting that their children are also counting on us? Those Canadians also have the right to have their interests represented in the House of Commons.

We are not talking about a right that is part of some act or regulation. We are talking about a right that is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a fundamental human right that is the key to balancing the power relationship between the employees and the employer, which already has a position of strength over its employees.

Why is the government so bent on denigrating the workers and bolstering that position? This disrupts the balance of the whole structure in the workplace. A society without labour rights, without collective bargaining, is not a free and democratic society. Talk to the many political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in countries condemned by Amnesty International because those countries do not respect these fundamental rights.

Thousands of activists have been imprisoned after devoting their lives to defending labour rights and fighting for the workers in their country. I have a good example. Mansour Ossanlou, president of the bus workers' union in Tehran, spent his whole life standing up for workers' rights. He is now in jail in his country, being tortured.

I know that the hon. members opposite will say that we are not in Iran here. I would tell them that indeed, in Canada, workers have the right to negotiate for better working conditions. They have the right to negotiate for better wages and stable pensions to avoid spending their retirement in poverty.

How dare the government talk about freedom and democracy when it now wants to use its majority—which represents only 40% of Canadians—to force workers to return to work for wages reduced by $875 over four years and pensions that are less stable, with less vacation, less sick leave and fewer benefits? How dare the government use the economic recovery to justify these major cuts?

How can people living in uncertainty and with lower wages contribute to Canada's economic recovery? That makes no sense.

The young people of my generation are getting a terrible message. They are being told that they will not have good wages, good pensions, good benefits or good working conditions, and above all, that they will not have the right to negotiate for better conditions.

Canada Post, as a crown corporation, is well aware that it is not in its interest to negotiate with the employees because the government will take its side. The government will legislate in its favour. That is exactly why today, negotiations have come to a standstill. That is also why we are here today, since the employees have no other choice. We are their only way out in terms of defending their rights. In this situation, the government is not acting in good faith by offering less than what Canada Post had offered its own employees.

Canada Post employees are still mobilized in my riding. Despite the rain the day before yesterday, there were about 30 employees picketing in front of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Boulevard post office in Pointe-aux-Trembles. The vast majority of motorists taking that route showed their support by honking their horns or waving. Contrary to what the government is trying to make Canadians believe, the majority of people understand the reasons that pushed the Canada Post employees to go on a rotating strike, however they do not understand why this government locked the workers out.

A large number of constituents in my riding work in factories, small workshops and the construction sector. They are unionized workers who understand the importance of having good, safe working conditions. They sympathize therefore with the Canada Post mail carriers and employees whose mail preparation procedure will be modified.

The Canada Post Corporation has already started to change the mail assembly procedure. Some mail carriers in Laval now have to prepare their mail while they walk. The mail carriers will now be required to wear two mail pouches, one on each side of their body. Regardless of the rain, wind, hail, or snow, mail carriers tread the sidewalks with loads of tens of pounds, sometimes loads of up to 30 pounds. How will they be able to regain their balance in a wet staircase or on an icy sidewalk if they are carrying mail pouches hanging from each side of their body?

The number of on the job accidents will increase and these accidents will become more serious. Furthermore, the government wants to cut mail carriers’ benefits and salaries. What will be the impact of this measure in areas with a lot of exterior staircases, as is the case in Tétreaultville, located in the western part of my riding?

“The worst negotiated agreement is better than the best imposed agreement,” according to a popular adage among collective labour contract negotiators.

In keeping with their right-wing ideas, the Conservatives want to punish workers who believe in labour relations laws and collective bargaining, and have resorted to entirely legal and legitimate job action in the form of rotating strikes. This government argues that the scale it wants to impose is the same as for federal government public servants. In addition to making a mockery of working conditions, the government has given an arbitrator—who will be intervening in relation to a particular issue—a mandate with no real flexibility. Given the constraints placed upon the arbitrator, his decision is almost predictable.

A responsible government only uses special back-to-work legislation as a last resort. This government from the new right wants things its way and is willing to scare government workers in the process. The special legislation will set a precedent in the history of labour relations despite there being no general strike, just a government-imposed lockout.

For the residents of Pointe-de-l'Île, Quebec and Canada, democracy is not simply about voting in general elections; it is something they experience daily, in the workplace. Unionized workers have the right to bargain and to organize, but also the right to engage in job action.

I was disgusted today to hear my government colleagues say that we have no respect for Canadians and SMEs, and that we do not care about Canada’s best interests. I will not allow this government to blame us for its undemocratic practices, driven by the economic interests of companies and employers. I will not allow this government to try and tell Canadians that the NDP is not there for them. We are here not only for the workers at Canada Post, but for all Canadians.

We are here for them, for their families and their children.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I have two comments—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, for some time now, the Conservatives have been acting very poorly in the House. I urge you as Speaker to control the Conservative members who are lacking respect in this Parliament.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That is not a point of order. I would agree that there has been a lot more noise in the last few minutes, but I have been monitoring the debate in this place.

The hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make two comments on the member's speech.

One, she mentioned motorists honking at the strike initiative. She assumed the honking was in favour of the strikers. I suspect it was more likely small business owners going to work, simply honking at the strikers and saying, “Get the hell out of the way; I want to go to work”.

The other thing is that I have emails from postal workers who tell me they were not allowed to vote by their union. They are disappointed with that and are demanding that the union allow them to vote on what they thought was a very good deal.

I would like to know from the member: How undemocratic is that?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is surely not as undemocratic as what this government is doing today in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the postal workers did not have a chance to vote on subsequent offers and yet they gave their union a 94.5% mandate to strike. The party opposite keeps insisting that was not enough.

Does the Conservative Party go to the electorate and have an election every time it introduces a new piece of legislation? Would that analogy not be comparable to the kind of nonsense the Conservatives are spouting about a strike mandate?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here because we want to stand up on behalf of citizens against this bill that the government is trying to pass. They tried to blame us and told us that if we wanted to attend Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations in our ridings, we simply had to vote for a bill right away, without debating it. I do not think that is how Canadians want us to do politics. That is why we are here today and why we will stay here until the government agrees to debate the amendments we want to propose.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Bourassa set the tone for this next round of debate. You will notice that with the way I speak, things will calm down a bit, we will take a deep breath and bring the debate back down to earth.

Does the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île share my concerns about the situation? I have been a negotiator and a union president. There is some give and take in any negotiation. But as it stands, the bill introduced by the Conservative government is so good for the employer and for the Canada Post Corporation that, even if there are some backroom deals—negotiations must take place, or at least I hope—I think that the employer side has no interest in moving and does not want to move, simply because the government handed it working conditions on a silver platter that clearly put the workers at a disadvantage.

Does she see the same problem I do in what went on on the government side when it introduced this bill that is unfair to the workers?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that excellent question. There is no need for me to add anything about the government and the head of this crown corporation. We know very well that the corporation did not impose a lockout without the government's agreement. If that were not enough, it dares to offer inferior working conditions, lower wages and, above all, a wage increase that is less than inflation and less than the increase in the cost of living.

As I said in my remarks, it is normal to have no negotiations going on. The government tells us that it tried and tried again. No, it did not try; it just took the side of Canada Post, let it break off the negotiations and let the workers take the blame. We here have all agreed that it is a precedent. From now on, no employer—CBC/Radio-Canada or any other—will ever want to negotiate their collective agreements to a conclusion because they know that the government, which we are unfortunately going to have for four years, will be in their camp.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to be the next speaker. We are now into debate on the principles of Bill C-6 and I thought maybe some members on the other side who have so much to say in the question and comment period would like to stand up and explain the principles and philosophy behind the bill—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Is the member saying he does not have have any principles?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

—and defend what the government has brought forward in the House of Commons.

There have been some wild charges by the other side about what motivates New Democrats, what motivates trade unionists, so I am going to start by talking—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would ask all hon. members to refrain from yelling in the House. There are three or four members who continually interrupt.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks on the debate in principle on Bill C-6 by talking about some of the motivations that lie behind my opposition to the bill.

I will do that by talking a little bit about what a great Canadian did when confronted with a society that was becoming increasingly unequal and was becoming a society where there was great hardship among ordinary working people. That Canadian was J.S. Woodsworth. He began his working life as a young minister. His motivation was not Marxism. It was not labour bosses. It was his great Christian faith which said that he should reach out to his brothers and sisters and his community and to help those in need.

When he was confronted with the depression that confronted all Canadians returning from World War I and the great deal of hardship, he got caught up in the response of workers in Canada, which led to the Winnipeg General Strike. His conclusion from that was that government, in order to prevent this kind of hardship in our society and in order to bring people together, had to step in and create social programs and labour policies that would lead to a more just and equal Canadian society. He ran for Parliament and sat as the member for Winnipeg North Centre from 1921 until his death in 1942.

His philosophy is one that can guide me in my response to Bill C-6. Some of the key issues raised in the bill are the issue of a living wage and the issue of intergenerational equity. Woodsworth's philosophy was very well expressed in what is known as the Woodsworth grace, and, with the House's indulgence, I will read that grace. It states:

We are thankful for these and all the good things of life. We recognize that they are a part of our common heritage and come to us through the efforts of our brothers and sisters the world over. What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all. To this end, may we take our share in the world's work and the world's struggles.

What is most important to me is the line, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”. I know that is what motivates trade unions in this country. It is not to take from others but to build a society where we all have the same ability to raise a family in dignity and in honour and to save for our retirement. What trade unions wish for themselves, they wish for all Canadians. This is the spirit in which trade unions fight, not for union bosses but for their members, not just for their members but for all working people.

Today, the Conservative government tells us that the recession is over and yet we have the largest number of Canadians in our history using food banks, including many families with children and many families where one parent is working. The Canadian Association of Food Banks says that now there are 870,000 Canadians per month are assisted by a food bank.

Some on the other side would ask me what that has to do with Bill C-6. Bill C-6 would result in a rollback of wages to levels that would not allow a family to avoid food banks. In the case of Air Canada, where the government first suggested intervention, the two-tier wages that were on the table at that time would have started workers at Air Canada at $11.35 per hour. That is not enough in my community for a person with one dependant to pay for the basics of food, clothing and shelter.

What is on the table in the agreement to be enforced by Bill C-6 is an 18% reduction for new workers, lower than the existing Canada Post rate. What will that bring their wages down to? It will be $19 an hour. I heard many members on the other side say that there are many people who would be happy to work for $19 an hour. I can tell the members that in my community $19 an hour will not support a family. It will not buy housing. It will not pay all the bills at the end of the month for a family.

What is wrong with Bill C-6, from my point of view, is that it violates the principle and philosophy that was set out by Woodsworth, which is that we all are brothers and sisters in this community. We all deserve the same good standard of living in this country. That is my vision of Canada, that was Woodsworth's vision of Canada and, I hope, that is the vision of all members in the House.

When it comes to the two-tier wage system, it is clearly inspired by some other model and some other vision where some Canadians who do the same work will be paid less and will not have enough at the end of the month to take care of their families.

The second part of the legislation is the attack on pensions. One of the great problems that was faced in the 1920s and through the 1930s was the absolute destitution of the elderly in our society. We went to great lengths to create the Canada pension plan but, in parallel with that, also private pension plans.

This attack on pensions will leave workers without the security that they need for their retirement. We will have many seniors, as we do today, who do not have pensions and who will need to choose at the end of the month between shelter, prescription drugs and food. When they make those hard choices, they often end up ill and often end up becoming a greater cost to our society as a whole. Many of them are too proud to ask for help. Many of their families provide that help without them actually asking. We end up with those very families we are suggesting should have a lower wage to start, having to help out their senior parents and having to pay the high cost of child care all at the same time. This is that new term we are talking about, the sandwich generation. What is being suggested in Bill C-6 is that we give those people even lower wages to try to meet those multiple demands in their lives.

Perhaps what is most pernicious for me in Bill C-6 is its effect on intergenerational inequality. My generation has a lot to answer for. Our emphasis on consumerism, excess and privilege for a few has left a society that I am much less proud of than I would like to be. What we are doing is also leaving future generations with an environment in crisis and with debt racked up by the Liberal and Conservative federal governments that failed to make those who have wealth and resources pay their fair share in this country. They are the ones who benefited from the work that all Canadians do and they have had relentless programs of tax reduction in their favour, which has driven up our debt that we will leave to our children and their children. The Conservative government's corporate tax reductions that we have seen go ahead now will only add to that problem in the future.

Bill C-6 again compounds that problem. We are now saying to the new generation of workers that not only are we leaving them these greater problems to deal with, but we will give them lower wages and fewer resources to actually deal with those problems.

What we are back to at the end of Bill C-6 is a difference in philosophy, and that philosophy is not based on Marxism or union bossism on this side. It is based on a wide variety of philosophies, some taking their inspiration from faith and religion, some taking theirs from humanitarianism and some taking theirs from socialist and social democratic traditions. However, what we share on this side of the House is that statement that was included in the grace that I read earlier, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”. We will take our part in that struggle and work very hard to ensure Canada is and always will be a more equal society.

We have now reached a position, 90 years after Woodsworth was first elected to the House of Commons, where inequality is once again as big as it was when he began his career. The great shame of the last 20 years of Canadian society is that we have slipped back to the 1920s. We have slipped back so that ordinary working families have lost those opportunities for a safe and secure future for them and their children.

That is why I am very proud to stand here with my brothers and sisters in the NDP caucus. We will be forcing this debate as long as we can to try to make members on the other side come to their senses and see that there is a better way to build a prosperous Canada and a better future for all Canadians.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, with some of the numbers the member has just cited with regard to the 1920s, comparing the standard of living with today, he would do well to recheck his statistics.

He would also do well not to pretend that $19 an hour, close to $40,000 a year, is enough to live on in this country. There are many hard-working, unionized and non-unionized people, people, I would hazard, who work in our very offices in this House, who work on that amount or less than that amount and do not have recourse to food banks. We should not take their effort, their sacrifice and the discipline of their lives lightly.

What concerns this member and many on our side is the emphasis on fighting. Why do we need to fight? We were all impressed by the revolutionary fervour of the previous speaker, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, but, honestly, Canadians have not sent us here to fight. They have sent us here to find solutions.

Will the member opposite not agree that the solution is to vote for this law and put the workers of Canada Post back to work to help their company become the competitive corporation that its management and its workers want it to be, and that the best way to do that is to end this debate, end this filibuster and vote for Bill C-6 now.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member here in the House. He may not remember but we did actually meet when I was working in Afghanistan and he was also working there. I respect the work he did there.

However, with respect, he is absolutely wrong about who has picked this fight here in the House of Commons.

Canada Post is a profitable corporation and that profit was made by the co-operation and hard work of all those people who go to work everyday to help deliver the mail in Canada. What did Canada Post do? It sought to roll back the wages and pensions of those workers when it was making $281 million a year in profits. When things did not go easily for Canada Post, the government stepped in and imposed even worse conditions than those that were put forward at the beginning.

To me, the blame for who picked the fight here, who locked out the workers and who caused us to stand here in opposition belongs to the other side of this House and not to this side.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have a great deal of respect for the member. I know he is sincere in what he is saying. I accept everything he said and I agree with much of what he said.

The last questioner asked something that was pertinent. I did not agree with his conclusion of why we are fighting. I feel that we need to fight for certain things here. However, at the end of the day I wonder if the hon. member could explain the worth of this fight of who started it, who did not start it, who will finish it and who will continue it. Is it not about finding a resolution? Is that not what we should be doing?

I do not understand. I wonder if the member could explain to me how, after 29 hours of speaking in this House to a motion to hoist the bill and wait six months, who that benefits. It does not benefit the worker, in my book. It does not benefit the public interest. Who does it benefit? Let us stop the fighting and get to resolutions. Let us get to committee of the whole.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in my speech I did not talk about who picked the fight. The question of who picked the fight came from the other side of the House and I felt obligated to respond to that.

The other part I did not get a chance to respond to was where the $19 an hour not being enough come from. In my community, that figure that was produced by the community social services council that surveyed the costs that a family faces in the community for the very basics of housing, food, clothing and education for their kids. It is not an amount that includes holidays or saving for retirement. It is a very modest income in the major cities of this country. Therefore, that is not a figure that was picked out of the air.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, here we are in the second day of our debate. What comes to my mind today is this is not about this particular dispute. It is not about postal workers being locked out. It is not about union bosses not giving union members the vote. Those are all red herrings. This dispute and the legislation are about the kind of Canada we want.

We must look at this debate in that context. Each and every one of us in this room, as well as those who are sleeping or sitting in the lobbies, should take the time to reflect on that. It is not just the kind of Canada we want for ourselves, as my colleague mentioned, but it is the kind of Canada we want for our children, grandchildren, neighbours and people right across the country.

It is about a living wage. I am not talking about a minimum wage. I am talking about a living wage, the amount of money it takes to support a family, to enable a family to pay the rent, to buy food, to pay for transportation and clothing, and to have a bit of money left over so the family can take the occasional vacation. I am not talking about going to Hawaii or Timbuktu; most families would be grateful just to go camping.

Those are the kinds of issues we are dealing with. When we look at the challenges being faced by the post office workers, that is the attack the government is making on their right to a living wage.

I have heard hon. members say that some of their constituents make $12 an hour and are very happy with that. Someone who had been unemployed and was able to get a job for $12 an hour would be very happy with that, but would that be enough to pay the rent, to pay for food, clothing and basic needs? I would answer no because I know many people who make that kind of money and they have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.

It is very easy for all us who sit in these hallowed halls. We make a decent income, I would say a more than comfortable income. It is very easy for us to say that $18 an hour is extravagant. We have to ask ourselves, would we be willing to take $18 an hour?

Canada Post is telling new workers that they can work for Canada Post but it is going to pay them even less than it used to pay. That does not make any economic sense and I will explain why. Workers who are happy, who are not depressed, who are not feeling persecuted or hard done by by the government or their employer, are far more productive.

What signal are we sending to our youth, to new workers? We are telling them that they are not worth as much, that they can work for much longer, that they are younger and they can do it.

I ask my colleagues across the aisle, are there special grocery stores for the young? Young people have to pay the bills and have to support theirs families just like the rest of us. We cannot, in our society, buy into differentiated salaries for the same work.

I absolutely believe in employment equity. Past governments, some that did not have a majority at the time but were supported by others, did away with the employment equity program. We saw the impact that had on the civil service, and we saw the greater impact it had on women.

When I look at what is coming for the postal workers, it is not only a differentiated salary, but now the government is exercising its majority and is being punitive. It is being a bully in trying to impose an agreement. It is setting the salary. It is imposing a salary on workers instead of giving them the freedom to negotiate. That is just wrong.

I also want to talk about benefits. What attracted me to Canada back in 1975 when I chose to make Canada my home was Canada's wonderful health care system. When I was hired as a teacher, I was really pleased with the benefits I had, just as I am sure the postal workers were very happy when they fought for and earned those benefits.

Now, the postal workers are being told that their sick leave benefits are going to be changed and are going to be taken away. That is just wrong. I cannot see how a corporation that is making a huge profit can take away more from the very people who helped it make that profit. Those two things do not coincide. Good corporations know that when they do well the first thing they should do is reward their employees.

A state corporation is under the control of the Conservative majority. Its employees are being told that while the corporation has this huge profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars, their wages are going to be lowered. They are not going to get as much as Canada Post wanted to give them. Also, their benefits, and for good luck, their pensions are going to be worse.

What kind of government does that? The kind of government that hid its real agenda from Canadians when it said it was going to be a kinder and gentler government that would not attack pensions, that would not attack working people. I heard those speeches over and over again, and like any bully, once it got a majority, the cloak came off. Here we are, hardly a couple of months into this new Parliament and the cloak has come off.

What is this really about? This is about the corporate agenda to privatize public services and public corporations, absolutely. Why else would a government make it impossible for workers to go back to work? The doors are locked and the government is not opening them.

There is no way the Prime Minister could persuade me, or any Canadian, that the government did not lock the doors. The government is responsible for close to 50,000 people not making a living right now. They are outside because they are locked out. Those people do not have health care benefits. There have been strikes even in the public sector that have gone on for months, but the employer did not cut off benefits.

In an email one of my constituents told me that when she went to get her drug prescription, she was told that she had to pay $111, because she did not have that benefit anymore—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the passionate and sincere conviction expressed by the member.

Earlier this evening I mentioned that today members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers surrounded the largest office in the world of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in Sydney, Nova Scotia. That is where we process hundreds of thousands of citizenship proofs and citizenship grants and permanent residency cards and other essential products for new Canadians.

The member has a large population of new Canadians in her constituency. Many of her constituents are waiting for products mailed by my ministry, including proofs of permanent residency and citizenship, which they essentially need to travel overseas. They are contacting us desperate because of the work action provoked by CUPW. Union bosses have prevented them from getting those essential documents.

Today the CUPW workers, unqualifiedly supported by their allies in the NDP, would not allow 700 public servants from Citizenship and Immigration Canada to enter their offices to do work on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of new Canadians in particular.

Does the member condone these illegal activities that are making life more difficult for new Canadians? Will she not stand up for her constituents and call on CUPW to respect our laws?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the aisle for his wonderful question. Let us remember—

[An hon. member]

Answer it.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer it if the hon. member will let me. That is what I am trying to do. Nobody has ever accused me of evading a question.

When a government supports a crown corporation's lockout of its employees, those employees have very few options left to them. What they are doing right now is trying to draw attention to what is going on. They are trying to get some action.

I am perfectly prepared to go back into my riding and explain to my constituents what the issues are about. They are working people. People come to this country and work hard at two or three jobs. They are the ones who are telling me, “Do not let them take away our pensions. Do not let them take away our decent paying jobs”.

I know they are being inconvenienced, but when it comes to rights, it is not about what is important for me, it is what is important for each and every one of us. This is their new home. This is why—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order.

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a former immigration minister, I cannot accept a reply like that. I hope that the hon. member will be much less evasive. She should have answered the question from the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. There are limits. This is not about taking one side or the other, but there is a certain reality, and services provided to Canadians must be protected.

My question is not complicated. At the moment, we are either blaming each other or talking about principles. We would rather find solutions. Does the hon. member not agree that we should immediately move into a committee of the whole and come to grips with this? We can drag out the time, but we could be working together on amendments instead of dragging out the time. Everyone is losing now, to tell the truth. If we really want to help the workers, let us get into a committee of the whole and find solutions instead of simply holding forth with grand principles.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

First of all, it would be very easy to stop all of this today. It could stop in the next 30 seconds. Open the doors.

Secondly, I will say this to my colleague over on the far side: immigrants understand. They know they are being inconvenienced, but I can tell you they will understand once we explain to them. These new Canadians will understand that this is about fighting for rights. They understand that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I stand here just a few hours after I first rose in the House to speak of this crossroads we are at, previously on the hoist motion and now on Bill C-6.

In these last 24 hours I have received messages from people in my constituency in northern Manitoba. I have received messages from people across the country. I have received messages from postal workers and from ordinary Canadians.

Many of these messages are thanking the NDP for standing up for them. They thank us for standing up for the postal workers and for what is rightly theirs as working people: their right to collective bargaining. They thank us for standing up in the House of Commons and raising the fact that what is being talked about here is a fair wage, a stable pension, and a recognition that no matter the age of the worker, or whether they have been with Canada Post for years or are a new hire, they ought to have the same right to a decent living.

In these last 24 hours I have also had the chance to hear from members across. I had the chance to hear humour, the chance to hear belittling, and the chance to hear a whole lot of heckling. That disrespect is nothing to us on this side of the House of Commons; we put with it. But that disrespect is most insulting to the Canadian people and to the postal workers who are on the picket line because they were shut out of their jobs when they decided they would take action by going on a rotating strike. The postal workers continued to deliver the critical mail that was needed by so many Canadians. They recognized that their work is an essential service. And they are now on the lines across Canada stating what we are talking about here today.

Instead of hearing many parties in the House, most importantly the governing party of the House, say that they are listening, we have heard neglect and quite frankly disrespect and insults.

What we are talking about here today is more than just what the workers of Canada Post have been calling for in their negotiation. The postal workers, other workers across Canada, and so many Canadians want the approach from government on this service to be focused on people rather than profit.

A few months ago the Canadian Union of Postal Workers welcomed their new president. In welcome, the members voiced their desire to have a positive working relationship. They asked for what they wanted to see: a less commercial and more socially responsible postal service and a management that understands that Canada Post is first and foremost a public service.

The members asked for respect for Canada Post's legislated mandate to provide and improve postal service while being financially self-sustaining and ensuring good labour-management relations.

They asked for an end to the cuts and privatization, including the national philatelic centres and customer contact centres. They noted this could be done by sharing the benefits and cost savings of modernization with the public and postal workers.

Finally, they asked for a commitment to work with the federal government to dramatically improve government policy and expectations for Canada Post, as outlined in the Canadian postal service charter.

These were the requests that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers asked for. They asked for a better service for Canadians.

To me, what pops out is the word “privatization”. Let us make no mistake about what we are seeing here today: an agenda of the government to move in that direction. They closed the national philatelic centres. They got rid of the customer contact centres. They got rid of the Canada Post food mail program and gave it to a private carrier. Now they are attacking the very workers who are asking for nothing more than a fair wage. The workers recognize that Canada Post has made record profits that in many cases have gone back to government coffers rather than being reinvested in not just the postal workers but more importantly the service.

That piece on privatization is not only about the direction this government is taking when it comes to postal service. The question is where does it go next? What other services are going down that path thanks to this government's leadership--or lack of leadership, for that matter? Where will it cut next, whether it be funding, imposing legislation, or taking a heavy hand and saying that Canadians should not have public systems that have been at the foundation of our country, such as postal services, health care, education systems, the CBC, or institutions across the country that bring us together? Where will it stop? What is clear is that it has begun.

Privatization does not just mean poorer services for us. Of course that is a key part of what it means, especially in some parts of the country that are already among the poorest.

We can look at rural Canada. As a rural Canadian and somebody who is proud to say that I grew up in a small community, maybe an average community for Canada, I can say not only how important the postal service is to us as a service, but also how important the postal workers are in keeping our communities connected in bringing home a living wage and raising families in our communities. If we are going down the path of privatization, which this government has proven to be interested in taking, rural Canada stands to lose the most.

I find it highly hypocritical that so many of the members across who were elected to represent rural Canadians, so many members with signed petitions decrying the possible closure of rural post offices or decrying the lack of funding going toward postal services, stand in this House and turn a blind eye to the demands of rural Canadians.

Women we know, many of whom work in the postal service, also stand to lose the most from privatization, women who already learn less money to the male dollar in Canada, a shameful fact, given that we are in the year 2011. That is also the case with the next generation, young people.

Much excitement is felt when we talk about young people and the energy they bring. Certainly our party is keen on the new group of young MPs. Our voices are here to say that the road this government is taking is feeding off of our generation. It is taking away the foundations of a country our generation would like to contribute to, but also the kinds of foundations our generation needs to be able to build a better future.

Finally, I want to say that this ultimately is not only about privatization but also an attack on working people, on the working class and the middle class.

I will read a quote that came out of the protests that happened south of us in Madison, Wisconsin. It speaks to the draconian legislation that is not too far off from what we are hearing and debating here today. One of the leaders there said, “All this legislation is an attack on the middle class, which blossomed in this country "--much like ours--" as a result of collective bargaining victories during the middle of the last century.”

Let us continue to a brighter future by supporting the Canadian postal workers' rights to collective bargaining. Let us have a government that stands for my generation and the future of our country.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I find highly offensive about the members opposite is their appropriation of the term “working Canadians”. I represent working Canadians, and many of the colleagues on this side of the House strongly represent working Canadians. Many of them, tens of thousands of them, voted for us in all of our constituencies.

It is highly offensive to my constituents when people like loggers, miners, ranchers, farmers, and tourism operators are not included in their definition of working citizens. These people work very hard and for many of them, a 60-hour week is considered an easy week. Not only members opposite represent working-class folks. We represent them as well. They are voting for us in ever-increasing numbers, especially in rural Canada.

I represent a widely dispersed rural constituency. Internet service is sometimes intermittent. Mail service is very important to the seniors and the businesses in my constituency. Can the member tell us why the NDP is persisting in hurting rural Canada?