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.

Canada Labour Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to be able to rise in the House today to speak to this important bill, Bill C-58, which I do want to note is a part of the confidence-and-supply agreement that we have with the government. I want to quote from a section of that agreement under the heading, “A better deal for workers”. It reads:

Introducing legislation by the end of 2023 to prohibit the use of replacement workers, “scabs,” when a union employer in a federally regulated industry has locked out employees or is in a strike.

That was an important part of the agreement. That is why I am so happy to see this bill. We need to stand in this place every single day as representatives of our constituents and show that we are here to fight for workers. They deserve our respect, better wages and better working conditions. When we look at the history of collective bargaining in this country, it is the union movement that has done that.

I think of my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, going back to the 1920s and the 1930s. I come from a part of Canada where the forestry industry was dominant. If members ever go out to British Columbia, to the beautiful forests of Vancouver Island, they will see trees that they would have thought could only exist in their imagination. There was a massive timber industry. It was back then during the labour unrest of the 1920s and the 1930s from the absolutely brutal working conditions that workers were subjected to, with low pay, dangerous working conditions and everything else, when the worker militancy in the forests of British Columbia was born. Those workers used their power to fight for rights. That is a small part of the history of Canada. I am so proud of that heritage from the part of the world that I come from.

I am so proud to be a member of a party that is of the workers and for the workers. Everyone knows, of course, that our party, the NDP, was formed in 1961 as an alliance between the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress. We carry that heritage proudly with us to this day.

This bill is particularly important because, in the last 15 years, the NDP has introduced eight anti-scab bills. The last time they came up for a vote in 2016, it was the Liberals and the Conservatives that teamed up together to defeat it. We often are accused of having a short memory in this place, so I will say that into the record. In 2016, it was the Liberals and the Conservatives that teamed up together to defeat our last attempt to bring in anti-scab legislation.

I do not know where the Conservatives are going to stand on this bill. They have tried so desperately and spent millions of dollars to try and recast themselves as a party for the workers. They like to make their YouTube videos. I have yet to see the Leader of the Opposition out on a picket line. I still do not know where they are going to stand on this bill. Every time it has come to actual action to stand up for workers, they are more interested in their words. This is a moment to stand in this place through a vote to show that they are in favour of actual legislative change that is going to help the working movement.

I am proud that we have not given up on this issue. That is why we can stand here proudly, offer our support to Bill C-58 and show the workers of Canada that we are committed to moving this forward, to making sure that the Canada Labour Code is there for workers and that it has that important change. We know that this bill would not be moving forward if it had not been spelled out in the agreement and we know that this bill will require multiple party support to advance to the next stage.

I have a few theories as to why the Conservatives have been so absent in this debate. The few times that they have gotten up and put speakers on this bill, they have talked about anything but the bill. In fact, we have often had to raise points of order in the House to try and bring them back on topic. One of my theories is that the Conservatives, under the previous prime minister Stephen Harper, have a long and brutal legislative track record against workers, particularly ones who work under federal jurisdiction.

We can go back to 2007, when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-46, the Railway Continuation Act. That was back-to-work legislation against railway workers. It forced 2,800 members of the United Transportation Workers Union at CN Rail back to work: the drivers, yard-masters and trainmen. It forced them back to complying with pretty brutal demands from the employer. Fast-forward to 2011 and Bill C-6, the Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, which forced 48,000 locked-out postal workers back to work and imposed wage raises lower than what the employer had agreed to earlier. Fast-forward to 2012 and Bill C-33, when again the Conservatives intervened, this time between Air Canada and its employees—

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

If you could provide the committee with an example and a percentage of how much is done, we would really appreciate it.

Minister, following up on the passion demonstrated by my colleague Mr. Blaikie, I'd like to talk about the recently passed Bill C-89. This bill was quite different from the previous bill, Bill C-6, which was passed in 2011, and has many positive and different approaches to bringing in back-to-work legislation.

I would like to ask you to highlight some of those positive or different approaches.

Rail Service Resumption Act, 2015

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

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me once again today to rise in the House, in the Parliament of Canada, to oppose a bill. I rise as a member of the official opposition to represent the values of the NDP, which is opposing a back-to-work bill for the seventh time since the Conservatives took power in 2006. This government is certainly a repeat offender when it comes to attacking workers, violating their legitimate rights and preventing them from exerting pressure, which includes going on strike.

In 2007 we had Bill C-46 for the continuation of railway operations, so this is not the first time. In 2009 we had Bill C-61 for the continuation of railway operations once again. In 2011 it was Bill C-6 to restore mail delivery. That bill targeted postal workers and letter carriers. Also in 2011 was Bill C-5 to continue air service for passengers. Then we had Bill C-39 and Bill C-33 in 2012, when the Conservatives once again created a power imbalance between the parties. They systematically took the employer's side and took away fundamental rights from unionized workers, who are well within their rights to exert pressure.

I asked the minister a question earlier that I believe is the key issue we are concerned about: do people still have the right to strike and use pressure tactics in Canada today? Does this Conservative government recognize that striking is a legitimate way of expressing the right of association and freedom of collective bargaining? The Conservatives seem to be completely ignoring that aspect, and I will come back to that later. The Supreme Court's recent decision has once again upheld this right that the Conservatives have been flouting, year after year, in Canada.

We have reached a point where workers have to ask themselves whether they will be bothering anyone if they exercise their right to strike. Will the government systematically intervene and break the rules to give the employer more power and additional arguments? The situation is always the same. If the employer knows for sure that it does not really have to reach an agreement because its friends in the Conservative government will intervene, violate rights and prevent its workers from striking, then what incentive does the employer have to negotiate in good faith and try to find a solution? That is the major problem.

They should give negotiation a chance.

We have a Conservative government that is always on the side of the employers and never on the side of the workers of this country. Workers have a fundamental right to exert economic pressure and strike if they need to in order to force employers to recognize problems and find solutions.

The minister just said that a negotiated deal is always better than an imposition of anything. Why is she imposing back to work legislation again and again? It is the seventh time that the Conservatives would do that since they were elected in 2006. It is a bad habit that they have; they take a side every time and break the balance of power between the two parties. We are saying to give the workers a chance to negotiate and to exert their rights.

The Minister of Labour just said that the recent decision of the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the right to strike. I contradict that. I have a quote from a Supreme Court judge in that decision from a few weeks ago. Judge Abella wrote the following:

Where good faith negotiations break down, the ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services is a necessary component of the process through which workers can continue to participate meaningfully in the pursuit of their collective workplace goals. In this case, the suppression of the right to strike amounts to a substantial interference with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

This is exactly what the decision of the Supreme Court is about. It is about the fundamental right of workers to exert some pressure on an employer to improve their working conditions.

If those workers are refused the right to strike, that is an interference of their fundamental rights. This is exactly what the Conservative government is doing, again and again.

It is a sad day. The right to strike in this country is under attack. Unions were considered illegal organizations before 1872. We are asking whether the government wants to go back to that point in time. Every time that it can crush workers and their unions, the government does it systematically. It has done it with Bill C-525, Bill C-377, and Bill C-4, other attacks on health and safety issues.

It is a sad day for democracy. It is a sad day for the workers of this country. It is a sad day for the labour movement. Workers can count on the NDP to defend their rights because we will protect the freedom of negotiation and collective bargaining. This is a value that we on this side of the House cherish and care about. Workers know that in a few months they will have the opportunity to have the first social democrat, pro-union, pro-worker, government in this country. It is coming.

I would like to reiterate that the labour minister told us that the Supreme Court's recent decision had nothing to do with exerting economic pressure or the right to strike. However, Justice Abella indicated in the ruling given a few weeks ago that the suppression of the right to strike interferes with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining, a process that provides an opportunity to get results.

In this case, it is extremely dangerous for the entire labour movement and for all workers to have a government that systematically takes the employer's side and tramples on workers' rights.

It is critical with the CP issue, and when there is a threat of back-to-work legislation hanging over their heads, to ask why the employer would negotiate in good faith. The employer knows it has good friends in power in Ottawa. The government will be on the employer's side and will force workers to go back to work. There is no reason for the employer to negotiate and look for a compromise.

Our concern is also the safety issue that is on the table for Canadian Pacific workers. It is a safety issue for everybody in this country: for the workers, first and foremost, of course, but also for everybody else. It is a question of the hours of work being too long, and extreme fatigue. We are talking about conductors who are driving freight trains that can be four kilometres long. We can imagine the consequences if the conductor is too tired to be aware of the dangers or everything that is going on.

This is not only the vision of the union. It is a problem that has been recognized by Transport Canada, and even by the companies. Transport Canada's own analysis of CP and CN employee scheduling records, from six different rail terminals across Canada, concluded that on the timing and length of each shift, assigned through an unpredictable on-call system, extreme fatigue was rampant.

In 4% of cases, employees were already extremely fatigued at the start of their shift because they did not have enough hours to sleep. It is a shame.

The government is not acting to correct that situation. Canadians should know that their safety is being put at risk by the government. We want that to change.

Forty-five percent of employees became extremely exhausted during work, and nearly all, 99%, were fatigued at least once during a month.

It was the same problem, the same issue, three years ago when employees of CP went on strike for a couple of days. After that, of course the Conservative government came here to vote on back-to-work legislation. The workers at that time were promised that the situation would be fixed: “Do not go on strike, we will negotiate and fix it.”

However, three years later, it is the same story. The same problems are still there. Extreme fatigue is still a problem for members of the Teamsters who are working for CP. Nothing has changed. We are back here again in the House of Commons, talking about back-to-work legislation.

My guess is that in three years we will be back again, because the issue will still not have been solved. There is no incentive for CP to solve the problem. The Conservatives are not helping. The Minister of Labour is not helping.

I think it is worth repeating, because the main issue in dispute here is not that workers want higher pay or want to extort more money from their employer. This is not about money. Incidentally, Canadian Pacific is an extremely profitable company. It has nothing to complain about; business is good. The discussions and debates are really about a matter of public safety. People need to be aware of that, because this is about the problem of too much overtime and the fatigue this causes. Canadian Pacific workers, the train operators, are not getting the rest they need, which leads to extreme fatigue.

What do the workers want? To be able to stop working and go home after 10 hours of work. All they are asking for is to not work more than 10 hours. What is this, the 19th century? Right now, train conductors have to work up to 12 hours straight before they can get a real rest. This is 2015; this is shameful. This Conservative government is doing nothing. In fact, it is actually helping rail companies perpetuate this practice.

Consider the potential consequences if a conductor driving a four-kilometre-long train is tired, does not have the necessary reflexes, and is unable to read the terrain or the dangers up ahead. Recent tragedies have shown us how important rail safety is. Everyone needs to know that this is a public safety issue and that the Conservatives are doing nothing about it.

A few minutes ago, I said that three years ago, CP workers, Teamsters members, went on strike for a few days on the issue of fatigue on the job and lack of breaks. The Conservative government forced them back to work. They were told not to worry, that this would be resolved, that there would be negotiations and recommendations would be made. Nothing was done. Today, in 2015, three years later, these same workers are going back on strike on the same issue of fatigue at work because nothing has been resolved. Now, we have another bill that is going to force them back to work again.

Should we allow the Conservatives to remain in power, I would not be surprised if people have to deal with a CP strike in three years. Unfortunately, if the Conservatives are still in power, they will again force them to go back to work. However, even Transport Canada recognized the issue of workplace fatigue for train conductors. It is not the Teamsters, the union, the CLC, but Transport Canada that is talking about this. Investigations of six different train terminals across the country led Transport Canada to conclude that the problem of extreme fatigue was rampant across Canada. In 4% of cases, employees are even extremely fatigued at the start of their shift, at the start of their work day, because they often do not get enough rest between two shifts. Fully 45% of employees are extremely tired or even exhausted while on the job. Forty-five per cent. Almost everyone, 99% according to Transport Canada, is tired at least once a month.

That has an impact on the workers. Obviously, it is bad for their health, their family life and their work. It puts everyone at risk.

The NDP does not want train conductors to experience fatigue at work. That is basic and straightforward. We do not understand why the Conservatives are still refusing to resolve this issue.

Even our neighbours to the south, the United States, where private enterprise is king and people despise regulations, have more regulations governing hours of work for rail company employees than we do. That is bizarre.

Why have the Conservatives never managed to fix this problem? We do not understand, but it puts huge swaths of our communities at risk.

Over the past five years, there have been at least seven accidents that, thankfully, did not cost any lives, but that happened because train conductors were tired at work. This is a real problem.

We have to find a solution, but we will not find a solution by preventing workers from exercising their right to take job action or go on strike. We know that because this is like groundhog day: it is the same old story over and over again.

I want to emphasize the fact that it is a real problem. The extreme fatigue of CP workers is real. Transport Canada has revealed that in the last five years, at least seven accidents or incidents were caused by fatigue of drivers or conductors of those trains. It is a real problem, but the government has no solution. Its only way to act is always ideological, always against unions, always against workers and against the safety of Canadians.

It is really sad. It is another case of the Conservatives going against international law. There is a labour organization in Switzerland that recognized that the right to strike is a fundamental right in modern societies. Once again, the government is going against the last decision of the Supreme Court and against international law.

On this side of the House, we think that workers can organize, defend their rights, and improve their working conditions. It is not the job of the government to oppose that, because it helps to build better communities. We always hear the Conservatives talk about the middle class and how they will defend the little guys of the middle class, but the middle class is, for the most part, a creation of the labour movement in this country and in all countries. Without the labour movement we would have no middle class.

If we want to defend the middle class, we must give the workers the tools to negotiate, to gain something in collective agreements, and to make sure that they are working in safe places. We must make sure that we do not put the safety of citizens of this country at risk.

Not only is the current federal government going against the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Saskatchewan case, but it is also going against regulations of the Geneva-based International Labour Organization, which considers the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining to be fundamental.

However, this is not surprising coming from an extremely ideological Conservative government that always responds in the same way when Canadian workers try to exercise their rights and improve their working conditions. This government pulls out the big guns and beats them back, telling them to shut up and get back to work. It does not want to listen to them; they are annoying.

What is important to this government is that companies continue to rake in profits, regardless of how or why and regardless of the rules, even if it makes people sick.

The Conservatives often like to say they are standing up for the middle class. However, the middle class is mainly a creation and a consequence of union struggles by workers who got organized, defended themselves at their workplace and negotiated better collective agreements.

If we are talking about the middle class, we must also talk about the tools that workers created to improve their situation. The NDP will always be there to stand up for workers and their families, for workplace health and safety and for public safety.

Unfortunately, again today, we see that the Conservative government is violating workers' rights and putting public safety at risk. I hope that all of us in the House will oppose this back-to-work bill—yet another one—and stand up not only for workers, but also for the middle class and public safety.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague just at the beginning of his speech on the justification for the motion that he has just presented to the House, but we have a point of order that we need to raise because I think it establishes a couple of important things for you, as Speaker, to determine before we get into the context and the particulars of this motion.

Specifically, I will be citing Standing Order 13, which says:

Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.

This is the standing order that we cite, because we have looked at the motion the government has presented here today with some notice given last week.

This motion goes against the Standing Orders and certainly the spirit of Parliament. The government is not allowed to break the rules of Parliament that protect the rights of the minority, the opposition and all members of the House of Commons who have to do their jobs for the people they represent. This motion is very clearly contrary to the existing Standing Orders.

I have some good examples to illustrate this. In my opinion, there is no urgency that would justify the government's heavy-handed tactics to prevent members from holding a reasonable debate on its agenda. I say “agenda”, but for a long time now it has been difficult to pin down what this government's agenda is exactly. This is nothing new.

The motion comes to us today at a difficult time, but just because the government held a brief caucus meeting and is facing numerous problems and a few scandals, it is not justified in violating the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. No one would accept those excuses. There is no historical basis for the government to use the Standing Orders in this way. That does not work.

There are a few important things we need to point out. One is that it behooves us to have some explanation of what this motion actually does. For those of us who do not intimately follow the rules and history of Parliament, it can be quite confusing not in terms of the intention of what the government has read but certainly in the implications. It needs some translation, not French to English or English to French, but translation as to what it actually means for the House of Commons. That is why we believe a point of order exists for this motion.

The motion essentially would immediately begin something that would ordinarily begin in a couple of weeks, which is for the House to sit until midnight to review legislation. This is somewhat ironic from a government that has a bad history with respect to moving legislation correctly through the process and allowing us to do our work, which is what we are here to do on behalf of Canadians.

I am not alone in seeing that the government has shown the intention of having some urgency with respect to 23 bills, 14 of which have not even been introduced since the last election. Suddenly there is great urgency, when in fact it is the government that has set the agenda. The urgency is so great that it has to fundamentally change the rules of how we conduct ourselves in this place in response to an urgency that did not exist until this moment.

One has to question the need. Why the panic? Why now, and why over these pieces of legislation? Are they crucial to Canada's economic well-being? Is it to restore the social safety net that the government has brutalized over the last number of years? What is the panic and what is the urgency?

Context sets everything in politics, and the context that the government exists under right now is quite telling. Every time I have had to stand in this place raising points of order and countering the closure and time allocation motions that the government uses, I am often stating and citing that this is a new low standard for Parliament. I have thought at times that there was not much more it could do to this place to further erode the confidence of Canadians or further erode the opportunity for members of Parliament to speak, yet it has again invented something new, and here we are today debating that motion.

That is why we believe that Standing Order 13 needs to be called. It is because it is very clear that when a motion is moved that is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament—which is what I would underline, as it is the important part—the Speaker must involve himself or herself in the debate and ask that the debate no longer proceed.

The privileges of members of Parliament are not the privileges that are being talked about by our friends down the hall to falsely claim money that did not exist or privileges of limo rides and trips around the world. The privileges of Parliament that speak constitutionally to the need for Parliament are that members of Parliament have the opportunity to scrutinized and debate government bills.

Just before the riding week, we saw the government introduce another time allocation on a bill that had received exactly 60 minutes of debate. Somehow the Conservatives felt that had exhausted the conversation on a bill they had sat on for years, and suddenly the panic was on. We are seeing this pattern again and again with a government that is facing more scandal.

I was looking through the news today. Every morning I start my day with the news and we consider what we should ask the government in question period. There are some days when the focus can be difficult and one may not be sure what the most important issue of the day is. However, the challenge for us today as the official opposition is that, as there are so many scandals on so many fronts, how do we address them all within the short time we have during question period or in debate on bills.

I listened to my friend for Langley, who has been somewhat in the news of late on his attempt to speak on issues he felt were important to his constituents. We saw him move a new private member's bill today. He withdrew the former bill, and now he is moving one again. The New Democrats will support the bill going to committee for study because we think there are some options and availability for us to look at the legislation and do our job.

Whether it is muzzling of their own MPs and the Conservatives' attempt to muzzle all MPs in the House of Commons, or using private members' bills to avoid the scrutiny that is applied to government legislation, and one important piece of that scrutiny is the charter defence of the legislation and so, in a sense, the Conservatives are using the back door to get government legislation through and move their agenda in another way, or the omnibus legislation, which has received so much controversy in Canada as the government has increasingly abused the use of omnibus legislation, or the F-35 fiasco, or the recent Auditor General's report, or the former parliamentary budget officer who was under much abuse and the new Parliamentary Budget Officer who has asked for the same things he did, or infamously, prorogation, time and time again the pattern is the same. The government has complete disdain for the House.

Whether it be the scandals in the Senate, or the China FIPA accord, or the recent problems with the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, or the employment insurance scandals, or the $3 billion missing, or the 300,000 jobs that have not been replaced, the government keeps trying to avoid proper scrutiny out of embarrassment. However, the House of Commons exists for one thing and one thing alone, which is to hold the government to account.

The government will make some claims that the urgency right now is because there has not been enough progress on legislation. Therefore, the Conservatives have to hit the panic button and would have the House sit until midnight, which has consequences beyond just being a late night, and I will get into those consequences in a moment because they support our notion that it infringes upon the entitlements of members of Parliament to debate legislation properly.

The Conservatives' record shows, and this is not speculation or conspiracy, that when they ram legislation through, they more often than not get it wrong. That is not just expensive for the process of law making, but it is expensive for Canadians. These things often end up in court costing millions and millions of dollars and with victims of their own making. The scandal that exists in the Senate is absolutely one of their own making. The Prime Minister can point the finger where he likes, but he appointed those senators.

Specific to the point of order I am raising, this motion would lower the amount of scrutiny paid to legislation. It would allow the government extended sittings, which are coming in the second week of June anyway, as the Standing Orders currently exist, to allow the government to do that, but the Conservatives want to move the clock up and have more legislation rammed through the House.

Also, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, the order of our day includes concurrence reports from committee, which allow the House to debate something that happened in committee which can sometimes be very critical, and many are moved from all sides. However, they would not get started until midnight under the Conservatives' new rules. Therefore, we would study and give scrutiny on what happened at committee from midnight until two or three o'clock in the morning.

As well, emergency debates would not start until midnight. Just recently we had a debate, Mr. Speaker, that your office agreed to allow happen, which was quite important to those implicated. We were talking about peace and war and Canada's role in the world. It was a critical emergency debate that certainly went into the night. However, the idea is that we would take emergency debates that the Speaker's office and members of Parliament felt were important and start them at midnight and somehow they would be of the same quality as those started at seven o'clock in the evening.

The scrutiny of legislation has become much less important than the government moving its agenda through, which is an infringement on our privilege as members of Parliament. The Conservative's so-called urgency, their panic, is not a justification for overriding the privileges that members of Parliament hold dear.

As for progress, just recently we moved the nuclear terrorism bill through, Bill S-9.

We also had much debate but an improvement on Bill C-15, the military justice bill, to better serve our men and women in the Forces. The original drafting was bad. The Conservatives wanted to force it forward and we resisted. My friend from St. John's worked hard and got an amendment through that would help those in the military who found themselves in front of a tribunal.

We have the divorce in civil marriages act, which has been sitting and sitting. It would allow people in same-sex marriages to file for and seek divorce. All we have offered to the government is one vote and one speaker each. The government refuses to bring the bill forward and I suspect it is because it would require a vote. It is a shame when a government resists the idea that a vote would be a good thing for members of Parliament to declare their intentions on, certainly something as important as civil liberties and rights for gay men and women.

I mentioned earlier why, in the infringement of this privilege, it causes great harm and distress not just to Parliament but to the country.

I asked my team to pull up the list of bills that were so badly written that they had to be either withdrawn or completely rewritten at committee and even in the Senate which, God knows, is a terrible strategy for any legislation.

There was the infamous or famous Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, which the Minister of Public Safety said something to the effect that either people were with the government or they were with child pornographers, which may be an example of the worst framing in Canadian political history. There has probably been worse, but that was pretty bad. The Conservatives had to kill the bill.

We have also seen Bill C-10, Bill C-31, Bill C-38 and Bill C-42, all of these bills were so badly written that oftentimes the government had to amend them after having voted for them. After saying they were perfect and ramming them through, invoking closure and shutting down debate, the Conservatives got to committee and heard from people who actually understood the issue and realized the law they had written would be illegal and would not work or fix the problem that was identified, and so they had to rewrite it. That is the point of Parliament. That is the point of the work we do.

We have also seen bills that have been challenged at great expense before the courts. Former Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, with huge sections of the government's main anti-crime agenda, was challenged and defeated in court.

Bill C-38, arbitrarily eliminating backlog for skilled workers, was challenged and defeated.

Bill C-7, Senate term limits, was after years just now deferred to the Supreme Court. It is called “kicking it down the road”.

Also, there are Bill C-6, Bill C-33 and others, and there are those that are being crafted and debated right now that are going to have serious problems.

The essential thrust of our intention is in identifying the rules that govern us, and specifically Standing Order 13. The government has time and again talked about accountability before the Canadian people and talked about doing things better than its predecessors in the Liberal Party, the government that became so arrogant and so unaccountable to Canadians that the Conservatives threw it out of office. History repeats itself if one does not learn true lessons from history.

As I mentioned, Standing Order 27(1) already exists, and it allows the government to do exactly what we are talking about, but not starting until the last 10 sitting days. The Conservatives have said that there is so much on their so-called agenda that they have to do this early, allowing for less scrutiny, allowing for emergency debates to start at midnight, allowing for concurrence debates that come from committees to start at midnight and go until two, three or four o'clock in the morning.

This is contrary to the work of parliamentarians. If the Conservatives are in such a rush, why do they not negotiate? Why do they not actually come to the table and do what parliamentarians have done throughout time, which is offer the to and fro of any proper negotiation between reasonable people?

We have moved legislation forward. My friend across the way was moving an important motion commemorating war heroes. We worked with that member and other members to ensure the bill, which came from the Senate, made it through speedy passage.

Parliament can work if the Conservatives let it work, but it cannot work if they keep abusing it. Canadians continue to lose faith and trust in the vigour of our work and the ability to hold government to account. We see it time and again, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have as well, in talking to constituents who say that they are not sure what goes on here anymore, that it just seems like government will not answer questions, that everyday they ask sincere and thoughtful questions and the Conservatives do not answer. Bills get shut down with motions of closure.

Let us look at the current government's record.

Thirty-three times, the Conservatives have moved allocation on legislation, an all-time high for any government in Canadian history. Through war and peace, through good and bad, no government has shut down debate in Parliaments more than the current one.

Ninety-nine point three per cent of all amendments moved by the opposition have been rejected by the government. Let us take a look at that stat for a moment. That suggests that virtually 100% of the time, the government has been perfectly right on the legislation it moves. All the testimony from witnesses and experts, comments from average Canadians, when moving amendments to the legislation before us, 99.3% of the time the government rejects it out of hand. It ends up in court. It ends up not doing what it was meant to do.

Ten Conservative MPs have never spoken to legislation at all. I will note one in particular. The Minister of Finance, who has not bothered to speak to his own bills, including the omnibus legislation, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which caused so much controversy. He did not bother to stand and justify his actions. I find it deplorable and it is not just me, Canadians as well, increasingly so.

This is my final argument. We cannot allow this abuse to continue. This pattern has consequences, not just for what happens here today or tomorrow, but in the days, weeks, months and years to come and the Parliaments to come. If we keep allowing for and not standing up in opposition to bad ideas and draconian measures, we in a sense condone them.

We say that Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think that is wrong. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong. It is not right and left; it is right and wrong. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We built this place out of bricks and mortar to do one thing: to allow the voice of Canadians to be represented, to speak on behalf of those who did not have a voice and to hold the government of the day to account. Lord knows the government needs that more than anything. It needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history and shutting down debate more than any government in history and using what it is today, it speaks to weakness not strength. The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to ask the House to support the quick passage of an act to provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations.

As the House will recall, last June there was a three day strike by Air Canada's customer sales and service agents. I am glad to say that it was resolved by the parties, and the harm to Canadians was limited.

In June of 2011, our government introduced and passed the Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act because of the economic importance of reliable mail delivery.

Because the government took action, Canadian workers and businesses, as well as citizens, were spared the hardship that a prolonged interruption in mail would have caused. In March, the government passed an Act to Provide for the Continuation and Resumption of Air Service Operations to prevent a work stoppage at Air Canada involving the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Air Canada Pilots Association. This legislation protected the Canadian economy and the public.

Today, we are again faced with a work stoppage that could do enormous damage to our economy. Once again, we have to take measures to protect our national interests in this period of economic uncertainty.

Talks have failed to result in a new collective agreement between Canadian Pacific, CP Rail, and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, TCRC, which independently represents the running trades employees and the rail traffic controllers.

The work stoppage at CP Rail is causing confusion and doubt where stability and certainty are needed in our recovering economy. Stability and certainty are essential to keeping Canada in business. If my hon. colleagues were to ask their constituents, as I have asked mine, or if they were to ask almost anyone in Canada right now, they would hear what I have been hearing as well, that we cannot afford this work stoppage because the risks are too great. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to act. Therefore, we have to take a stand for Canada's economy.

Like other industrialized economies around the world, Canada has faced challenging economic times. Our economy has weathered the global storm well. Our government is proud of its record for sheltering Canadians from the worst effects of the downturn and laying the foundation for a strong recovery. We all read the papers and know that our country is not immune to the changes in the world economy. There could be more turbulence. As of April 2012, our unemployment rate was 7.3%, a definite improvement from last year.

We need to be careful if we are to maintain our progress and promote economic growth. We cannot afford to have major labour disruptions. We have so much potential. A labour stoppage in any key sector of our economy would be a serious impediment to our growth and recovery. A work stoppage that detrimentally affects a major freight transportation sector is no exception. Rail is a vital cog in keeping Canada among the top performing world economies. Trade represents 35% of our GDP. In Canada, the rail transport service contributes significantly to the Canadian economy.

Let me provide some facts to make the point of how vital rail services and shipping are to the Canadian economy.

A 2009 report prepared by the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management estimates that four key Canadian bulk shipping industries, oilseed and grain farming, coal mining, wood products manufacturing, and pulp and paper and paper products manufacturing, contribute over $81 billion to Canada's GDP. These industries also account for nearly a million jobs.

The rail-based transportation system in Canada is complex and interconnects a range of stakeholders, such as shippers, terminal operators, transloaders, ports, shipping lines and trucks, which are all part of a very competitive supply chain. Problems occurring in one part of the supply chain can affect the stakeholders across it. An effective supply chain is critical to meeting the government's objectives related to strategic gateways and trade corridors, such as the Asia Pacific gateway, and is key to continuing our country's high economic success.

The Minister of Labour has heard from numerous stakeholders who are urging the government to ensure that this strike does not continue for any prolonged period of time. I would like to read just a few quotes from some of the correspondence that she has received from stakeholders.

The president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada wrote that, in the minerals and metals sector, experience has shown that a rail stoppage impacts the ability of companies to bring essential inputs to their mines and smelters, and to move finished products and byproducts to their destinations. The association requested that the government take action to head off this potential work stoppage before it damages the economy.

The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada and the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association jointly wrote, “CP Rail plays a vital role in the shipment of both parts and components into Ontario vehicle manufacturing facilities, as well as a significant role in the shipment and distribution of finished vehicles from ports of entry to local dealerships across the country...The integrated North American auto industry is presently experiencing a positive but fragile economic recovery.” Any disruption to CP Rail service will have an immediate and dramatic impact on its collective membership and their operations in Canada.

I can tell members that the Honda plant in my riding definitely reiterates this. We have a challenge ahead of us if we do not get the rail moving.

The Western Grain Elevator Association wrote that “this work stoppage will have a significant impact on the grain industy. Many of our elevator locations are serviced only by CPR. In the event of a work stoppage, these elevators will have no options available to them in the transportation of grain products. This will lead to the inability to supply our international customers and prohibit producers from delivering to those facilities. If we cannot at the very least move this product in a timely way to our customers, the associated lost opportunities and added costs will be significant.”

Finally, the Forest Products Association of Canada wrote to the minister and outlined the following:

As most of the industry’s mills are located in remote areas where rail service is the only viable transportation mode, other forms of ground transportation are either too costly or unavailable to provide our companies with relief, making our sector particularly vulnerable to even the shortest disruptions in service.

The association wrote, “In addition, the industry does not have the capacity to stockpile finished product nor can it continue production without certain input materials. As a result, any service disruption will undoubtedly lead to the industry incurring significant cost and will quickly result in mills shutting down temporarily.”

Some companies have already had to shut down production lines or lay off workers. Already the effects of the strike are hurting businesses, and it is not even a week in.

I have quoted from just a small handful of stakeholders and businesses that have called on the government to act quickly to prevent a prolonged strike that would do damage and have significant effects on the Canadian economy. We need to act now to protect Canadian jobs and the Canadian economy. Let us consider what this work stoppage means to businesses. We have heard quotes from a few of them that by stopping the trains, the strike is negatively impacting our trade opportunities. Businesses are losing sales at home and abroad.

Will businesses be able to recoup these sales? There is no way to know. Are businesses able to adapt and find alternative solutions? Again, we cannot say.

Work stoppages create ripple effects, or to put it another way, a chain reaction of damage that has far-reaching effects, possibly creating layoffs all the way down the line. Even a short work stoppage is very costly. Lost income, lost opportunities, lost jobs are all the unintended consequences of a work stoppage. They are devastating for both workers and businesses in a time of economic challenge. The losses caused by this shutdown of rail services are not only borne by the railway and its employees. They are borne by hard-working Canadians and their families all across the country. Jobs are at stake. The viability of businesses is on the line. We cannot afford to let this continue.

Let me say a few words on the recent history of collective bargaining at CP Rail. The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference independently represents 4,200 running trades employees and about 220 rail traffic controllers. Their collective agreements expired on December 31, 2011. The TCRC started negotiating with CP Rail in October 2011.

On February 17, 2012 the Minister of Labour received notices of dispute from the employer regarding both the running trades employees and the rail traffic controllers. The main issues in this round of bargaining deal with pensions, health care benefits and working conditions. The parties were released from the conciliation process on May 1, 2012 and acquired the right to strike or lockout on May 23, 2012.

On May 16, the Minister of Labour offered the representatives from CP Rail and the TCRC an extended mediation process to help them resolve issues and reach agreements. Again on May 22 the Minister met with both parties in an attempt to encourage and facilitate an agreement. Regrettably, this additional assistance was not accepted. On May 23 the work stoppage began.

I want to inform this House that our government would like nothing more than for the parties to reach an agreement on their own. However, the Minister of Labour has offered the parties the tools provided through the Canada Labour Code, but to no avail. These disputes have gone on too long. The government has not stepped in prematurely. As I said earlier, the parties have been asking for assistance from the labour program since February and they have received assistance. However, it has not resulted in a collective agreement. This work stoppage will have a significant effect on Canada's trade. Millions of Canadians are affected directly or indirectly.

There is more at stake here than the issues on the bargaining table. CP Rail and the TCRC, independently representing the running trades employees and rail traffic controllers, have had ample time to reach a negotiated agreement on their own. They will also be afforded all the tools available to rebuild and improve labour relations, such as preventive mediation services offered by the labour program. This work stoppage has gone on long enough, and for every day that it continues, our economy and trade relationships are jeopardized.

I ask my fellow parliamentarians to stand up for Canadians and support the motion and the legislation. We need to move forward and take action so that we can ensure that Canadian jobs and the Canadian economy are protected.

Opposition Motion--Closure and Time Allocation

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there was some confusion earlier about the fact that no bill has received royal assent. For the record, since the election, Bill C-2, C-3, C-6, C-8, C-9, several bills have received royal assent. I do not know where that confusion is coming from.

Nonetheless, I would like to read what I think is the quintessential quote about how we should uphold the principles of debate in the House and that every member of Parliament willing to speak on an issue should have his or her say:

The role of each and every individual in the Chamber is to have an opportunity to stand up and debate legislation. If we want Canadians to have faith in this institution and in the relevance of parliament, we must be able to debate intelligently and to make suggestions, not just to take a wrecking ball approach but to put forward thoughtful suggestions and thoughtful input into legislation.

Who said that? The Minister of National Defence said that several years ago. At the time he was complaining that 30% of the bills were time allocated. The Conservatives are now up to 50%. Half of the bills have been subject to time allocation.

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-3, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011--Chapter 15.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)--Chapter 16.

Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services--Chapter 17.

Bill C-8, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2012--Chapter 18.

Bill C-9, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2012--Chapter 19.

Bill S-1001, An Act respecting Queen's University at Kingston.

It being 8:50 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 19, 2011, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:50 p.m.)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills:

Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services;

Bill C-8, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2012;

Bill C-9, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2012.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Chair, there is an awful lot wrong with the bill. In fact, everything from the title, which is An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, to the coming into force, the last clause, is wrong.

The title is wrong because this is not an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. That could be done with a phone call.

The worst clause in the bill, however, is clause 15, which imposes on the postal workers a wage rate less than the employer had put on the table in the course of collective bargaining.

I have not heard members opposite join the chorus for the remarks of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, and nobody cares. Nobody cares about workers. Nobody cares about workers' rights.

Let me say who does care. The principle of free collective bargaining is something that divides societies that are free from those societies that are authoritarian and controlled. If we consider authoritarian societies, dictators, societies that do not have free elections, they do not have free trade unions either. Workers do not have the right to bargain collectively.

In Canada the right to bargain collectively is a constitutionally protected right. It is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is part of the International Labour Organization, the treaty into which this country has entered. It is something that we take very seriously.

There is no greater principle within the right to bargain collectively than the duty to bargain in good faith. In good faith the employer of the postal workers, Canada Post Corporation, put on the table a wage offer that it was prepared to pay to workers from the $281 million worth of profit that Canada Post made last year. To bargain with its employees, it put forth what it thought was a reasonable proposal to increase the wages of the workers, but what have we here? We have a clause in which the government imposes itself inside this good faith bargaining, this foundation of a free society, and says, “No, the government is going to force the workers to take less. We are going to decide what we think you should be paid. Never mind what was put on the table by a process of free collective bargaining”.

The minister just repeated what the Prime Minister said, so I will not blame her as she is just doing what her boss has said. She said this is a wage that was bargained freely by the largest public sector unions. Let us go back to that discussion in 2008 when this wage we are talking about was on the table, as it was called. It was not on the table. What was on the table was legislation proposed by the government to take away the right to strike for all public sector workers. Remember that? It was in the fall of 2008.

Those wage rates were offered for one day and if workers did not accept the wages within one day they would be reduced. Yes, they were accepted. There were not bargained freely and fairly over the course of negotiations. They were accepted with a gun to the head of the public sector workers in this country.

The Minister of Finance knows that members of one group said no. What did they get? That group received less. That is the kind of bargaining that the government entered into with the public sector workers in 2008 that produced the rates that are in this particular clause.

I am not surprised that the previous speaker talked about who is next because that is what everyone is asking. If this is what is going to happen to free collective bargaining in Canada under this regime, who is next? The government has contempt for the process of collective bargaining. It has contempt for the process of this constitutionally protected right that the Canadians are supposed to enjoy.

If members opposite think that nobody cares, they are wrong, and the people of Canada will be telling them that they are wrong.

I ask all hon. members, even those over there who think no one cares, to recognize that people do care and they do want to have these rights and do believe in free collective bargaining. I see the doubtful faces over there and I hear a few remarks that something is wrong with the idea that one can sit down and negotiate a wage, that an employer and employees can actually sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate wages and put an offer on the table and have it respected. That is something Canadians have come to enjoy and expect.

The government has no respect for that and it wants to insert its own version of a wage rate into a collective agreement regardless of what the employer in this particular case offered through free and fair collective bargaining.

This is a fundamental right that is being taken away, a fundamental change in the relationship between employers and employees. The question remains of who is next if the government is not prepared to accept the notion of free collective bargaining and takes away from employees what the employer has in fact offered. It demonstrates how much contempt it has for the collective bargaining process and for the rights of workers.

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

Madam Chair, I would urge members of this committee to think about even one small change in the way Bill C-6 is now drafted. This is reasonable. It is the Canada Labour Code, and greater flexibility in the hands of the arbitrator makes so much sense. I would hope that committee members might rethink this and that we would not just vote as a bloc again.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(On Clause 9)

I will read the amendment proposed by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:

That Bill C-6 in clause 9 be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 3 with the following:

“and duties of an arbitrator under sections 60 and 61 of”.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to open this session of the committee of the whole on Bill C-6 by making a short statement about the proceedings.

This is the first time many hon. members will be participating in a debate like this, and I would like to explain how we are going to proceed.

The rules of debate are as follows.

No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes at a time. Speeches must be strictly relevant to the terms of the clause under consideration. There is no formal period for questions and comments. Members may use their time to speak or to ask questions, and the responses will be counted in the time allotted to that member. Motions do not need a seconder, and members may speak more than once. Finally, members need not be in their own seat to be recognized, just to make my job a little easier.

The committee will now proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

Before we begin, I would like to ask those members who have amendments to please bring them to the table.

(On clause 2)

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to take a few moments to recognize all of my colleagues who are here in the House and have been up for 30 or 40 hours now, who are here to continue to fight for our party’s values and to defend the interests of Canadian workers and families.

We all had events planned in our ridings for Quebec’s national holiday. Yesterday, my colleague from Hamilton-Est—Stoney Creek was supposed to celebrate his 11th wedding anniversary with his wife. My colleague from Newton—Delta-Nord was supposed to spend time with her family, who made a special trip from England to see her. We all want and need to go home to our families. Our families need us, but Canada’s families need us more.

An even greater need has brought us here to the House, and that is the need to fight together in an effort to make this government understand that its place is beside workers and that it has a duty to render a fair and just verdict.

I would also like to pay tribute to workers across Canada who are fighting for their rights. Postal workers are fighting not only for their own rights, but also for the rights of all Canadian workers.

Since the debate started, I have heard Conservative members talk about this being a “joke”. Is that how they see our commitment to defending the interests of our fellow Canadians? For them, it is a joke? Is there anything more important than being here trying to find a solution that both parties can agree to?

We have all spoken at least once to say what we think. We have heard heated, poetic and passionate speeches. Some members explained very clearly what makes Bill C-6 unlawful. Others proposed specific solutions that both parties could have agreed to. But nothing changes. It seems as though the members opposite, already blinded by their partisan purposes, do not want to listen to us, do not want to understand Canadians and, most of all, do not want to change their minds.

They continue to cling to reasoning that defies logic. They will not let go of their beliefs, however faulty they are. But I have noticed one single half-positive point, one little sign of evolution: the hon. members opposite now dare to utter the word “lockout” in place of the word “strike”. But they just mutter it under their breath, almost whispering it, as if they wanted no one to hear them say it, as if it were a swear word. But it is not a word that came from the workers; it came from Canada Post. The hon. members opposite must get used to that idea.

They would have us believe that this lockout was imposed by the union. How ironic.

How often have my colleagues and I tried to explain the difference between a strike and a lockout, between a rotating strike and a lockout?

Let me sum it up for those who have not yet grasped the difference. A rotating strike is a partial work stoppage. Let me explain “partial” very clearly. Canada Post workers decided that, in order not to harm the Canadian economy and in order for Canadians to continue receiving the service to which they are entitled, they were going to keep delivering the mail. The strike moved, in a symbolic way, from one municipality to another. In no way did the rotating strike put the country's economy in peril, since the mail continued to be delivered. The aim of the strike was simply to make people aware of the unacceptable conditions that the employer wanted to impose. It was not meant to endanger small and medium-sized business activity nor was it meant to keep cheques from seniors or from those receiving employment insurance benefits.

A lockout, on the other hand, is a work stoppage imposed by the employer. On June 3, Canada Post decided to end mail service and to put padlocks on the doors. It held its employees hostage, employees who wanted to continue delivering the mail at the same time as they were demanding their rights. But above all, Canada Post is holding Canadians hostage, since Canadians can no longer receive their mail.

Striking is a right for all workers. They have the right to negotiate their working conditions. It is not up to the government to step in for the employer, especially when we know what its goal is.

How can we possibly suggest such conditions to the workers? What image do we want to give to our young people? Canada Post employees are there every day. They accept working conditions that are increasingly difficult. They carry heavy bags that cut into their shoulders. They collapse under the weight of the mail, have to fight inclement weather and heat waves, and sometimes walk for hours. Should they also accept unfavourable wages? Why? Because their employer is not profitable enough?

Still, let us recall that Canada Post's most recent revenues are estimated at over $281 million for the year. Let us also recall that the CEO of Canada Post received the modest sum of $497,000 for his good and loyal service, and that he gets a bonus of 33%, on top of his annual salary. And we are supposed to believe that Canada Post is suffering from the recession and that that is the only reason driving the cuts to its employee's benefits? No. The real reason is that this employer knows that it is supported by the government, and so many other employers will follow suit if we do not put an end to this type of thing immediately,

The employer proposed certain salary increases during the negotiations, and then the government interfered and put forward a contract that offered less. This contract is, quite simply, unfair. It not only fails to meet the employees’ demands, but also undercuts the salary offer made by the employer. What kind of world are we living in?

It is neither the government’s role nor its responsibility to impose such contracts. What the government is proposing is, quite simply, unilateral and irresponsible legislation. It flouts the right to negotiate a collective agreement. The government’s actions do not give the two parties an opportunity to properly negotiate an agreement.

The government should not interfere in this conflict, or in any other similar conflict. This debate is not only about the Canada Post issue: more than that, it is about the right of workers to negotiate with their employer.

Canadians fought long and hard for a fair and just work environment. They fought heart and soul for decent wages and basic benefits so that they could provide for their families.

Locking out these employees and forcing them to accept a contract while trying to take away their hard-earned savings will set us back many years and create a dangerous precedent. Canada Post employees refuse to be the victims of an unfair clawback scheme that will take money out of their pockets. They refuse to have their rights undermined, as well as the rights of all the people who work for other large employers and friends of the government.

They refuse to have their rights trampled on, but they are ready to go back to work. They are ready to start delivering mail to their fellow Canadians again. They just want to be treated fairly. They want to be treated in a manner befitting their work. They are asking neither for the moon nor for favourable treatment. They are asking only to be paid fairly for their work. They want to be able to feed their children and provide for their families. They want to be able to retire without worrying about whether they can make ends meet.

How will the government explain to young people who want to work at Canada Post that they are welcome to work there, but they will be paid a lower salary than employees with more seniority who do the exact same job? Are we not endangering the Canadian economy by acting in this way?

Inevitably, our young people will navigate towards companies that respect their employees, if there are any left, with this government. How will Canada's economy be able to recover when we can no longer replace workers who have retired? Is it the government's intention to jeopardize a service as essential as the post office?

The Conservatives will have to explain to us the long-term viability of such a contract. If they are really concerned about Canada's economy, they should stop telling us to pass this bill and go home. Let them make an enlightened decision for once and end the lockout to allow Canada's economy to keep running. Let them end the lockout to allow both parties to resume negotiations and come to an agreement that will satisfy everyone.

Canadians are being held hostage and they know who is doing it. Not Canada Post employees, but their employer who, together with the government, is attacking the rights and the advances that our parents and grandparents fought for. That is why Canadians support the workers at Canada Post. Why do they support them? In a word, because they know that they could be the next on the list if they let the government get its way.

The quality of life and the social justice that we enjoy in this country are indisputable rights that we will defend to the bitter end. On May 2, we were given a mandate to represent our constituents, and we will do so with honour and respect. We will stay here. We are ready to go all the way. We will stay on our feet, without complaining, and we will continue to fight for all the workers in Canada who are counting on us to represent them in this House.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to join with my colleague in saying that information has just been received that a member of the Canadian armed forces has been found dead in Afghanistan. We sincerely convey our deepest regrets and sincere sympathies to the family.

As we progress with the debate on Bill C-6, it is evident there is a flurry of activity on the floor of the House of Commons. It appears we may be moving into committee of the whole very soon. The debate itself at second reading may be collapsing soon and there may be amendments that may come forward.

Has the New Democratic Party been able to achieve any consensus with the government that it will accept any of the amendments which the NDP may be in the process of proposing? If there has been no consensus achieved, I am wondering why we are doing this at this point in time. From a purely tactical point of view, would it not have been better to try this at 4 a.m. when a tactical advantage could be achieved? If the NDP is doing this in the middle of the day, what exactly is the game plan?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot read Bill C-6 because I do not really understand what we are arguing about. If we were arguing about a specific thing, it should be very clear. We are hearing stories about the labour movement in Canada at the beginning of the 20th century, but at this moment we should be focused on the bill we are debating in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, over these past hours I have been listening very carefully to all sides of this debate. It is a very sad day for Canada when we see the suffering that is happening outside of these walls, out on the streets in our cities and rural areas across this nation, because the mail is being held up. Businesses are being hurt. In here, everybody knows, as Canadians know, that the reason this is happening is that the opposition is putting in place every roadblock possible. In fact, one of my constituents called and said, “This is going to be a fine example of what an opposition could do if it ever got into government, and it never will.”

I think we need to be very cautious and start thinking about Canadians. Pass Bill C-6 and do not allow the committee of the whole to go on and on, because Canadians are watching and they are very intelligent. The only thing that has been paid attention to is political agendas from the opposition, not the good of Canadians. I made that statement because Canada is at risk in this economic downturn.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. We of course can select the information we put before the House. Some members chose to put forward those kinds of remarks and I think they are regrettable.

Also, I think the title of the bill now before us for debate is a bit of a misnomer. It is called “An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services”. One would have thought that what the bill was provided for was to unlock the doors of the postal service. Instead, the choice is to continue to point fingers at the postal workers. Of course, we are on a weekend so we do not have postal delivery, but on Monday, the reason why there may or may not be continuation of service is that Canada Post has locked out the workers. I find the naming of the statute rather peculiar.

It also appears to pervert the very role of arbitration, which is to bring together the parties and have a determination made in a fair way and in fairness to both sides. As many colleagues have pointed out, including the colleague who spoke before me, what the government has done is step outside of what has already been negotiated and agreed to in imposing lesser benefits to the workers.

A lot of my colleagues have also raised concerns with the effect of the bill before us, in that it creates a double standard and hypocrisy. In the wake of the $40-billion deficit created by this government, in the wake of the gift of raises to senior staff, and in wake of deeper tax cuts for major corporations, therefore leaving less revenue available to care for seniors and to provide advanced education, affordable housing, and affordable child care, many of these postal worker families are already hard-pressed. What this legislation will do is make sure that the next rung of postal workers will be even more hard-pressed and will join that class of citizens who are in debt.

In many ways, it is a manufactured crisis. We have been following a number of situations throughout North America and across the western world where we in fact have a manufactured crisis. A lot of Canadians are concerned about the manufactured crisis in health care when in fact, if our governments would intervene, we could solve access to health care, access to child care, and equitable access to advanced education.

I just want to share with the members some of the feedback I have received from my constituents. As there is limited time, I will provide one of the most heartwarming stories that was passed on to me.

One of my constituents phoned my constituency office and decried the action taken against the postal workers. She talked about last winter. We had a record snowfall and cold temperatures, and then a huge melt, with ice and major water to walk through, and still those postal workers continued to deliver the mail. She was particularly heartened and almost in tears at the fact that her postal worker kept in touch with a senior neighbour who was not picking up her mail and then managed to get neighbours to intervene. The woman was really ill and they were able to intervene.

We are talking about human beings here. They are not just numbers. They are real people who deliver an incredible service to fellow Canadians. I think that should be kept front and centre in this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the members opposite have refused to explain the merits of Bill C-6.

In the last election campaign, I met one of my constituents with whom I exchanged tweets. He told me that he was disappointed with my position.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the current polarization of the members opposite, who refuse to talk about the dissenting opinions of their voters. They must receive them, just as I do.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity--on Thursday afternoon, June 23, 2011, according to the calendar right in front of me--to speak to the House and to Canadians who may be watching.

We do have, I think, an obligation to explain to Canadians why we are here. Why are we here on a Saturday afternoon after two days of debate? The calendar says it is June 23. It is a technicality, because we have been talking since then.

It is important to know why we are still here. We have to understand what this debate is all about. It is called Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. However, it is very much a misnomer. There is no need for legislation to resume and continue postal services. The postal services are run by the government through a crown corporation.

It does not take three days of debate in the House of Commons. It does not take legislation. It does not take the kind of legislation we have here. All it takes is a phone call.

The Prime Minister needs to pick up the phone, phone the CEO of Canada Post Corporation, and say take off the locks. The postal workers want to work and deliver the mail. We do not need to be here to do that.

This legislation must be about something else. What is it about? I think Canadians are wondering what it is about.

It is a Saturday afternoon, and the post is not delivered on Saturdays or Sundays anyway. It will not make a difference if we are here one or two days. We are here trying to solve a problem. However, the government has decided they want to manufacture a crisis for a particular purpose. What is that purpose?

Parts of that purpose can be found in the legislation, but parts of it are coming out in the debate over the last couple of days. We can hear the kind of message that government members and the government itself are trying to send.

The parliamentary secretary for the Prime Minister talks about union bosses and thugs. That is part of their message. Their message is anti-union: oppose the organizations trying to improve the lot of workers. These are “special interests”, supposedly. The Minister of Finance says that is what they are.

Let me speak about some of the special interests of the postal workers. I saw a message from one of our staffers that reminded me that if we think this is just about postal workers, we should think again.

Does anybody in this country think that we should not have maternity leave, for example, or that maternity leave is a bad thing? Where did it come from? The first maternity leave in Canada was negotiated by the postal workers with Canada Post Corporation. It is now the law of the land. Everybody takes it for granted. Where did it come from? It came from workers seeking to improve the rights of women in the workforce through collective bargaining. That is where it came from.

At the time, I am sure members opposite would have voted against it in the House. That was “special interests”: we need legislation to stop this kind of collective bargaining from going on.

That is the kind of attitude we are seeing expressed over here.

I heard a member yesterday get up and read with approval a message from a constituent complaining about how these postal workers are looking for better conditions when they have decent jobs with pensions. She was talking about her grandson, who considered himself lucky to have a job for three days a week.

I feel sorry for a person who believes that. I feel sorry for someone who feels they are lucky to have a job three days a week in a country like Canada, one of the richest countries in the world. I feel sorry for someone who feels that way.

The member opposite is now talking back. The member opposite, instead of saying that he too feels sorry, says that these people, the postal workers, should also feel lucky to have jobs.

I am sorry, but that is not good enough. But that is part of the message the government wants to send to the people of Canada, that they should not expect to improve their lot in life.

The government wants Canada Post Corporation to impose a two-tier system. New hires would be paid less than the people who are already there. New hires would not have the same kind of pension protection as the people who are there. There will then be two groups of workers inside the post office. That is the kind of system that is being encouraged by the government. The minute the post office is closed the government brings in legislation that not only deals with the manufactured crisis like we have but imposes a rate of wages less than what the profitable corporation had on the table.

We have a system of free collective bargaining in this country. We are supposed to have an opportunity for bargaining in good faith by both sides in a collective agreement. Bargaining in good faith means one side puts an offer on the table that it is prepared to abide by and the other side bargains back. It is a democratic process. The postal union has a mandate from 97% of its members to bargain a collective agreement. That is the kind of process that goes on in this particular organization.

A negotiation process was going on. Canada Post Corporation made $280 million in profits last year, which it turned back to taxpayers. It was prepared to put an offer on the table to its employees as part of that process. The government said it would impose a wage less than the one this profitable corporation offered. What is that about? Is that about the resumption of postal services? No. That is about trying to send a message to Canadians telling them not to expect to be part of this country's prosperity, not to seek a wage increase because the government will legislate it down.

One of my colleagues talked about the CEO. The CEO of Canada Post Corporation makes $350,000 a year. Apparently he received a 33% bonus last year. He also has an automatic 4% wage increase every year. There is such a thing as sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander, but what we have instead is the government encouraging an increased wage gap. The wealthy CEOs and the higher ups get their wages increased but the people working at the bottom get their wages decreased. The government will make that gap different in one of the most prosperous countries in the world. That is wrong, but that is the message the government wants to send.

That is what this legislation is about. We are here to fight against it every step of the way.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to speak to this critical issue that is before the House of Commons. Like my colleagues, I have taken my place here to represent my party during this historic debate; however, I found that even when I am not here my TV is on and I am listening with continued interest to this debate.

My New Democratic colleagues have defended with passion the rights of workers. While we are debating back-to-work legislation that impacts on our postal workers, the core of this debate has to do with the government's pro-corporate and anti-worker attitude. The Conservative government initially undermined the collective bargaining process by making it clear early on in the process that it would not hesitate to legislate workers back to work. It brought in legislation when Air Canada was in the midst of negotiating with its workers, and it did so again a week later with Canada Post. This is not about protecting the economy, as they like to pretend, this is about undermining the collective bargaining process and reversing the gains workers have made over the years.

The bill before us is nothing short of an attack on workers. Conservative members may rise and pretend to care about workers. But the truth is Bill C-6 is not about resumption and continuation of postal services, it is really an assault on collective bargaining. No one in this room denies there is an impact on people and businesses, however, the fact that Conservative members insist on denying pension cheques are not being delivered because of the lockout is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.

Do they actually believe Canadians do not know the difference between a rotating strike that ensures critical mail is delivered and a complete lockout by the company? Who are the naive members of this House? My constituents understand the difference. In fact, all northern Ontarians understand the difference. Northern Ontarians have the right perspective on this government's horrible piece of legislation.

As I have noted previously, many generations have made their living as miners. They have been proud members of the United Steelworkers 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 as a shop steward or as a picket captain, I took my responsibilities seriously. Health and safety were foremost in our thoughts because our work was so dangerous, however, these standards came about because the workers organized and pushed the government to introduce health and safety standards.

We know this Conservative government has always had a fundamental dislike for workers' rights because they have always placed corporate profits ahead of decent wages. CUPW has taken a responsible approach. The union believes in a modern postal service that is universal, public, affordable and green, that maintains, improves and expands services and promotes economic growth in our community.

Between 1997 and 2000, Canada Post has recorded over $1.6 billion in net profits. Since 1997, Canada Post has paid over $0.5 billion to the federal government in dividends. Throughout this time Canada Post has been among the most trusted and self-sustaining public institutions in the country. Why? Because postal workers have done their job. They have delivered the mail on time all the time. They have been professional and have worked to keep the public's faith in our public postal service.

Instead of standing up in this House and congratulating the workers for their dedication to public service, we have the Conservative government attacking their rights. Again, I feel that I need to remind my Conservative colleagues across the way that with respect to strikes we have never taken a strike vote lightly.

In 1978 and 1979, my union spent nine months on the picket line. I was married with two young children. The strain on our family was severe, but at no point did my wife complain. At no point did I waver in my determination to fight for our rights. At no point did my brothers and sisters at USW Local 6500 complain. Why? Because management was unwilling to bargain in good faith, which is exactly where we are again today.

I have mentioned before how this legislation is contrary to the International Labour Organization convention. It contravenes the fundamental right of all workers to organize and bargain collectively.

New Democrats believe that this legislation is a clear signal about where the Conservatives intend to take labour relations in this country. Conservative members have refused to acknowledge that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been trying to bring proposals to the bargaining table and address health and safety issues around Canada Post's new sorting machines and delivery methods. And, contrary to the myth being perpetrated by members of the Conservative government, CUPW has also offered proposals for innovation and expansion of the public postal service.

Canada Post's focus on concessions has made it impossible to negotiate. Back-to-work legislation is unjust and unnecessary. It is quite clear to us on this side of the House 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 Swiss secret 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.

Northern Ontarians understand the value of good wages. They understand the value of a defined benefit pension plan. They understand because they experienced firsthand how good wages and good pensions benefit their communities.

Canadians across the country are watching this debate. They are watching with great concern how the government is undermining the only process unions have to negotiate fair wages and pensions. This renewed trend by the Conservative government runs contrary to the values of Canadians. It runs contrary to the values of my constituents.

I will be here, alongside my NDP colleagues, fighting for the rights of workers against a government that is blinded by ideology and influenced by corporate donors. This bill is a black eye for Canada, but it is not too late for this legislation to be amended. We just need the government to have an open mind and negotiate in good faith.

I would like to share with the House some of the emails we in the NDP have received supporting our stance and the CUPW workers. I will not read them because there are too many.

If the government was really interested in delivering the mail, all it has to do is unlock the doors. If the doors are unlocked today, the postal workers will be back to work Monday morning and the mail will be delivered, as they have done over and over again.

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

Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair earlier when people thanked the Speakers in this place for the duty you are performing for this House. I want to thank you for the many hours you are putting in.

I am rising once again to address the Conservative government's back-to-work legislation. From what I have been hearing from Canadians from coast to coast, they are waking up to what they consider the absolute abuse of power to be found in Bill C-6. The good people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek know me well, and they will tell members that I have a fundamental and profound belief in the rights of all Canadians, rights that are guaranteed by our charter.

Because of my career in the labour movement, in which every post I held for 28 years with the labour movement was unpaid, the rights of workers to be represented by a union of their choice and for free collective bargaining is especially important to me. That is the one and only way Canadian workers can improve their collective well-being.

Before I go further, we have heard all the talk about big labour bosses and whatever. We have never heard Thomas d'Aquino called a big labour employer representative. Why the language thrown at people all the time?

Another fair question to ask would be, just what has Canadians' membership in a union done for them?

Canadian workers have seen advances in health and safety protection. They have seen improvement to their hours of work. They have had their deferred wages invested in workplace pensions, and of course increases to their pay. We had one member talking a moment ago about how there are few pensions in Canada, as if it is a good thing. It is a terrible thing.

One of Canadians' charter rights is to collectively bargain with their employer. In this House, during this debate, the members of the Conservative Party love to throw around what they consider slights: “big labour”, or “big labour bosses”, or “friends of big labour”. They do so with a disdain that can only come from lack of knowledge. I will give you one example. I am sure most of today's non-progressive Conservatives have not only forgotten this but perhaps even their new members may not even know it. It will probably be a surprise to the younger members that one of their own groups of base supporters were the very same people who started the modern-day labour movement.

It happened in 1946 in cities like Hamilton and Windsor. It took the returning veterans from the Second World War who took to the streets of those communities, demanding fair wages and better and safer working conditions. In Hamilton, workers and veterans fought side by side in the streets, even on the waters of Hamilton harbour, for collective bargaining rights and the right to form a union. These were the very same veterans who had fought the Axis powers to a standstill. Then they had to come home and fight corporate Canada, with the same view of protecting their rights and improving the lives of all Canadians, as they had just done overseas. These brave souls were the same people who lived by such creeds as “an injury to one is an injury to all”. These veterans now turned trade unionists lived by the philosophy as well that what they asked for themselves they wished for all.

That philosophical view of how to better their lives and the lives of working Canadians 50 years ago led to a grassroots prairie political party, made up of farmers, clerks, church ministers, and workers of all stripes in the CCF, to come together with those veterans turned trade unionists and other labour activists to form the NDP, a party I have been a proud member of for 35 years. So this government should have little doubt as to why our party, the NDP, will always come down on the side of the working people of Canada.

I mentioned in my opening speech in the hoist motion my history in the Hamilton labour movement and the position my local membership of Bell Canada workers at the CWC chose to vote me into, that took me into the broader Canadian labour movement via the Hamilton and District Labour Council. It was at the Hamilton and District Labour Council in the late 1970s and early 1980s, along with the member for Hamilton Centre, that I learned of the struggle of the 1946 strikers in Hamilton and Windsor.

I heard directly from those old timers of their sense of shame and humiliation upon returning to Canada from defending their country. They could not get decent-paying jobs, nor the respect of employers, until they finally stood up to them in 1946.

My own father worked as a section man on the Canadian National Railway. He was a low-paid labourer, and in New Brunswick in the late 1940s or 1950s, it was a secure position that he valued. I remember well the buttons he used to wear on his cap that showed he had paid up his union dues. He was a member of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers, CBRTGW. It was that union that struck CN in the 1950s to get their workers, and ultimately all Canadians, the 40-hour work week.

One of the phrases that came out of the late 1970s that epitomizes much of the way I look at the world is “Question authority”. In fact, I first noticed that on a bumper sticker on a car of a delegate at the labour council.

Questioning authority has never been more important than it was in the 1970s in northern Ontario. Miners went on strike because of the extremely poor working conditions in their mine. That strike led to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 70. That gave workers the right to do what should be obvious: the right to refuse unsafe work.

Questioning authority is exactly what the NDP has been doing in these long hours of debate. We are questioning the authority of this labour minister and this Prime Minister, because, to be clear, in our view they have overstepped their authority with Bill C-6.

I seriously doubt this will come as much of a surprise to most Canadians, who have seen this “my way or the highway” approach regularly from this government. Particularly, the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservatives already know this government has taken positions on foreign affairs and in other areas that not only surprises them but greatly concerns them. They know the shifts of policy that have taken place have led to a loss of respect for Canada in Europe and much of the rest of the world. Now, in our own country, once heralded around the world as protector of human rights and people's rights, we have the spectacle of the Canadian government prepared to shut down the collective bargaining rights of the workers at Canada Post.

I would suggest that this would lead Canadians to ponder the obvious question: who is next?

For the record, I would like to make an observation. On a recent vote on the NDP hoist motion, our good friends in the Liberal Party of Canada switched sides on that vote and cast their lot with the Conservatives. I am sure there will be a cheer that comes from the other side of the House. The workers of Canada in the last election finally came to understand the fairweather friend the Liberal Party of Canada truly is, and the result was that Canadians significantly reduced the Liberal Party caucus. Older Canadians had known for a long time that the Liberals could not be counted on to go the distance in protecting their rights, because sooner or later they would have to choose between Canadian workers and their Bay Street friends. The history of that choice is very clear.

The NDP, on behalf of Canadian workers from coast to coast, calls on the Conservative government to simply pause to reflect on the fact that they have overstepped in this case. The posties are not your enemy. Canadian workers are not your enemies, so do not treat them as such. Use your position as the Government of Canada to further improve the lives of Canadian workers. Do not trample on their rights. Assume the responsibility of your role as protectors of the Constitution of Canada. Work with the NDP. Amend this bill. Restore the balance to labour relations for Canadian workers and end the lockout. Let us put the workers back to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, one of the Conservatives’ arguments has been that it was necessary to consider the economic stakes associated with the labour dispute at Canada Post. I am in complete agreement with them that this is something very important. What I deplore, on the other hand, is that in the context of the debate they have not taken the time to explain the full details of all the ins and outs of this economic damage. They have been content with generalities, with simply spouting slogans and constantly repeating the same questions. This is deplorable.

I will modestly attempt to put all the economic impacts of Canada Post’s activities and the stakes of this dispute into perspective. First, I must say that I have had a longstanding interest in economics. I have read some classics in the genre and particularly admire the work of the Canadian-born American economist, John Kenneth Galbraith. Mr. Galbraith began his career as a member of President Roosevelt’s team during the depression of the 1930s. He was on the team that created the New Deal, and made his contribution to correcting the problems arising from the Great Depression. Next, he took on certain responsibilities during World War II, and studied the effects of the Allied bombing on the German economy. He also looked into wage and price controls in the context of that conflict. So in the postwar era he was someone with the right experience to develop a highly articulate economic philosophy that could clarify the issues and the ins and outs of the decisions made by our governments, our companies and individuals themselves.

One of the conclusions he reached was that any very large consolidated company has almost total control over both its activities and its prices, and hence over its fate and its future, as is not the case for the small company or the single individual who is at the mercy of economic ups and downs. What is interesting is that it is clear that Canada Post has virtually total control over the price of its products, which are offered to all Canadians. This possibility does not prevent it from offering its products at prices which are very low relative to other countries in the world, even though it is a crown corporation. Clearly, the fact that it is a public, crown-owned corporation is an advantage.

Mr. Galbraith examined the role and the importance of the various economic players. He came to the conclusion that the state, in its interventions, had a place comparable to that of any company. Where he was much more far-sighted was in giving a central place to the human being as an economic player. It must be said that he was not the only expert to come to that conclusion.

Mr. Galbraith then wanted to understand what the effects of the major economic decisions made by the entire population of a country might be. He observed that, for every dollar given back to the wealthiest people in a country or an economic unit, through massive income tax cuts, for example, that dollar was unfortunately not reinvested in the economy. Those people did not need the extra dollar, and so they hoarded it; in other words, they took it out of economic activity, and eventually that can lead to stagnation. On the other hand, when that dollar was given to the middle class, and particularly to the most disadvantaged people in our economy, it was immediately reinvested in the economy, since those people could not hoard it or save it, because they had urgent need of it.

Mr. Galbraith then came to the conclusion that investing in the population was basically the best engine of economic development, as many countries in the world have in fact proved.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, was a professor of moral philosophy, and his magnum opus has been widely quoted virtually everywhere. Unfortunately, it has been quoted wildly incorrectly. All Adam Smith did was observe the cruelty of life in his day. He did not make laws or principles to be applied from that; he simply observed that without safeguards and regulations, unfortunately, human beings were the playthings of the interests of the powerful.

The conclusion he reached was that it was very important to have economic ethics, to guide all the players and, ultimately, the state, should these players fail to behave properly.

It is rather unfortunate to see the ideas of such great men taken hostage to justify ideas and policies that may be harmful to all Canadians.

I am now going to change subjects. Let us come back to the present day and apply the ideas of great Canadians to the subject of current impacts and policies, Bill C-6 being basically one more step, one way of diminishing our quality of life.

Charles Sirois, whom I quoted earlier, said this a few months ago:

We can decide to dig holes in our subsoil and pump out all the natural resources we have. We can decide that this is what will secure the future of our children and grandchildren.

However, in his opinion, the consequences of that choice will be:

Perhaps we will not be in a state of complete poverty, but we will also not be wealthy; that much is obvious. And we will not be part of the movement that can be observed all over the world, where genuine value is created through creativity and innovation, and putting them to use.

I would note that Mr. Sirois is the chairman of the board of directors of CIBC and the former chairman and CEO of Teleglobe, a company with communications systems covering the entire world.

A few days later, Mr. Stephen Jarislowsky, the great Montrealer and renowned investor who founded his business in 1955, was concerned about the boom in company acquisitions in the natural resources sector. He saw nothing logical in this, on the contrary. He compared the situation to the real estate bubble in the United States. The $1300 price tag on an ounce of gold a few months prior was, in his opinion, an unfortunate harbinger of things to come. An ounce of gold now costs almost $1600. At the same time, the TSX plummeted. These were all signs that our economy was shrinking.

All the while, the government claimed that everything was fine and dandy. That attitude is bizarrely reminiscent of the Conservatives in the 2008 campaign. Blinded by their blinkers, they were alone in failing to acknowledge the threat of a looming recession.

A quality postal service is essential to support the creativity and innovation that Mr. Sirois was referring to. As I said earlier, it is vital for the millions of small and medium-sized businesses that rely on these postal services to run their operations.

Bill C-6 is further evidence of the Conservatives weakening our economy and refusing to acknowledge the fundamental role that human beings play in any healthy economy. Standing up for the general working conditions of workers is of paramount importance to ensuring a future for our children and our grandchildren. I make this statement unequivocally, with evidence to back it up.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was reported on the news this morning that this debate has been going on in the House of Commons for close to 50 hours, and that this was a record. I would have liked to see us agree on a settlement after going at it for 50 hours. What has happened between Canada Post and CUPW is a complete failure. When parties are unable to sit down and negotiate and when a dispute results in a strike or lockout, I call that a failure.

As parliamentarians, we have decisions to make. I am aware of what is happening in the world today. Wages are being eroded and small and medium-sized businesses are having problems. I am also well aware of what workers are experiencing. They are the ones whose wages are being eroded and who are living in uncertain times, facing the possibility of a two-tiered system. Our job is to come up with a solution. As our slogan so aptly states “Let's work together”. If every person was willing to give a little, then we would be able to find a solution, instead of imposing legislation that comes down hard on people.

Bill C-6 will impact people's everyday life if adopted by the House. The workers are the ones who will feel the effects. As parliamentarians, we must also think about that. We pass legislation and that is the end of it. However, these workers will have to live with the consequences of this legislation for four years. This bill will help to create an unhealthy climate. No other outcome is possible when a lockout is ordered, when a strike is called or when strikebreakers are called in. I have experienced these situations firsthand and the climate is most unsettling. One can feel the tension in the cafeteria. Disputes arise among workers, harassment occurs, undue pressure is brought to bear, scuffles break out and verbal assaults take place. What will happen next?

The number of workplace accidents will increase, because employees will be angry and will work faster. They will fall and injure themselves. The problem of workplace accidents will then need to be addressed. Workers will file grievances, because they will be dissatisfied and unhappy. More money will be spent and the climate will deteriorate even further. One can imagine what this will mean for managers and for employees forced to work in these conditions. For four years, the situation will be unmanageable, akin to conditions at the Tower of Babel. What can we do to help these people?

As parliamentarians, we have to find a solution to allow the workers to go back to work. We have to work together, democratically, without imposing legislation. We could force the two parties to sit down, negotiate and find a solution. But we are forgetting that even after we have passed a law, life goes on. And so we have to think about the people involved. We cannot get along amongst ourselves, so how can we impose legislation on people who are not getting along either?

And so I am asking that we amend this bill, in order to get the parties to negotiate within a certain period of time, with the help of an arbitrator or a mediator. As I have said before in the House, the workers, the employer and society are going to have to pay the price for sick leave, work accidents, an unhealthy work atmosphere and the grievances that are going to follow in the wake of this. We could even see another conflict break out when the agreement expires in three or four years.

Consequently I am asking the Conservative government to put water in its wine and amend Bill C-6 so that this law is not rammed through, doing damage to everyone and making people angry. I am aware that things aren't going well for anybody. If we want to do this, we can do it together, and if we can't agree, this too will have failed. Bill C-6 will go through, but we will not have solved the problem. Yes, the workers will have returned to work, but we are going to create a whole other set of problems. This is not right, not logical, and not the kind of work we should be doing. Our work is to rally a strong and united country, where people work for good wages and live in decent conditions, with fair pensions.

And insofar as the two classes of workers or the “orphan clauses” are concerned, obviously it is not very pleasant in a factory or an office when one employee has this while another employee has that, and another employee does not have this or that. You can just imagine how difficult that is going to be to manage later. Think about the quarrels and the work atmosphere this could bring about. We have to look at the human side of the equation. I know that there are going to be decreases in salaries, but these people are not cattle. They are workers who pay sales taxes and income taxes and who keep Canada's economy going.

I want to say it and repeat it, and I will beat this drum until the last possible minute in the House: this bill needs to be amended.

We have to come to an agreement and force the two parties to sit down. We need cut-off dates to make sure there is a positive outcome so we can overcome this impasse and so everyone will be a winner—the government, Canada Post and its workers. That is how we will get out of this crisis. We must not create a climate that would be unfavourable for us. People will be up in arms and we will pay dearly for it once again.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn to kill 10 minutes, so I am going to set about doing that.

We are all getting tired of hearing the same questions and answers back and forth. We all know we are engaged in this process to allow the parties to continue to negotiate in the absence of the draconian and heavy-handed imposition of the terms and conditions of their settlement as found in Bill C-6. However, it has been a useful exercise in the sense that over the course of 36 hours, as we get more physically exhausted, members on that side of the House are getting grumpier and are starting to reveal a little more about who they really are and what their real agenda is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments talking about the future and really that distant future. I am actually a surgeon by training and this bill does not need the three, four or five days of labour; it needs a C-section. We need to move rapidly and ensure that we do things for Canadians and for Canadian businesses today.

Based on a few of my concerns from things that were raised earlier, I wonder whether the members opposite read the Bill C-6 clauses with regard to wage increases as outlined in the bill in clause 15. We are here supporting our strong, stable national majority government and my rural postal workers would like to know whether the member will agree that there are increases outlined in Bill C-6, clause 15.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people in my riding of LaSalle—Émard and tell them how it feels to be away from my riding to discuss issues that are very dear to me. I would imagine that every member in the House feels the same way. I want to repeat how incredibly proud I am to be part of a team that is standing up to protect the fundamental rights of workers.

The legislation put forward by the government, Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, could, in the short term, achieve the goal of getting postal service back on track. But the long-term impacts of passing this legislation are still unknown. The reason the members of the official opposition are so vehemently opposed to this bill is that they believe it will have far-reaching long-term consequences.

What bothers me about this bill is that the conditions of the new collective agreement have been decided in advance. The government is putting shackles not only on the workers, but also on the employer and on the arbitrator who will have to decide the matter. What worries me about this bill are the long-term effects of the conditions being imposed, a concern that has been raised articulately and exhaustively by my colleagues. The conditions being imposed will lead to reduced incomes and a lower standard of living for the middle class. And that includes working conditions and future pension benefits.

In the long term, this measure will jeopardize the economic recovery that is so important to the current government, as well as Canada's future economic stability. Even more troubling is the fact that this lockout and this bill will only serve to poison labour-management relations. These conditions create a two-tier system of new hires versus existing employees, something that goes against the values of fairness that Canadians hold so dear.

Canada Post is part of our daily lives. It is a public service that ensures mail delivery to every community across this beautiful and vast nation of ours. Unfortunately, the lockout and Bill C-6 send mixed messages. The job actions taken by Canada Post management—service interruption on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the lockout—were a draconian response to the rotating strikes initiated previously. The government responded by introducing Bill C-6.

What message is the government sending to Canadians? First of all, they are being subjected to the effects of a lockout, and small and medium-size businesses are suffering financially. Unfortunately, the long-term impact of this government's actions will be the erosion of the very notion of public service. Why do we need public services like Canada Post? Because they provide an affordable service that meets the needs of all Canadians, regardless of where they live across the country, from coast to coast, from the far north to the south.

The Public Service is also a large employer, one that offers interesting working conditions for its employees and provides them with a standard of living such that they can help the country's economy to flourish. It is also important for us to remember that as Members of Parliament, we are part of the Public Service, in that we serve all Canadians, regardless of where they live.

I am disturbed by the fact that this government is trying to turn us into a society where the legitimate right to collective bargaining to secure attractive working conditions will be denied and where collective rights will take a back seat to economic interests.

I am proud to be part of a team that stands united in its opposition to Bill C-6, which threatens the right to freely negotiate a collective agreement.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the members opposite are all in fine form this morning. I am also pleased to see so many ministers here. It is comforting to know that the government truly wants to end this crisis in an honourable way.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say that he went to his riding and that people support him. Oddly enough, I just read in the newspapers that 53% of Quebeckers support the NDP. Our popularity is up again in the polls. With these polling numbers, not a single Conservative member would be elected if there were an election tomorrow.

I am here to defend the rights of postal workers and indeed of all workers. They government wants to dictate the collective agreement for postal workers. The government is not even giving the two parties the chance to negotiate.

It is odd that this government—which wants to redefine the role of government and wants a government that does not intervene as much in public affairs—has used this sledgehammer to meddle in the first labour dispute involving a crown corporation. It did not use this level of intervention to prevent the devastating crisis we were forced to endure because of all kinds of speculators in 2008. The government did not intervene then. But when postal workers want to preserve the gains of past generations, maintain their buying power, it quickly intervenes to keep them in line.

Perhaps the Conservatives are telling themselves that their actions will disrupt the labour movement, that they will scare the postal workers and other workers who are fighting to maintain their buying power. But they are wrong.

I know that many members on the government side hate unions, and they candidly admit it. They do not like our country's labour laws. They do not like the right to freedom of association; they do not like health and safety laws; they do not like minimum wage legislation. I know that some members opposite firmly believe in the invisible hand that guides the economy, the one that pushed us into the 2008 crisis and that is currently pushing countries like Greece, Spain and Iceland towards bankruptcy.

It is up to the general public and us to repair the damage that this hand, insensitive and unqualified to make society more fair, has wrought on the savings of small investors and families. The people are the ones suffering from the financial sector's lust, those small investors who lost $40,000 billion during the crisis. But the government did not intervene then.

Canada Post is telling its young employees that it can no longer ensure that the current pension plan will be available for future generations. That is strange, is it not, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary? Canada Post can no longer guarantee pensions for future generations. Yet, our companies are making record profits year after year. Our banks are making record profits year after year. Canada Post Corporation is also making profits. So why reduce benefits for young workers?

I feel that if we cannot understand the Conservatives' objective, the objective of these ideologues, we cannot understand the situation. It is incomprehensible that a crown corporation making $281 million in profits is asking young workers to accept lower wages and no guarantees in terms of pension plans. Where is the logic in that?

On this side of the House, we believe that pension plans are essential and that all Canadian workers should be able to have a pension plan to help them to live their later years in dignity and get out of poverty. The mere $1.68 a day that this government is offering is not going to help our seniors get out of poverty.

On this side of the House, we do not believe that the unions are too big. On the contrary, we believe that they should continue to grow and that more unions are needed. More unions should be created in our businesses and throughout the world to provide balance and ensure that the wealth that is generated benefits everyone, that it is redistributed.

A recent study showed that the purchasing power of the average Canadian worker increased by $1 a week over the past 25 years. People are not idiots or fools. They know that, today, it takes two salaries to support a small family. Even with those two salaries, they have difficulty buying essential commodities and paying for heating and electricity. Meanwhile, billionaires in Canada and throughout the world are growing richer. It is not normal to live in such a society. Our role, as members of the NDP, is not only to tell the government that we do not agree with Bill C-6 and the hypocritical role that it is playing in this dispute, but also to help all workers maintain and improve their working conditions.

On this side of the House, we do not believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand. We also do not believe that Canada Post negotiated honestly and in good faith. It negotiated in such a way that the government was able to introduce Bill C-6. Coming out of the election, the Conservative Prime Minister said that he was satisfied with the result because, finally, the debate would be clear. For once, I agree with him. It is true. The debate is very, very clear.

On this side of the House, it is clear. The NDP wants postal workers to maintain and improve their purchasing power, working conditions and pension fund, and it wants the young people who are hired by Canada Post to have the same conditions and benefits that have been negotiated over the years.

On this side, we want Canadian workers to have access to job security, and real protection against unemployment and illness. Clearly, our objective is not to produce more billionaires, but to increase the number of families that do not live in poverty. That is our vision for the future of Canada, and each time the government attempts, by various means, as it is doing with Bill C-6, to weaken the work world, we will be there.

Soon, we will have third reading of the bill and we will introduce amendments. I hope that the hours we have just spent here will lead the government, in good conscience, to find an honourable solution to this crisis. Each amendment could be discussed endlessly, but we will be here. We must find a solution to this crisis. I encourage the members opposite to reflect, in good conscience, and to find solutions.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in the debate on Bill C-6. We are now in almost the 39th hour of debate on the bill. There are about 46 hours left before mail service could resume on Monday morning. The government does not have to pass this bill to have that service resume. In fact, Canada Post workers have volunteered to go back today. They could go back within the hour if Canada Post, with the support of the government, would take the locks off postal stations and post offices around the country. We could have our mail resumed and postal workers could go back to work if the locks were taken off. We still have lots of time to encourage the government and Canada Post to do what is right and resume our postal service.

I represent the urban riding of Parkdale—High Park. It is a riding with a lot of small businesses and a lot of seniors. Our community cares a great deal about our postal service. It supports it and understands the importance of it.

There is a postal substation in my riding on Keele Street near where I live. I make a practice of going in there periodically and thanking the people who sort our mail and the people who deliver our mail. I know I speak for our community when I say we appreciate their hard work and their efficient service. We get our mail on time every working day, and they do an excellent job.

We have had some demands in our community. There was the threatened loss of a postal outlet in the junction in my riding. After huge community opposition to the closure of that postal outlet, we were successful in keeping it.

There are some new condo developments in my community. The placement of post boxes seems to be lagging behind the condo development, so people in the condo have to organize and push to get a post box.

People support their postal service. They care about it and they are concerned about it.

Our postal service is a success story. Our postal service has pumped profits and taxes into government coffers for more than 15 years. We have one of the best postal systems in the world. It is good value for money. We pay 59¢ for a letter, which is among the best prices in the industrialized world. Our postal service is fast and efficient.

Canada Post does have a top heavy management structure with 20 VPs, as my colleague from Vancouver has pointed out, who I am sure are generously paid. It also has the best paid CEO among any Canadian crown corporations, who receives huge bonuses.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which represents the people who work at Canada Post, has managed to negotiate, through very hard work, a decent wage for the people who work there. It is not exorbitant. It is in fact the average industrial wage for difficult work. Letter carriers are out in all seasons. We get a taste of that during elections when we go door to door, when we run up and down stairs and are out in all kinds of weather. We get a little taste of what letter carriers face day in and day out every day of the year. They do an excellent job. They make an average wage and they get benefits and pensions.

I have been contacted by many members of my community who expressed concern because Canada Post has locked out its employees and not allowed them to deliver the mail. I have also received a lot of support for the work that their elected representatives across the country are doing to try to pressure Canada Post and the government to resume the postal service.

I want to just read one letter from a constituent. She says:

I am writing to you today with a story about my family.

My aunt Diane works at the post office on Eastern Avenue in Toronto. She's locked out and on the picket line in her pink baseball cap. I called her last week and she explained to me what was happening.

“This isn't for me,” she said. “Myself, I'm looking forward to retirement, but we're sticking up for the future”. She explained the big issues in negotiations that concern her. The top three are an attack on pensions, two-tier wages,

which means lower wages for new hires

and outsourcing sick time.

I should just insert here that in fact because letter carriers are out delivering mail in all kinds of weather, their injury rate is actually quite high. It has one of the higher rates of injury in workplaces in Canada.

Canada Post wants to move from a stable deferred compensation of defined-benefit pension, to the crapshoot of defined-contribution pensions. This puts old people at the mercy of the stock market.

We have seen how reliable that has been for people.

My aunt is also out because of the corporation's efforts to create two-tier wages, with new hires making much less than their co-workers. These are co-workers doing the same jobs, on the same equipment. Says my aunt—“Young people today don't deserve good jobs? Says who? I know how hard it is for you guys to find good full-time work with benefits, and that just isn't right”.

Finally, workers at Canada Post don't want their sick time controlled by an outside insurance company.

I'm proud of my aunt. She sorted social assistance and pension cheques as a volunteer. I'm also very proud of her for sticking up for good jobs for young people. I know she doesn't want to be out on the line in the heat and the rain, but I'm behind her all the way.

So—I know the [Prime Minister's] conservative government talks about family a lot. And what do families do? We look after our elders. We look after our kids. We take care of each other when we're sick. These sound a lot like the issues postal workers are concerned with, like pensions for old people, good jobs for young people, and provisions for sick people to stay home and get better. Frankly..., going after my aunt doesn't seem very family-friendly of our government. Could you please talk to them about that?

Yours...Jody Smith.

I want to thank Ms. Smith for her excellent letter. I am so pleased and proud that she, as a constituent of mine, took the time to write.

I have to ask myself, and it is a question really to the hon. members opposite on the government side: Why would they go after hard-working Canadians like Jody's aunt Diane? Why would they go after hard-working Canadians? What is behind this? Why are they attacking the hard-working Canadians who have built Canada Post to provide such a fine service for our country? Is it because they want to privatize Canada Post? We know in other countries, for example, where the postal service has been privatized it is a very different situation. The mail is much less reliable, but also the jobs are very different. These are not the kinds of jobs I described earlier where people have an average income with benefits. They are usually part-time, independent contractors, which is kind of a way for an employer not to be responsible for any benefits or any injuries if someone gets injured or ill.

I wonder why they would want to undermine the success story that is Canada Post, because they are certainly undermining it by poisoning the labour relations climate. I appeal to the members opposite. Let us work together. We are here. We have all been sent here by our constituents. Let us work together. Let us take the locks off the doors at Canada Post. We have 46 hours that remain before Monday morning. My constituents in Parkdale--High Park, and I believe all Canadians, want to get this great mail service at Canada Post moving again. Let us work together and get it done.

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

Madam Speaker, I do take issue with what the member had to say and I want to be very clear. The Minister of Labour and this government are acting in the public's interest on the Canadian economy and for Canadians to get mail delivery restored.

There were a couple of questions that have been raised with respect to Bill C-6. This member raised them and some others throughout the morning have raised them.

With respect to pensions, I encourage the member opposite to take a look at subsection 11(2)(a):

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

The fact is that this legislation includes guiding principles to provide direction to the arbitrator that the desire of the government is to see that no increase in the unfunded portion of Canada Post's pension plan moves forward. Our government's desire is to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not left with the bill for Canada Post's pension plan.

The second issue I raise, and I ask the members to take a look at, is the wage issue as it has been noted with respect to two-tier wages. Again, I would like the member opposite to explain to me exactly where those two-tier wages are. I do not actually recognize them in this legislation.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on the Conservative government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen sent me an email just yesterday. She said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a grave moment. Yes, I know that it is around 3:33 in the morning. But no matter what the time might be, it is grave all the same. This deplorable situation and this bill, which is totally harmful to postal workers, cannot go on. What is more, all Canadian workers and their families must be respected. Bill C-6 is unprecedented. It will do harm, and it risks leading to a deterioration of working conditions for all Canadians. Is this what the Prime Minister wants? Is this what the Minister of Labour wants? Was this the intention of the Conservative government? I do not think so. I hope not. I dearly hope not. This is why we are here: to set the record straight. I spoke about the time earlier, and I am mentioning it again, to explain the situation to the Conservative government so that it can amend this horrible bill. Yes, this is a grave moment.

Let us once again explain the source of the problem. There was a negotiation process between the Canada Post Corporation and its employees. That negotiation was not easy. Negotiations are sometimes difficult.

The postal employees could have launched a completely legal general strike in accordance with the rules, but they did not want to go on strike. What they wanted was instead to use certain pressure tactics. Why? Because they like what they do. They want better working conditions. They wanted to work. Their aim was to use these pressure tactics. It is only natural that they should want to bring pressure to bear.

They also wanted to put pressure on management without hurting the Canadian people. That is most noble on their part and they should be applauded for it.

After the Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes, the union even offered to end the strike if the corporation agreed to keep the previous contract in effect for the duration of the negotiations. Incredible. The workers were even prepared to accept the status quo in the meantime, but Canada Post refused. The officials turned that down. Truly incredible.

On June 15, Canada Post decided to lock out all of its employees and shut down mail delivery. What a mistake. What an illegitimate action to take.

On June 20, the Conservatives tabled a regressive piece of legislation. Let us say it: this legislation is regressive. It would impose a contract on postal workers that includes, among other things, a wage settlement that is lower than what management offered. Can anyone in this House rise and dare call this good legislation? I challenge anyone in this House to rise and say that this part of the bill is good. I challenge all Conservatives to say that this clause is fair. I am speaking of course of the part that includes a wage settlement below the level in the management offer. It is incredible.

My riding assistant, Daniel Lemire—a nod to him in passing: I do not think he is watching at this hour, he must be asleep, but that is okay—recently met with the locked-out workers in Drummondville. He found people who were idle, frustrated, even very angry at being unable to go to work. Yes, they want to go back to work. First of all, they wanted to go back quickly. They said we should see to it that the bill is passed and they can go back to work. But after all the conditions in Bill C-6 were explained to them, they said, “Hold on a minute.” Now they are worried because the Conservative government wants to pull the rug out from under them and deny them their legitimate right to negotiate in good faith for better working conditions and for the good of their families.

The locked-out workers told us that they wanted to return to work. As I was saying earlier, they were not the ones who decided to stop working. This is a lockout. These people enjoy their work. They enjoy providing this service to the public. They are only waiting for the Conservative government to remove the locks from the office doors so they can return to work.

That way, they can go back to delivering the mail for the good of seniors, SMEs and all Canadians. However, they are not prepared to swallow the affront that is Bill C-6, which the Prime Minister is trying to force down their throats. They want to return to work with respect, dignity and honour.

Let us talk about postal services in rural regions. The riding of Drummond includes many small municipalities; it is a large rural region. How many small municipalities are there in the riding of Drummond? There are 19 towns in the riding of Drummond. I will not name all of them, but I will talk about the little town of Saint-Guillaume, where I lived for a long time. If my colleagues should have the occasion to go there, I invite them to drop by the famous Saint-Guillaume cheese factory, which produces excellent cheeses distributed all over Quebec and beyond.

Let me tell you something about town life. The post office is the heart, lungs, eyes, ears and mouth of the town. Towns cannot do without a post office. It is like a primary school or a financial institution. It offers local services essential to the survival of our precious municipalities.

Unfortunately, this back-to-work bill does not guarantee the survival, viability or vitality of these unique institutions, which enable our small municipalities to continue to prosper. In my riding, the town residents are highly engaged and very attached to services such as those provided by the post office. Consider how essential the postal service is to our seniors, our mobility-impaired people, and our SMEs. There are some SMEs in my constituency, and they are very dynamic and innovative.

In short, the back-to-work bill tabled by the federal government penalizes postal workers and rewards Canada Post for locking them out. It has to be said that it is Canada Post that has interrupted national mail delivery. It is Canada Post's fault. So what does the government do? It gives Canada Post the carrot and the employees the stick. It should not be that way; that is not logical. This is an unhealthy sign of real bias.

As I was saying earlier, the bill imposes wage increases that are below those offered by Canada Post, but I will give some actual numbers. Canada Post’s offers were 1.9% in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and 2% in 2014; this is well below the rate of inflation, which is 3.3%. The Conservative bill would further reduce those increases to 1.75% in 2011, 1.5% in 2012, 2% in 2013 and 2% in 2014. It is scandalous.

Here is some more information. Public postal service and postal workers do not cost the public purse anything. My colleagues mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating: over the last 15 years Canada Post has made profits of $1.7 billion and paid $1.2 million in dividends and income tax to the federal government.

To summarize the situation, this is not a strike, but a lockout. The government is trying to impose a contract that is not a fair collective agreement. It is inappropriate for the government to intervene and impose a contract on the employees. We will oppose this bill and the government’s attempt to privatize Canada Post and reduce services to Canadians. I would have liked to read an email, but I will not have the time.

I will say this in closing: let us unlock the doors of Canada Post and finally make it possible to have real negotiations that respect both parties.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the lockout of workers by Canada Post and the back to work legislation the government is proposing.

I share the desire for a speedy resolution of the situation and an immediate return to regular mail delivery in this country. That is why my New Democrat colleagues and I are calling on Canada Post to unlock the doors and let postal carriers return to work.

Canada Post is a profitable corporation that earned $281 million for Canadians last year. At the same time, it has been able to offer some of the lowest postage rates in the world, with a cost of 59¢ to mail a standard letter, compared to, for instance, Germany where the cost is 77¢ or Australia at 88¢, or even the Netherlands at 64¢.

Postal carriers across this country are responsible for the success of the Canada Post Corporation and have worked so hard to turn it into a viable, reliable and, indeed, profitable service that all Canadians depend on. The current back to work legislation, Bill C-6, is a one-sided and unfair approach to resolving this crisis. Instead of demanding that Canada Post returns to the bargaining table, the Conservative government has taken the side of the corporation and presented draconian legislation that makes a mockery of fair collective bargaining.

I oppose this legislation, first, because it offers wage rates lower than what Canada Post offered; second, because it tramples on collective bargaining rights; and, third, because it supports attacks on postal workers' defined pension benefit plan and encourages a two-tiered wage and benefits system.

Locking out workers and then imposing a contract is not fair and free collective bargaining.

The resolution to this conflict is clear. Postal carriers are ready to go back to work today. Simply unlock the doors and let them continue to deliver the mail.

This legislation is not just an attack on postal workers but an attack on the wages, benefits and pensions of all Canadian workers. I will continue to work night and day, whatever it takes, to get fair resolution.

The middle class is being squeezed in Canada. Statistics Canada shows that those who earned $41,300 in 1980 still earn basically the same amount 30 years later. A study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called, “Rising Profit Shares, Falling Wage Shares”, claims that real wage gains for the vast majority of Canadians were virtually non-existent through much of the last 30 years. Even more disturbing, the real wages of lower-income people or those making minimum wage are less than what they were 30 years ago.

Meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest Canadians continues to climb. Young workers today cannot expect the same standard of living or wages as their parents or grandparents. This is what CUPW and Canada's New Democrats are fighting against. We need to ensure that new postal workers are able to earn a decent living and enjoy pension benefits.

We should be working to lift wages, not impose lower wages than were offered at the bargaining table by the employer. Not only has the Conservative government offered lower wages but it also wants to maintain the 10 demands of Canada Post for major rollbacks, including the elimination of sick leave, and deep cuts in benefits and pensions for new hires.

I would like to talk about delivering the mail to Canada's most vulnerable. During the recent rotating strikes, cheques were in fact delivered to the most vulnerable. If we look at what happened last week, Canada Post not only locked out its workers but also stopped all mail delivery, which meant that Canada's vulnerable were not receiving their needed cheques. This would not have happened under the rotating strikes.

To go back to pensions, workers are fighting for their hard-earned benefits like defined pension plans. This is what is at stake. We are talking about how people live in their later years. Will they live with dignity or will they struggle?

My dad, for instance, worked 27 years for MacMillan Bloedel and now is finding that his pension is being eroded and cut back. Is this the same fate that we have in store for those working in one of our most profitable and viable corporations, Canada Post?

The workers of Canada Post have built the organization into what it is today. They are the real, true assets of the organization. They are the people who have made the organization viable, dependable and profitable.

To really focus on pensions, let me take a moment to talk about another good friend of mine and an issue that is similar to that of many of the postal workers who we on this side have been talking about. My good friend Joel Peppar lives in New Westminster with his partner Jan. He is a senior and a veteran. He has been watching this debate since the beginning, because he too has an interest in the outcome.

His veteran's cheque, which he relies on each month, is sitting in a mail truck somewhere in the country. He has told my office that he will wait as long as it takes because he feels that it is so important that the workers get what they deserve, that they get a fair deal. So here is a guy who has defended his country and who now lives from paycheque to paycheque, and he wants to support us and the workers in their fight for fairness.

I know that Joel is not alone. I know there are thousands of Canadians like Joel who also support these workers and their bid for a fair deal. I know that Joel is watching now and wants me to continue fighting the good fight. I find that amazing. He needs his cheque but even he is not willing to put his needs ahead of those of these workers. That is because he understands the difference between right and wrong. He understands when it is critical to take a stand.

I want to mention another email that I received from a constituent of mine named George. He has been watching this debate with great interest. He is a member of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. He, along with his fellow workers, would like to be working right now, processing and delivering the mail. Since Canada Post has locked out the workers and thus stopped the mail service in Canada, he says it is creating great hardship for businesses and families. He goes on to ask if it is just for the Government of Canada, his employer, to punish the workers with Bill C-6. Indeed, since the full mail stoppage was caused by the management of Canada Post, which directly answers to the Government of Canada, should the Government of Canada not be directing Canada Post to remove its lockout order?

He has heard the argument from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member from Peterborough, that the union membership has not had a chance to vote on any of Canada Post's offers. George says the fact is that 94.5% gave the union leadership the power to bargain for a new collective agreement, which he notes is a much higher percentage than the support the voters of Canada gave the Conservative Party of Canada in the last federal election.

He goes on to say that he has heard over and over from members of the Conservative Party about the mandate that Canadians have bestowed upon them in their majority government. He says it would be nice to see them respect the membership of CUPW, which has bestowed upon his union a similar mandate: to come up with a collective agreement.

He asks the member from Peterborough specifically if he would he have Canadians go to the polls on every piece of legislation that is presented in Parliament. I think not.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that might be an issue for another debate, because we are debating Bill C-6 right now, the back to work order. That is what we are opposing here and will continue to oppose.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, as for how a government might end a lockout, I will repeat the six options I just mentioned.

The first option would be to leave the parties alone to let them negotiate in good faith.

The second option would be to select a panel that might be able to advise the government on what to do in this situation.

The third option might be, if the lockout is due to a lack of revenue, to allow Canada Post to perhaps increase its revenue stream, such as by increasing postage charges.

The fourth option the government might pursue would be to provide increased tax revenue, if Canada Post is unable to raise its stamp duties.

The fifth option might be to place Canada Post under the direct control of the appropriate minister.

The final and probably the most direct and dramatic option would be to fire the current management and replace them with a more competent group of managers who could perhaps avoid something like a walkout.

In this list, I did not include back to work orders, which is what we are debating here today directly in Bill C-6. Back to work orders assume that workers are at fault, when in this case it is clearly the management that has decided to impose a lockout.

Bill C-6 would seem to be the wrong tool for this job. That is why I am standing and opposing this bill and am prepared to stay until the end of this debate to make sure that we get the proper policy tool to fix this problem.

While back to work orders will get our postal workers back to work, they are the wrong tool for this job. I am very concerned about the effects of this tool. As we know, from looking at thousands and thousands of different policy disasters, when the wrong tool is picked for the job, it leads to externalities and other problems with negative effects. This is usually the result of governments acting in haste or not taking appropriate guidance.

The worst effects of imposing a back to work order on Canada Post will be the morale of the workers. Canada Post is one of the biggest employers in Canada and one of the most respected organizations around the world. The morale of both the workers and the middle- and upper-level management is going to be devastated. This is because the two sides have not been given time to agree and work out their differences.

The division that has caused the dispute will not be resolved and will continue to fester if the two sides are not given adequate time to work out this difference. A back to work order will not solve this, and I suspect that if the problem is management, we will be facing this problem in the coming months.

As I said, from my perspective, looking at this and hearing both sides, the most effective solution would be to allow the workers and the managers to work out their differences. If the government considers the economic impacts to be so critical, then it should consider either replacing the current management or moving Canada Post under the direct control of a minister.

Unfortunately, from the debate we have heard and from the bill, not one of these options has been considered or entertained by the government, because I do not think they understand the problem they face.

I have heard from this side of the House hours and hours of talk that this is a strike, yet all the evidence shows it is a lockout. If they are using a tool to fix a strike, they are going to make a mistake. They need to pick a tool that will fix a lockout.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate the hon. member on his election and his speech. Clearly this is a new member who has a good deal of passion. I congratulate him.

That being said, I have received many email messages from my constituents who are in favour of Bill C-6, including some Canada Post workers. I would like to quote a few sentences from those workers’ emails.

I will not use their names because I do not want these CUPW members to be harassed by union bosses. However, a postal clerk from my constituency said she feels that legislation is the only hope to keep their jobs. She said their union has not allowed them to vote on any revised offers that Canada Post Corporation has made and that most of them think the revised final offer is fair. She said they wanted to vote, but the union would not allow them to vote. She said they are part of a democratic society and the workers should have some rights but that this is not happening. She said the union has not tried to negotiate a better offer based on the corporation's offer; it is trying to change it entirely. She went on to say that government intervention is the only hope for getting them back to work.

Would the member please comment on the remarks of my constituent who is a CUPW member?

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

Madam Speaker, in response to my friend the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, I wish we could put aside whether or not the NDP is ready for prime time or anything. That is not the issue. I do not think it is quite as clear that the government has not taken sides.

As I mentioned earlier in the House today, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations in reviewing Bill C-6 has come to the conclusion that it would violate key elements of the Supreme Court decision and it would set back collective bargaining across Canada. Why would they think that?

There is nothing wrong with back-to-work legislation. Nobody would deny that it is an appropriate thing for government to do. The reason that this piece of legislation is offensive to some principles of labour law is because it is overly prescriptive, it ties the hands of an arbitrator, it puts in place in section 15 a schedule of payment to the workers that is less than what was on the table when negotiations broke down, and it further has a rather bizarre section that suggests that the arbitrator must be guided by the need to find terms and conditions of--

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

Madam Speaker, this discussion and debate has now taken us through several calendar days, although, as we know, the date on the table remains unchanged. I hope our minds do not remain as fixed as the table date of Thursday, June 23.

I will review some of the things that I think are salient about this situation and see if I can shed some light on it, hoping that it does some good to the discussion we have had here.

The first thing is to look at Canada Post. It is the most important public service for delivery of mail and other things that are really important to us.

As a public service, it is worth noting that it has been profitable every year for 15 years. It is also worth noting that it is facing challenges and its profit margin is going down in competition with other areas, competition with email and with commercial carriers like UPS and FedEx, even though it was able to take over Purolator and run it very profitably.

It is in a challenging situation. One of the reasons it continues to turn a profit, and in the last year I could find was for 2009, a $281 million profit, is due to the dedication and professionalism of its workforce.

We take these things as good starting points for maintaining what we want. I presume we all want Canada Post to be a public service and not privatized. I agree with my friends in the official opposition that there is some risk of that, but I do not think it is as blatant as they do. We have to guard against privatization by ensuring Canada Post remains public and profitable.

Into this we now have, and have had for some time, difficult labour management relationships between Canada Post management and CUPW. The remaining issues on the table, when things fell apart, really had almost nothing to do with the wage issue except for the differential wages for younger workers. Other issues included health and safety issues, which makes sense given what the postal workers go through, as well as staffing issues, sick leave, questions of short-term disability, wages, pensions, benefits, job creation and the ongoing issue of training.

These issues are certainly solvable. I practised in a number of areas of law, but for about three years I practised union-side labour law. I am somewhat familiar with collective agreements and bargaining, working with unions and having long negotiations. Eight months really is not that long as long as a collective agreement can be honoured and stay in place while the parties negotiate.

This is just some of the background that came to me and it is worth looking at it.

We all know the chronology. As things began to fall apart, CUPW instituted rotating strike action, which led, very short days afterwards, to a lockout. I think we all find it somewhat inexplicable that Canada Post management took that route because it brought mail service in Canada to an absolute standstill. We now find ourselves here.

I will start with where we all agree. Then I will deal with what I think are the red herrings where we do not agree. I believe we all agree that we want the mail to move. We all agree that we would like it to move as quickly as possible. I think we probably all agree that we would rather not be here at 2:15 on a Saturday morning. I think that is a presumption that will probably be shared around the room.

On the other hand, despite the occasional moments of lack of decorum, overall all members of Parliament from all parties have conducted themselves with that sense of duty, recognizing that we are here and this issue is important. It falls on us as elected members of Parliament not to just argue endlessly, but to solve it.

I think we would all agree with those statements.

Where do I see red herrings? A couple of them really relate to the larger cultural problem of this place, which is an addiction to partisanship, but I will leave it aside. However, I cannot vote for this legislation as drafted.

I am uncomfortable with some of the accusations. Some of the members of the official opposition make a good point and then take it one step too far. I find myself thinking it was too partisan, it was a cheap shot. On the other hand, in defending the position of the government legislation, some government members have gone too far. If we could tone that down, it would help. I do not mean to sound like I am preaching or lecturing, and I hope members will forgive me.

On the other hand, in defending the position of the government legislation, I think some government members have gone too far. If we could tone that down, it would help. I do not mean to sound like I am preaching or lecturing and I hope members will forgive me.

Something that is a problem and a bit of a red herring is that the issue before us is what do we do as members of Parliament to ensure that the mail starts moving, that there is a fair collective agreement bargaining process that works for all parties. That is our job. It is not really relevant to discuss the fact that other workers do not have such a good deal.

I can say that until May 2 I never had a pension plan, medical benefits or paid vacation time. I have never had any of those things nor have other people in my family, but that is not relevant to what we have in front of us. What we have in front of us are legal entitlements of CUPW negotiated under Canadian law that must be respected. It is not to insult other workers that we respect unionized rights. It is not to divide one set of workers against another.

We have a responsibility to uphold Canadian law and Canadian law says CUPW has a legitimate collective agreement that has been negotiated under Canadian law, which is valid for a very important public service delivery of our postal system. Workers do a fantastic job and one of the reasons they do a fantastic job is that they are in a good union that negotiates well. That is the issue before us.

There are other questions. Does the 2007 Supreme Court decision in the B.C. hospital workers case have any bearing here? I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence said it does not, but I think there are questions.

I will now come to the difference between us. One group of people in the House believes the best way to get the mail moving is to push through Bill C-6, come hell or high water. One group of people in the House thinks the best way to get the mail moving again is to fight as hard as possible against Bill C-6 in the hope that somehow, while we are in this place in our suspended animation of June 23, there will be some progress somewhere else that solves the problem.

But it is in members' hands to solve the problem now. I made this point earlier today and I will ask my friends in the government to consider it. The fastest way to get the mail moving, which I know is their number one objective, is to change Bill C-6 through amendments that allow all of us in this place to agree that we have respected collective bargaining rights, the labour laws of Canada and Canadian workers, and we have acted quickly in the interests of all people, whether they are small business people or families waiting for cheques.

We should not allow ourselves to be so enamoured by our own rhetoric that we forget that the fastest way to get the mail moving is to amend Bill C-6 so that we can all agree, get the mail moving and go home at some point this weekend.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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]

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]

I urge the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing to bring her remarks to the substance of Bill C-6 as quickly as possible.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the comment by the member on the opposite side.

I am a small-business person. I have three successful small businesses. They are all profitable. I understand small businesses. I am a lefty capitalist; I believe in profits, but I believe in sharing them equitably with the other people in our society.

Madam Speaker, thanks for this opportunity to speak to the government's legislation. The Conservative government is attempting to ram Bill C-6 through Parliament within hours of suspending the regular rules of the House, just as it did with the HST implementation bill.

Labour disputes happen in any modern market-based economy. They are a fact of life and a result of the competitive dichotomy set up between profit-centred companies and workers who push for living wages and safe working conditions. That is a normal situation for market-based economies, which you allegedly believe in.

Normally, disputes work themselves out without a lot of government interference. I am surprised by the current government. Before the Conservatives were in office, and afterwards, they always talked about how they were all for smaller government and hands-off government that lets markets work things out for themselves. That is the claim.

Instead, though, we see a very interventionist government. This is a heavy-handed government that is now egregiously interfering in the collective bargaining process we have developed over many decades. For a party that claims a hands-off philosophy, this is the most meddlesome federal government in a very long time.

This is just another symptom of the fundamental changes happening within the Conservative Party. Conservatives in this government have wandered far from their roots. Their forefathers must be turning over in their graves.

Whatever happened to Conservative claims for small government? The first things they did after getting a phony majority was stack the Senate and appoint a huge ministry, one of the largest ministries in the history of Canada. There are more ministers, more limos for ministers, more perks, and more staff. All that was after they bulked up spending on the Prime Minister's Office. We have never had a PMO that is so large or that has spent so much.

The current government has always talked about fiscal responsibility, but its track record shows that it does not understand the concept. It is blowing billions on fighter jets, mega-prisons, and indiscriminate corporate tax handouts. It is opening military bases everywhere across the globe. In the process, it is racking up a record deficit, the largest deficit since Brian Mulroney.

Now it is interfering in labour market negotiations in a way that is nothing less than a violation of Canadians' Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If it does this now, where will it end? Will the government step in every time there is a dispute in the marketplace? Is it going to legislate every time two sides do not agree on something?

Let us be very clear. We have no postal service right now, because Canada Post shut down service completely. It locked its workers out.

I was disappointed to hear on the CBC this morning at 5 a.m, quoting the minister on that side, that this is a strike. There was no countervailing force on the news to indicate that it really is, as we know, a lockout, not a strike.

Let us start at the beginning. The workers had concerns about their contract. They went on rotating strikes a few weeks ago, on June 2, and there were some service slowdowns. Their attempts were measured, and they were responsible. It is true that it was not an ideal situation, but I did not hear any hue and cry from the people in my riding, including small businesses. Life went on during those rotating strikes.

After the workers started the rotating strikes, they even offered to end the strike action if the company would agree to keep the old contract in place during negotiations, but Canada Post refused. Then on June 15, Canada Post decided to lock everyone out and shut down Canada's mail service completely. That was irrational, and it was unreasonable. That is when I started to hear about it from my constituents. People rightly complained. Small businesses were being affected. Canada Post management should have taken that into consideration before taking that irresponsible action.

However, instead of introducing legislation to end the lockout, to resume rotating service, and to get both sides back to the bargaining table, the government decided just a few days later to interfere with the right to collective bargaining and to impose a settlement below even what management had demanded. Therefore, Canada Post is being rewarded for shutting down the mail service that so many of our constituents rely on. This is a dangerous precedent, regardless of the particulars of this or any labour dispute.

Can any large corporation here in Canada, from now on, knowing the government's ideology, simply refuse to negotiate and then wait for the government to interfere and legislate people back to work? Will Canada Post be encouraged in the future to hold our postal service hostage anytime it does not feel like bargaining?

This is a dangerous path the Conservatives are leading the country down. It is one that would lead us to more entrenched positions, more, not less, labour unrest, and more, not less, interruption of the services Canadians rely on. What incentive will there be in the future for corporations to bargain in good faith or settle?

The government should not be in the business of imposing labour contracts for businesses and workers. That is not free or fair collective bargaining. That is not letting the process work. It is not letting the marketplace work. The Conservative government must stop interfering.

This is an extraordinary level of intervention for a government that says that it prefers to let the market sort things out. I am left wondering if this may have something to do with the government's desire to privatize Canada Post service and to reduce service to Canadians.

The government has been moving towards privatization for our postal service for a long time, and we know it. Canadians living in rural and remote areas, such as much of Thunder Bay—Superior North, will suffer most from this privatization. They are greatly impacted by these losses of service.

I have rural postal services in my own riding that are threatened. For example, the community of Dorion, in my riding, is about to lose its postal outlet this summer. This outlet is currently located in Canyon Country Service on Highway 11, and they are having to close permanently for circumstances beyond their control. However, Canada Post has found no local alternative. It has not let anyone know about any progress in finding one. This is not a good sign. It is one of our more worrisome examples of a worrisome Tory ideological obsession.

Canada Post insists that it is still respecting its so-called policy of not shutting down rural services themselves, because they can throw up their hands and say that there is no alternative.

Despite a fat salary for the CEO and bonuses for its executives, Canada Post is profitable. It does not need to shut rural services any more than it needs to privatize or to walk away from the bargaining table in these labour negotiations. The company made $281 million in profit last year. The CEO is making more than $650,000 a year, and his salary is going up by a lot more than the rate of inflation and by a lot more than what the workers are requesting in these negotiations. Why take the desperate move to shut down all postal services across Canada?

I want to talk a little about the people who are impacted by the Canada Post lockout. As I said before, I am a small-business person. Of course, my business, like so many across the country, relies on post offices for service. Lots of businesses rely on that. Many send their payments by mail. The Canada Post lockout and shutdown of the service has negatively impacted them, and Canadians will carry the can for it, not the poor posties who want to do a good job for a reasonable rate of pay. This service is important to them. This is impacting the workers who want to work and have been locked out of their jobs in the same way Canadians have been locked out of their postal service.

I would like to read a quote:

Nobody knows how much the population of Canada still relies on the Post Office more than postal workers. We see the medication, the card$ of $upport to out-of-town students, the food being sent to the far north. We see the frustration of our co-workers when they see all that they have fought for over the years being stripped away in one fell swoop of a pen by [our] Communist [Prime Minister]. It's maddening and frankly quite sad that a government would invite this sort of turmoil and suppression on its own people.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, anytime I have spoken in the House over the past seven years, I have usually been able to say that I am pleased to take part in the debate on a particular bill. Today, however, June 24, my pleasure is considerably lessened because I am quite sad that I cannot be in my constituency right now.

In less than an hour from now, I was supposed to take part in an activity, a mass, with some people and then, as in the past, I would have continued celebrating with my constituents until the wee hours of the morning. Basically, I usually celebrate Quebec's nation holiday as a Quebecker, and not just as a member of Parliament. We are always members of Parliament, even when we go grocery shopping.

It saddens me to be here, especially since my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour tried to seek unanimous consent to interrupt the debate today and resume it again later.

The issue here is not playing the government's game by passing the bill and returning to our ridings to be on vacation for three months, as the media likes to say. Every MP is going to take some vacation, but they will continue to work during the summer period, to receive constituents in their office and take part in all the summer festivities in their riding. In any event, we are here for one reason. We were elected to work, to legislate. There is a bill before us and it is our responsibility to address the matter.

The government's Bill C-6 is an affront to democracy. Everyone has the right to fair and equitable working conditions. The summary of the bill is quite clear as to the government's intention to use a sledgehammer to impose conditions on the postal workers. The summary of the bill states:

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

On reading the bill we see that an arbitrator, no matter how competent—it will not be his fault if he has to rule on the working conditions—will have no choice but to side with the conditions imposed by the employer. As far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of taking sides. I have always said we must side with the negotiation process, the possibility for both parties to reach an agreement. The government has not seen it that way from the very start.

I just got a reaction from the Conservative members when I said that Ronald Reagan had acted no differently in the 1980s by straight out dismissing air traffic controllers who had used pressure tactics to get fair working conditions. I even heard someone yell that it worked at least. Perhaps it worked, perhaps it is a right-wing way to impose rules, to be in control of a situation. But when it comes to a social environment, I do not think that this is the right attitude for a responsible government to take. The postal workers will go back to work and, if the conditions set out in the bill are imposed on them until the end of that collective agreement, so until 2015, the environment in the postal offices will be terrible.

At the post office in Victoriaville, during the conflict when the rotating strikes had begun, scabs arrived. The police had to step in because a scuffle broke out. Fortunately, nothing too serious happened.

The same thing happened in Sherbrooke, and some people tried to do the job of the postal workers. There are rules that need to be followed in those cases. That does not mean that all work is prohibited, but the work of postal workers must not be done by scabs.

We must also understand that there were negotiations during this conflict. We were told that the Canada Post Corporation was not too inclined to negotiate because the sword of Damocles, in the form of a special bill, was being held over the heads of employees. All we had to do was wait. When the rotating strikes began, there was some inconvenience to Canadians.

However, there was no major disruption since the unions had decided against a general strike. Rotating strikes were a way of getting their point across by inconveniencing certain categories of people in a particular sector for a specific period, with a different sector being affected a day or so later. This meant that those affected by the initial round of rotating strikes were no longer inconvenienced. Despite this, the employer reacted immediately by locking out workers, causing great inconvenience.

So, when I hear the government say that this is hurting the economy, it is important to consider what exactly occurred. The threat of special legislation caused Canada Post to lock out workers because it knew that the legislation would force employees to agree to conditions that were undoubtedly unacceptable to them. The buck therefore stops with the government. The threat of special legislation was looming and precipitated the lockout by Canada Post. Of course, all the employer had to do was wait for the infamous special legislation, for conditions to be set by an arbitrator, and then simply wash its hands of the matter, with no need to negotiate.

It was the government’s responsibility to ensure that a proper mediation process was in place and certainly not to specify in the special legislation that it would be left up to an arbitrator to choose between the two offers. It was like pouring salt on a wound when the decision was made to include in the special legislation lower wages than previously offered by Canada Post. And then there were the “orphan clauses”. In short, the government went to great lengths to ensure that Canada Post would have the upper hand in the “bargaining process”.

The Conservative government is largely responsible for the economic consequences it has spoken of today. Considering the government’s approach and its legislation, Bill C-6, it is no surprise to read of “Conservative arrogance”, the title of a Le Soleil editorial. Allow me to quote Brigitte Breton, the author of this article:

By introducing Bill C-6, the Conservatives have demonstrated that the public interest is by no means the only thing motivating them. The opportunity to show people who is in charge in Ottawa is too good to miss. That much was made abundantly clear by the inclusion in the bill of inferior wage conditions to those offered by Canada Post.

That summarizes what I have just said. We saw the same thing with Air Canada, when the government immediately said that it would introduce special legislation. They had not even started to use specific pressure tactics, there were no particular hardships, and right away, the government wanted to put a stop to it. It said that people would return to work, regardless of how, regardless of the work climate that would ensue. I think this is important, because all of that has an affect on the service being provided to the public.

I believe that workers at Air Canada, as well as Canada Post, like all workers in the public sector or semi-public sector, whether they are unionized or non-unionized, always want to work as hard as they can to provide the best possible service. However, when they return to work, their tails between their legs, because someone has imposed working conditions that go against what we have always stood for, conditions that the employer had subjected them to and that jeopardized their pension plans, this means that, whether we want it or not, services to the public could be affected because there will be a poor work climate. Obviously, I am once again directly blaming the government for this.

To sum up, the Bloc Québécois will obviously continue to oppose this bill, which is nothing more than the Conservative government trying to impose its own views.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you may find that I am a bit dishevelled and my eyes are a bit red. I think all of my colleagues here feel the same way as we debate this bill and fight tooth and nail to give workers a voice.

I listened carefully to my colleagues. They spoke very passionately about their experience with the union movement. Since I became a part of this official opposition team, I have seen that in unity, there is strength. The experience they have shared since we entered the House of Commons has taught me a lot about the qualities of solidarity and the collective rights of workers.

I thank you for giving me time to speak to Bill C-6 in this House and to add my voice to the eloquent voices of my colleagues in the official opposition.

I think that the debate on this bill is very important. I was inspired by our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who addressed the House last night. He spoke about the history of the NDP movement and about the values that NDP members have always defended. I think that this is a debate on the values that we want to defend in this House, but also that we want to defend on the hustings across the country—the values of sharing, social justice and freedom.

There is increasing talk about economic recession; we are told the economy is doing poorly, that the greater interests of the economy are in jeopardy. And for the sake of the economy, the government is going to undermine the right of workers to negotiate a decent contract, not only for themselves, but also for future generations.

I believe the debate we are having in this House is a debate not only for the short term, but also for the long term. What will we provide for future generations?

I have been sitting in the House of Commons for barely a month now and the present government has already set the stage. First, it introduced a bill to force Air Canada employees back to work. I do not believe the timeline of that file called for that bill, when the bargaining process had just gotten under way.

As for Canada Post, the timeline has already been elaborated on, but let me remind you that somewhat controversial action is being taken. On June 8, Canada Post announced that it was cancelling mail delivery on Tuesdays and Thursdays, whereas we know all Canadians are entitled to delivery service five days a week. Canada Post was already starting to cut service to which Canadians are entitled, that is to say mail delivery five days a week.

On June 14, Canada Post ordered a national lockout; in other words, it shut out employees and prevented them from doing the work that makes it possible to deliver the mail five days a week. Now postal employees are being deprived of their bargaining right and their right to work, while Canadians are being deprived of their mail.

As a number of you previously noted, this work stoppage, this lockout, means that a number of our constituents and we ourselves are being deprived of mail delivery, in particular the delivery of cheques, as was mentioned: pension cheques and all other cheques. As was also said, seniors are often the hardest hit; they may not be used to using the Internet or simply cannot afford it.

Once again, my colleagues who live in rural regions have rightly noted that some places in those regions do not have Internet service and that most people are more confident about receiving their cheques through the mail than via the Internet. And yet Canada Post workers had taken steps for cheques to be distributed to the public, but have been unable to make delivery since the lockout. The people affected by this situation are thus in a tenuous financial situation because they still have to pay their bills and rent and buy groceries.

As the members here have also mentioned, the same is also true of small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on Canada Post's services to place and ship orders. I believe the present government is setting a dangerous precedent by interfering with the legitimate right of workers to negotiate with their employer. This government's priority, which has been clearly and expressly stated, is the greater interests of the economy.

I rise to speak about the best interests of people, of Canadians, of workers. It is should be remembered that the economy is not an end but rather a means to an end, which helps us organize our society and promote a fair division of our country’s wealth. We must have income security, security for the future, security for retirees, and for our youth as they enter the labour market, so that they too have access to benefits, pensions and programs including disability insurance, and insurance in case of injury or other misfortune.

I do not understand why this government, which talks about standing up for the best interests of the economy would, alongside Canada Post, lock out workers. The government’s own actions have jeopardized the best interests of the economy that it cares so much about.

I do not believe that this government interference in a legitimate bargaining process is consistent with the role assigned to us. This legislation is going to favour the employer at the expense of employees, who will be deprived of the opportunity to negotiate. Moreover, the government has taken it upon itself to diminish wage conditions previously proposed by the employer. The vested rights of postal workers are at stake here: retirement plans, disability insurance programs, working conditions and wage conditions.

Canada is recognized for its quality of life and social values, which make it possible for all Canadians to access programs and benefits that are the envy of many a country. This helped Canada weather the economic turmoil of recent years. This government’s actions are, in our opinion, a “Walmarting” of employment and lead to low wages, job insecurity, and a chipping away of benefits. This government’s actions bring us yet another step closer to the US model.

Can we not learn from Americans by not repeating their mistakes? Our Canadian society is based on a system where inequalities are less profound than in the United States where there are glaring disparities including huge gaps between the rich and the poor. As a Canadian and Quebecker, I want to stand up for the values of a fair and just society. I want to stand up for the rights of workers, the right to negotiate to improve conditions, so that each and every one of us may benefit.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member talk about the immense amount of knowledge he has in labour relations. On the one hand, of course, we have the hard hand of Bill C-6, which is a hammer, with legislation full of clauses that will clearly tie the hands of any arbitrator or mediator.

Given the fact that the official opposition had an opportunity to move an amendment last night, with the member's great knowledge and the knowledge of some of the others on his NDP team, why were the amendments not put forward in more of a conciliatory way, actually trying to find solutions and laying those solutions on the table, rather than simply deferring things for six months and letting them work it out? Why were some of those amendments not mapped out so that we could find solutions, rather than a continual debate between the extreme right and the extreme left that could go on for days?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in opposition to Bill C-6.

I would like to take us back to what we are talking about here in terms of our postal service.

A country with as vast a geographic scale as Canada obviously needs excellent communication. From the very earliest days of our country, we have placed a real priority on our mail service. The first paid mail delivery in Canada was back in 1693, hundreds of years ago. We have had a federal mail service since Confederation, since 1867.

It is logical, with Canada's vast land mass, that we have efficient, punctual and affordable mail service that works for all Canadians. It would be easy to design a mail service that works in the major urban centres and leaves behind the huge number of Canadians who live across this vast geography. What we have with Canada Post is a service that works for Canadians, whether they live in Inuvik, Vancouver Island, St. John's, Toronto or Montreal. That is the principle on which Canada Post was founded. This system, even to this day, works incredibly well.

Every single business day Canada Post handles 40 million pieces of mail. As a Canadian, I can send a letter to anywhere in this vast country for the princely sum of 59¢. That is a pretty good bargain. In countries such as Germany and Austria, which have a much smaller geography and have perhaps privatized their postal service, it costs 77¢ and 88¢ respectively to send a letter across much shorter geographic distances than we have in Canada.

Our postal service is not just something we should sneeze at. It was built into the fabric of this country. It was designed to help Canadians communicate with each other. It was designed to bring our country together across this vast geography. Of course it has a personal and an economic role but it also has a nation-building role.

Our postal service is a success story. We have a modern, efficient postal service, which is making a profit for Canadians. This money gets ploughed back into our coffers to the tune of $281 million a year. It is actually a money-maker for Canadians. It is a system that works quite well for us.

What we are seeing in this latest round of negotiations is a bit of a public relations war. Of course there are Canadians who are upset since Canada Post has locked out and shut the doors on its workforce. I am getting emails from small businesses in my constituency that want the mail service to resume, and I agree with them. We should have our mail service resume. This would be easily achieved if the government and Canada Post took the locks off the doors of our post offices right across this country and allowed postal workers to get back to work and resume sorting and delivering the mail right across Canada. Would that not be a good thing to have happen?

I have had constituents, including small businesses, tell me they are hearing that the bill the government has put forward would actually impose terms and conditions on Canada Post workers that are worse than the terms and conditions Canada Post is negotiating at the bargaining table. It would roll back the clock on their working conditions and on their pay and benefits.

Those same people, not all but some, have said they just want the parties to go back to the table and keep negotiating, not send them back saying they have to accept even worse terms and conditions than Canada Post was willing to pay at the bargaining table. How ridiculous is that?

What is the role of the government in deciding what the terms and conditions are going to be that would undercut even what the employer was willing to pay? I do not think that is what Canadians want to sign up for. That is not about getting the mail going. That is about imposing a labour relations regime in this country and rolling back the basic rights of Canadians, not just at Canada Post.

Let us think about it. That is telling employers across this country that they can get a better deal through the government and that they do not have to bargain with the union. They can get a better deal by going to the government and, rather than the government using the fine tools of labour relations to do the difficult work of negotiating a collective agreement or fostering the negotiation of a collective agreement between employers and employees, the government will take a sledgehammer and impose terms and conditions that will give employers a much better deal than they would ever have to fairly negotiate at the bargaining table.

What would that mean? It would mean that young people would be hired for lower wages than people have been hired in the past, almost 20% less than new hires were getting paid at Canada Post. It would mean lower wage rates, poorer benefits and the loss of the ability to get a pension. I do not think Canadians want this kind of intergenerational betrayal to be imposed by their government on working people in this country. They want a fair, efficient, functional postal service that will serve them, their communities and their businesses. What they do not want is this sledgehammer approach that rolls back the clock and betrays young people and their job opportunities for the future.

What do we say to our children and grandchildren about their job prospects? What do we say when they ask if they are going to have security throughout their working lives and in their retirement years? What kind of betrayal is that? What message is the government sending?

New Democrats do not think the sledgehammer approach is the way to go. We think the difficult work of rolling up sleeves, communicating effectively with both sides and fostering a negotiated settlement is the way to go, but Canadians do not have to wait until that is achieved. The government and Canada Post could take the locks off our postal system today, open the doors, allow postal workers to return to work, get the mail moving and then get back to negotiating a fair collective agreement.

Canadians understand clearly that this is not a strike that we are seeing. This is a lockout by the employer, clearly with the approval of the government. Canadians want it to end but they want it to end fairly. They do not want it to end by betraying young people and future generations or the service that has had such an important nation-building role in our country.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have risen in this House, but it is the first time I have made a speech. First, I would like to thank the voters of Chambly—Borduas for electing me to this position. Speaking of them, I also want to point out that like all my colleagues from Quebec, I will unfortunately not be able to take part in activities marking our national holiday in Quebec with my constituents. I do wish them a wonderful holiday, however. I want them to know that I am very disappointed not to be there.

What is happening is worthwhile, though, because it has given me an opportunity, on this national holiday, to put things in perspective. I would like to take a step back for a moment. I assure you that what I have to say is relevant and relates to the bill we have before us.

One of the activities I was going to take part in today was a performance put on by students at Osias-Leduc secondary school, entitled Je me souviens. All Quebeckers—and many Canadians—know that the motto Je me souviens appears on our licence plates in Quebec. But those words mean much more.

For one, they remind us to think about important historic events, such as the asbestos strike in 1949, which I think is relevant to this situation. I am not bringing this up to upset the member for Winnipeg Centre. The town is called Asbestos. We will not talk about the asbestos issue. One all-nighter is enough. Perhaps another time.

In all seriousness, I want to talk about the asbestos strike because, at that time, there was a serious issue in the labour dispute. It had to do with the language of work. People had no say. At that time, they literally had no say because management and workers did not speak the same language. Now, 60 years later, we find ourselves in the same situation: the workers have no say.

Responsibility for the lockout does not lie with Canada Post. It lies with the government, which wants to force a return to work and impose previously determined conditions that have been set out in the bill we are debating. I find it very problematic and very disappointing that, after 60 years, we are still in a similar situation, even though the circumstances have changed.

I would also like to tell a story about a woman in my riding who is a teacher. Last night, the Minister of Labour spoke about the 45,000 Canada Post workers, who, it seems, are less important than the rest of the Canadian public. However, we must not forget the big picture. My constituent was right to bring this up. She and her colleagues are constantly fighting for their fair share. Yes, I know what the members on the other side are thinking. They are going to give me a lesson. They are going to tell me that education is under provincial jurisdiction. I know that.

I am bringing up this example because the government needs to lead by example and show people that they can have a say, that they have a role to play in society. Be it through a union or some other means, they all have a right to their fair share in society.

This teacher, when she spoke to me about this, told me that she was worried that this bill would pass. Why? Because from that point forward she would be living in a society in which she did not even know whether she would be able to fight for her rights. She did not even know whether she could defend her right to have an acceptable collective agreement, get her pension, and so on.

This is all very relevant for me as a young person. With all due respect to our seniors, it is not only them we are thinking about and whom we have to think about when it comes to pensions. We must also think about young people. As young people, we do not even know if we will have pensions. Without unions or organizations that allow us to have a forum in which to speak, we cannot guarantee the security of these things, the security of pension plans.

That being said, this teacher certainly took notice of what the 308 members of this House wanted. Yes, we want the mail to be delivered again.

However, she said it very clearly. We can spend the whole night, as we have done, taking out our BlackBerrys and saying that we have received an email from some person or another saying that the workers should go back to work or that they should not and that we are doing the right thing. However, the fact remains that the letter carriers, Canada Post employees, were delivering the mail. It was management that decided to declare a lockout, not the workers. People, including those from Quebec, know this. It strikes at the very core of the community values we hold in Quebec.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity, with all due respect to the people in the rest of the country, to note that today is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. It is indeed important to remember. We need to be able to say “Je me souviens”, I remember this important event and the fact that, 60 years later, we are still fighting for the same thing. That being said, this is why we must oppose Bill C-6.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In public policy we have essentially nine instruments that any government can use to solve any policy problem. Sometimes a combination of the instruments is used. I will just walk through these, because it is really what the government should be considering as it goes through any policy problem, including this one.

The first instrument that the other side of the House would probably favour in most circumstances is a market solution. It is the least coercive solution, where the government is hands-off and lets the parties solve things.

The second has a little bit more coercion. It is something called the symbolic gesture. The government might strike a commission to look into the situation, and the commission might make a report that is non-binding. The government is making some kind of expenditure, but it is not binding in any kind of way.

The third is exhortation, or asking people to do things publicly. The government could have asked the two sides to come together and make a solution for the good of Canada. Again, it is expending money, but it is not actually doing anything forceful at this point.

The two next ones would be tax expenditure. The government could kind of give people a break on taxes. I do not think that is applicable in this situation. You could do public spending: you might be able to supplement one of the sides to make up for the problems they are having.

Another instrument might be regulation. Again, that is a non-forceful way of regulating how the two bodies would talk together.

Another solution might be taxation.

Public ownership would be to totally reabsorb Canada Post back into the government.

The last one, of course, is a state of emergency. A state of emergency is perhaps the most draconian thing a government can do. What they can do is basically force parties back to the table in this situation.

What is strange to me is that a government that professes to be non-coercive and professes to say that market solutions are the way forward in most situations in fact has gone to the other end of the scale and used the most coercive measure possible to try to end this lockout.

I am quite puzzled by that. I do not understand why this has been the policy instrument the government has chosen to use in this situation. Perhaps it would have been better to leave the parties to work these things out on their own. Not forcing them back to work would definitely be preferable to the current Bill C-6 that is before us.

In closing, I have enjoyed the debate. I look forward to future debate on this. It is a great pleasure to stand and speak in this House.

Thank you very much.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you might indulge me for one moment, this is my first time rising to speak on a debate, so I would like to thank the good members of my riding of Burnaby—Douglas for electing me to this place. I would also like to thank my family, who supported me all the way through the election, as well as my lovely wife Jeanette, who has been by my side right through and still may be watching me on CPAC from B.C.

I would also, if I could, beg your indulgence for one more moment. My brother-in-law is very ill, and my thoughts are with him tonight. So if I am a little rattled, I am thinking about him.

I found this debate over the course of last night and this morning fascinating. I am not from a union family. I have been a short time in a union. However, to hear the passion that has been spoken on both sides of the House I think is a credit to the House. It is fantastic that we can come to a place like this, that we can express our opinions and debate each other, most of the time in a civil way. I think the decorum that has come to this House is really something we should all be proud of, and I hope we can keep it up, even though we are dog-tired.

As I said, I am not from a union family at all. In fact, my father is a management consultant. He has worked for very large companies, such as IBM, Westinghouse, and a lot of others. My own experience in life has been through private and public sector work.

One thing that is of great concern to me is what events like this do to the morale of large companies, of large organizations. I am very concerned that the tug, the pull, the struggle between the workers and the management is going to cause long-term damage to a very important Canadian institution, whatever the outcome. I hope that comes into the conversation at some point, the long-term impacts this will have.

I am not from a union family. I am not in the private sector. I am in the public sector, a university professor. What I do, essentially, is public policy analysis. That is my thing. So I feel a little over my head when I hear all the terms and phrases, conditions and ideas that are being used here. However, I have learned a lot, thanks to the contributions from both sides of the House.

What I am trying to figure out is what the problem is here. In public policy analysis, what we do is try to identify a problem first, work through a number of options, come up with viable solutions, and then try to implement those solutions.

Fom what I can see here, the problem that is facing the government, and indeed the whole House, is the problem that workers have been locked out from Canada Post.

This has been a gradual escalation. There have been tensions between the workers and the management. This has gone on for some time. There were rotating strikes. From what I can understand, there was not a full strike. Then the management decided to lock out the workers.

There has been some dispute in the House as to whether it has been a strike or whether it has been a lockout. So just to make sure of my facts, I decided to go through the various news sources to figure out whether it is a strike or a lockout.

I started with my favourite source, which is the National Post business section. It does say, indeed, that this is a lockout, that the employer has indeed locked out the employees.

I went to the business section of The Globe and Mail, and it indeed says it is a lockout as well.

I went to the CTV News website. It says it is a lockout.

I went to CBC News, both radio and television. They are saying it is a lockout.

So from what I can understand, the problem that is facing the government is that a crown corporation, which is at arm's length from the government, has locked out its employees.

I was struggling for a while. I thought maybe it was a strike and maybe the government is portraying the facts as they should be. I thought maybe this is a strike and this is the problem why the government is moving so quickly to force this measure through the House. But indeed it is not a strike. It is a lockout. I think this side of the House has tried to make that point time and time again. I think it is time we should recognize that this is what we are facing here, and that is indeed the core of the problem that is facing both the government and us here on this side of the House.

What we are debating here this morning is Bill C-6, an act to provide for the resumption of postal services, restoring mail delivery. There is a lockout at Canada Post, and the government has decided to force the workers back to work. That is the government's policy solution.

I have been puzzling through the discussions that have been going on in this House. I have been puzzling through the explanations as to why this is occurring, the effects this is having, and trying to decide whether indeed this is the best solution.

In public policy, there are essentially nine instruments that any government can use, or perhaps a combination of these instruments, in any kind of policy situation. They can be put in any kind of order, but how I like to organize them is in order of coercion. I like to organize them in a sense of how much muscle the government has to use to get its will through.

The first thing that—

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I spent the whole night wondering what I am doing here. Yes, there is Bill C-6, but what is really keeping us here is an ideological barrier, and this barrier is not created only by this side, by a fanatical group of unionists. Personally, I have never been part of a union. Unions defend perfectly legitimate rights. I do not understand why we are discussing this.

When a very sincere young woman stated her point of view with some emotion, I saw some of the members opposite laughing. To me, this is serious. If this were really a serious issue for them, they would not be laughing. If they want to make people laugh, they are already off to a good start. Look at what they did when things were not working at Canada Post: they closed the doors. If the statistics are not good, they eliminate the survey. It is raining in Saskatchewan, so they fire the weatherman. That is the type of logic we are seeing.

I am from Quebec and I should be at home celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, but I believe in one thing. The reason why I ran for a federal party is that I believed that it was possible to do something positive with the rest of Canada. I told myself that, in this great country, there were certainly a sufficient number of people who were interested in doing something positive. However, what I am finding out from seeing the members opposite turning around and talking to each other, is that they are ignoring the members on this side of the House. If they do not want to listen to me, then they should listen to Laurence Cannon, who was the only Conservative member who had anything intelligent to say the night of the most recent election. He realized that his party had become a regional party. If the Conservatives do not know what a regional party is, they need only look in the corner of the other side of the House and they will see two members of regional parties.

There is an expression that says, “He who laughs last laughs best.” They can continue to laugh for four years but things may not seem as funny to them then.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker. I began by speaking about Bill C-6 and I will continue to speak about it. I am trying to provide some context.

I was saying that this same spirit leads us to support letter carriers in their demands. We are a united people. Post offices are the cornerstones of our communities in the regions. They are indispensable for communication between communities. We depend on them for affordable communications, to communicate amongst ourselves and to communicate with other Quebeckers and other Canadians. It is an essential service and the daily prejudice that we are subject to is intolerable.

The letter carriers in our communities understand that we depend on their services. They have never failed to give us excellent service. Throughout their negotiations with Canada Post, they continued to sort and deliver our mail. It is easy to understand why. These people are part of our community. They are our brothers, sisters and neighbours. They are just as much a part of our community as our other constituents. They know that, without them, we all lose.

Right now families cannot communicate with one another. Small and medium-sized businesses are having a hard time getting paid for services they have provided. Seniors are not receiving their benefits. Unemployed people are having a hard time receiving their benefits. The workers are not the ones preventing the mail from being delivered. During the negotiations, they made sure that the mail was delivered. It was the employer, Canada Post, that declared a lockout. The Conservative government is the one trying to force them back to work. Canada Post Corporation—a crown corporation—and our government seem to have forgotten that the workers offered to go back to work. What is worse, the bill before us would impose a lower salary offer.

I want to quote a statement from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers:

The bill legislates wage increases that fall significantly below Canada Post’s last offer of 1.9% in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and 2.0 % in 2014. The law includes increases of 1.75 % in 2011, 1.5% in 2012, 2% in 2013 and 2% in 2014. This would take $875.50 out of the pockets of an average full-time postal worker during the four years of the agreement. It represents a theft of $35 million from postal workers and their families.

It is shameful. Postal workers work hard to guarantee a good, reliable, profitable service, a crown corporation service that generates a profit for the Canadian government. It is a corporation that provides an essential service, and that is able to do so reliably and even generate a profit. Should we not rather get the workers involved, motivate them, and show them we appreciate them by giving them an appropriate salary that reflects their contribution? We should also protect their pensions. Questions must be asked.

Our Canada Post Corporation employees in the regions provide exceptional service. They know us and we know them. They want to do their best to help us but the government wants to decrease their salaries and reduce the services.

I will quote the Canadian Union of Postal Workers once again:

On Saturday, September 12, 2009, the federal Conservatives quietly announced a Canadian Postal Service Charter that outlines the government’s expectations for Canada Post in regard to service standards and other matters.

The Charter largely reiterates existing policy and includes an expectation that Canada Post will maintain “the moratorium on the closure of rural post offices.”

The Charter also acknowledges that providing postal services to rural areas is an integral part of universal postal service.

While it’s a good start, the Charter isn’t altogether reasonable.

Retirement, illness, death, or the corporation's infrastructure—for example, the termination of a lease or even a fire—“may, nevertheless, affect the ongoing operation of a post office.”

Rural post offices are threatened. The post offices of , Quebec's Gaspé region have a long history. I would like to share some facts provided by Daniel Arpin, a philatelist. In 1705, in the territory we now call Canada, a postal service between Quebec City, Trois-Rivières and Montreal was established by the French regime. That same year, a postal service was established in New Carlisle—in my riding—in the Gaspé. In 1763, the service fell under the control of the British Empire and was managed by Benjamin Franklin. In February 1851, the New Carlisle postmaster created his own stamp, an unauthorized stamp, one that is much sought after by stamp collectors.

All that to say that the postal service has a long history in Canada and the Gaspé. Postal services are vital to our communities, but they are continually being whittled away. Rural mailboxes are being replaced by superboxes. Increasingly, we find ourselves collecting the mail on the side of the road, in places that could be dangerous. We are distancing ourselves from the rural post office that serves a community meeting place, and which is often the only place that flies the Canadian flag. It is considered a cultural symbol representing Canada in the region.

The new philosophy is no longer based on providing service, and services are now being curtailed and eliminated.This philosophy leads to the reduction of services in communities and the erosion of workers' rights. It makes life difficult for my constituents, for small and medium-sized businesses. We must support our fellow workers against attacks by this intolerable bill. We will do all we can to oppose it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that we are debating Bill C-6 this morning. I did not realize that it would maybe turn into a Friday free-for-all. The member has not yet mentioned the bill in question that we are debating in his presentation. Perhaps he could get to the subject at hand.

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

That heckle is typical of the attitude of the government. It is typical of the ignorance that t shows. Members opposite say on this one that they should have signed the agreement, but what about the other clauses that are very much against the interest of the union membership.

From a profitable corporation they are asking for clawbacks of a significant nature, changing the collective bargaining arrangement that has some clauses that have been in place for over 20 years, and over a series of collective agreements during that period of time. In spite of their profitability the government is saying it is going to take that away and they are going to lose some of the benefits.

We could go down the list. There are a number of them that Canada Post has asked that of.

I want to deal with another issue with regard to the bill and why it is just bad legislation. This bill, as opposed to using the traditional mediation-arbitration clauses as contained in most back-to-work legislation, has completely done away with that in Bill C-6 and replaced it with final offer selection.

In the last two to five years in Canada and in the United States, we could go back and find studies, decisions by labour boards and decisions by courts that have said that the use of final offer selection works fine when you have a professional athlete, when you have a very small workforce. It does not work, and it has been shown repeatedly, when there is a large workforce and a complex collective agreement.

That is what the government is trying to force on the parties with this legislation. Final offer selection almost always works to the benefit of the management side. The government knows that. It has decided that as a policy. In all back-to-work legislation we are going to see from the government it is going to enforce that in every single one of them, in spite of those decisions from the labour boards and our courts.

The hoist motion is very appropriate here. I would urge all members of the House to support it when it comes to a vote some time in the next 24 hours.

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

Madam Speaker, I think everyone in the House knows that we are currently debating a hoist motion on Bill C-6. The hoist motion goes back to Westminster. It has been around for about 150 or 160 years. When the Leader of the Opposition moved the motion yesterday evening, it was done advisedly.

The hoist motion is specifically designed to deal with legislation that is either premature, irresponsible in its nature, or just plain bad legislation. It is a motion that should not take up the time of the House for any one of those three reasons. Bill C-6 meets all three requirements. It is premature, it is grossly irresponsible and it is plain bad legislation. Again, I say that advisedly.

Today is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. We and the members of the Bloc Québécois have tried on several occasions to convince the government to adjourn today so that the members, especially those from the province of Quebec, could return to their ridings to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. But the government refused.

It is irresponsible on the government's part to do that. It is a national holiday for the francophone community in Quebec and across the country. Bringing the bill forward at this period of time shows that the government does not know what it is doing. The government believed it could shove this down our throats. Because Saint-Jean-Baptiste is June 24, it thought we would buckle and give in to that intimidation. That is also a typical bullying tactic for which the government is well known.

This is a bad bill, so the hoist motion should proceed successfully, I would urge. It is a very clear interference by a government in the collective bargaining process.

The NDP has a long history of opposing this type of legislation. We recognize that there are times when this will come forward. Even by those standards, using the standards of the Conservative government or a Liberal government, this bill is premature.

It is also incredibly naive on the part of the government. It shows a serious lack of understanding of how the collective bargaining process works. It so clearly and blatantly takes one side, not only on this bill, but on the bill that was before us last week with regard to Air Canada. A very clear signal goes out to the management side. It should not worry about bargaining in good faith. It should not worry about performing its job on the management side, of engaging their employees in proper collective bargaining. All it has to do is create either the appearance of, which is usual in these two cases, a crisis or create an actual crisis by its conduct. If management does that, it knows the government will step in. Not only will it step in, it will step in and take management's side. There is no other message from the government that one could take, based on these two pieces of legislation in these last two weeks.

The government has made it very clear, both from the bill we saw last week with regard to Air Canada, and Bill C-6 this week with regard to Canada Post. There were clauses in the bill last week, and I say this as a lawyer who has looked at a lot of collective agreements over the years, that could very easily have been written by the management side. There are clauses in Bill C-6 that similarly could easily have been written by Canada Post, entirely in its interest and entirely against the interest of its employees.

We have heard repeatedly this evening of the clause. It gets back to the intimidation the government uses all the time. It is saying to the workers that since they did not take what was offered to them on June 9, they will get less now.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise, although it perhaps is not an hour I would have chosen. It is not even prime time in British Columbia anymore.

I will begin by acknowledging that many Canadians go to work every day at this time. I acknowledge those who work as cleaners, those women and men across the country who clean our office buildings and our schools. It is not a very big sacrifice for me to be here at this time. They quite often work a second or third job to support their families.

I also acknowledge those who work in restocking the big box stores and the food stores across the country who often have to struggle to find child care at that time of the night so they can hold down the two or three jobs they need to afford housing and a better future for their children.

I acknowledge the health care workers, the health care professionals, the doctors, the nurses and the other professionals who work around the clock to help all of us enjoy better health. They are often working at this hour of the night.

In particular, I acknowledge the emergency services workers, the police, fire and ambulance, who are working at this hour of the night and quite often dealing with those problems that the rest of us do not deal with during the daytime, those problems of addiction and mental illness that we leave them to deal with at this hour of the night.

I also acknowledge those who serve in our military who work day and night around the clock to keep us safe and are quite often working at this hour.

On a normal day, postal workers would be working at this hour sorting the mail to help keep our economy running, sorting the mail to get it out to those seniors and charities who depend on the mail, and sorting the mail for small businesses in my riding that use Canada Post to deliver their products and make a profit to support their families.

For me, it seems late, but for many of those people, it is a normal time to go to work.

Why are we here tonight? I think there is one thing we share on both sides of this House. We share the importance of Canada Post to this country in so many ways.

I mentioned seniors and the disabled who wait for their cheques in the mail. I mentioned charities. Many workers receive their paycheques through Canada Post. Many small businesses do their business using the services of Canada Post. However, perhaps even more important to many families, they wait for Canada Post to hear from their family members across the country or abroad as a way of keeping in touch, one of the only ways they can afford when they are having trouble making ends meet at the end of the month.

One of the things I wish we would agree on is that Canada Post has done a fine job providing this service as a publicly-owned service that makes a profit on behalf of all Canadians while still delivering an excellent service that would not be delivered to so many communities if it were left to the private sector.

We clearly differ on some things tonight and I will talk about some of those differences.

One area on which we differ is the narrative of this dispute. The government likes to talk about these long negotiations but it leaves out the basic fact of those negotiations, which is that Canada Post was making a profit of $281 million. Where does that profit come from? It comes from the labour of those people who go to work every day and work hard to deliver that quality service that Canadians use. Therefore, when it comes time for collective bargaining, it is time to share some of that profit not just with taxpayers in general but with those people who go to work every day and work hard to ensure Canada Post is a profitable corporation. When they see the CEO being paid nearly half a million dollars, plus a 33% bonus, then it is not hard to understand why workers voted more than 94% for a strike to get their fair share of those profits. They voted for a strike because they are faced with a company that is trying to roll back their wages and roll back their benefits when there is no economic necessity to do so.

The second difference we have is in our understanding of what makes for a successful economy. The government seems committed to moving Canada to a low wage economy and thinking that somehow this will promote growth and prosperity in the future. I would like to remind all members in this House that Canada's greatest period of growth came in the 1950s and 1960s. What was that period in our history? That was our period of greatest equality in this country. It is equality and sharing the wealth that leads to economic growth and progress in the future.

The government's agenda is really something other than the financial health of Canada Post. I think it is to put us firmly on that path of a race to the bottom and a belief that this low-wage economy will somehow make us more competitive with other countries around the world, and that somehow this will produce the miracle of prosperity in the future.

I have heard from small businesses in my riding and they understand when workers do not have enough to make ends meet, do not have enough to go to the corner store to buy bread, do not have enough to pay for child care or do not have enough to buy houses. They know that an economy offering solid wages and providing a good living for families is the best way for small business to prosper as well.

There is a very important work that influenced me greatly over the last year called The Spirit Level , written by two British epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. The book's subtitle, Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, is very interesting.

The authors looked at the scientific evidence in 11 different areas of health and social measures. They looked at physical health, including how long people live and how often they are ill. They looked at mental health and what the frequency of mental health problems were in a society. On drug abuse they studied how high the addiction rates were. They looked at educational achievement and how long people stayed in school and how successful they were. They looked at the rates of imprisonment and how often people fell into conflict with the law. They looked at obesity, an increasing health problem in our own country. They looked at social mobility and how equal was a society and how likely were kids from different economic backgrounds able to succeed. They looked at social trust and whether people could trust their neighbourhood and feel safe in their neighbourhood and in their own homes. They looked at teen pregnancies and they looked at child poverty.

What did they find? They found that the countries that do best on the equality measures do best in every one of those 11 measures of social progress.

Thus, when we look at what is happening with Bill C-6, we see exactly the wrong remedy being applied for a successful society, not just economically but as a place all of us want to live and in which we want our children to live in the future.

The three key mechanisms for achieving equality are: a living wage, sound pension plans and equal access to education and health care. The problem for me with the bill that is before us is that it makes a very direct attack on two of those three key mechanisms.

The first of those mechanisms is obviously a living wage. I have heard people catcalling, which is perhaps the best description used by the hon. member, and asking why workers should earn these high wages and why postal workers earn this much money. They earn these wages because that is what it takes in our society to support a family. Their union has struggled to ensure they receive enough to make ends meet at the end of the month, to set a little bit aside for their retirement and to put some money away for their kids' education. That is what this is really about.

The government has brought in a proposal that suggests lower wages than Canada Post actually had on the table at the beginning of this dispute. This is an attack on a living wage in our society.

We will all do better and we will all be more prosperous when everybody can afford to make ends meet at the end of the month.

The second key mechanism for achieving equality is a sound pension plan. What does this proposal do? It says that we cannot really do anything about the fact that some workers have good pensions and those pensions cannot really be taken away from them. Instead, it could have tried to ensure that all workers enjoy a secure retirement future by doing something that would be very easy, which is to expand the Canada pension plan. The NDP campaigned very hard on that and we found a very broad agreement across the country.

Instead, this legislation proposes taking the new workers and denying them pension security in the future. That is the wrong solution both for economic and for social progress in this country.

I will return to the question of why this is important by telling members a couple of stories. My grandmother was a postal worker and her husband, my grandfather, was a self-employed plumber. When it came time to retire, if it had not been for my grandmother's postal worker pension, they would have had nothing. Why was that? It was because they did not earn enough to save and buy RRSPs and pay fees to Bay Street to manage their wealth. They donated heavily in their community to support very important church and community work in which they were involved. They raised four kids and tried to put through university. At the end of the day, if it had not for my grandmother's postal worker pension, they would have been living in abject poverty. However, because she had a pension, they were able to get by and live with dignity in their retirement. After my grandmother died, my grandfather was able to live, through a survivor benefit, on her pension.

In my family, we know the great importance of these public pension plans. What we had in my family, I very much desire every Canadian family to have, which is a secure retirement for their parents and their grandparents.

My second story is about postal workers in my riding. My letter carrier is Julie. We move rather frequently but we move within the same postal walk. Therefore, no matter where that mail is addressed to, Julie writes on the front, “Please change your address”, and puts it in our box anyway. She has become a great friend of ours over the last four to five years.

I have heard from her colleagues many times today and I want to cite one of them who asked to be named tonight. She said, “I want you to tell the government”, from Sherry Partington of Victoria, “yes, I want to go back to work, but I want to go back to work under a contract that is fair and negotiated and not forced down my throat by the government”.

I want to address another issue because the members on the other side have tried to turn this into a union worker versus a non-union worker kind of dispute. I am very proud to stand and say that I am a member and my dues are still current in my own union as a college instructor.

When I was on the campaign trail, I knocked on a door where a young man said to me, “Well, you're pro-union. What have unions ever done for me?” We talked about what the labour movement has achieved for all Canadians in this country through collective bargaining and through political action and alliance with the NDP. We had a lot to talk about. My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway has already mentioned some of these things, but I asked my constituent if he got sick pay at work. He said that of course he did. I said to him that he was not a union member and asked him where he thought the sick pay came from. I also asked him how many hours he worked a day and he replied that he did not work more than eight hours. I then asked him where he thought that came from and told him that it came from the union movement. I then asked him if he had weekends off and if he liked weekends. I then asked him whether he still thought the union movement never gave him anything.

We then went on to talk about holiday pay, overtime pay, extended health benefits, shift differential, pension plans, health and safety committees, parental leave, and now, many unions are leading the way on childcare, anti-discrimination and anti-harassment in the workplace. By the time we were done, he said that maybe he could vote for me after all because I had given him some important information on the contributions unions have made. He really did not know that history.

Therefore, I am very proud to stand here tonight. I believe we are still discussing the hoist. When other members ask why we are not moving amendments, it is because we are still on a hoist motion and, therefore, it is not the appropriate time to do that. However, I believe it is not too late for a deal here and it is not too late for the government to come to its senses. There are a couple of ways this could be done. If the government does not want to just take the lock off, end the lockout and let postal workers go back to work under the existing contract, as they offered to do, then there may be some other compromises that can be reached in this back to work legislation.

However, this debate is not just about the mail and not just about collective bargaining or union rights. This debate is about the kind of Canada in which we all want to live in the future: the vision we have for ourselves as a community and the vision we have for all of our children and our grandchildren to come.

Unions, particularly the postal workers union, have fought hard for decent pay and benefits to support their members' families. Locking out workers and imposing a contract tramples on those hard-fought gains. It turns back the clock. It sets dangerous precedents. Canada Post belongs to all Canadians and the benefits that go to Canada Post workers, we stand on this side and say, are the kind of benefits we should work to achieve for all workers in our great country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will summarize our essential position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is all I can say at the moment.

I therefore move:

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

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what happened in the case of Canada Post?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of my colleague, but I have to ask him quite sincerely if he has actually looked at the clauses in Bill C-6? Has the hon. member looked at it from the objective of having to be fair to all sides of this issue? How can the hon. member stand there and defend legislation that clearly has only one objective, which is to break the back of the union?

Has he has actually read the clauses and is he comfortable with them? On this side of the House we are looking for compromises on various sides of the issue. Compromise means both sides. It does not mean just one side.

Has the hon. member looked at the clauses in Bill C-6 and can he tell me that he is able to live with himself when he votes for this legislation?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on the speech he made with all the passion we expect from him.

Could Bill C-6, which is before the House, not create a dangerous precedent with respect to the potential erosion of public services in the future?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who gave a good summary of the current situation, with all the passion we expect from him.

I would like to know whether the steps undertaken in Bill C-6 create a dangerous precedent with respect to the erosion of public services and collective bargaining.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, since the members of the government have been quoting emails constantly today, I would like to quote from an email that I got just a few minutes ago.

The email is from George, who said, “Since Canada Post has locked out the workers and thus stopped the mail service in Canada, creating great hardships on businesses and families, does it seem just for the Government of Canada to punish its workers with Bill C-6? Indeed, since the full mail stoppage is caused by the management of Canada Post who directly answers to the Government of Canada, should the Government of Canada not be directing Canada Post to remove its lockout?”

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Cape Breton—Canso. I have been in his riding before. It is a very beautiful part of the world but it has a distinction very similar to mine, which is that it is very rural. Therefore, I am sure he understands how the people and constituents of his riding will suffer because of this stoppage.

With regard to the workers wanting to go back to work, I have had many Canada Post employees also tell me that they would like to go to work but it was after they realized that going on rotating strikes would force a lockout. I think a lot of them, in so many words, are regretting that.

The bottom line is that yes, we all want them back to work, but we do not want them to go back and start their rotating strikes, which is quite likely to happen.

We are here with Bill C-6 and I again urge my colleagues to support it today.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to this issue. I wish that we were not here having to deal with this, but unfortunately we are.

I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for bringing forward the legislation on Monday evening. This measure is certainly necessary under the circumstances to restore an essential service to all Canadians.

I have a very rural riding. Since the start of the rotating strikes and then the lockout, I have been inundated with comments from rural constituents of mine, particularly those who run small- and medium-size businesses. That is the heart of Canada.

Before I carry on, I just want to read an example of the kind of comments I am getting. This comes from Rebecca, who said:

As a small business owner of a fledgling internet store, I can very honestly say that this stoppage of mail has almost killed my business.... I am receiving zero orders, and my customers are taking their business elsewhere. Using a courier for delivery is far too costly for me at this time. I hope that your majority government can bring this dispute to a timely completion.

That is a prime example of the kind of comments I am receiving.

After the minister tabled the legislation on Monday, that evening a poll done by an independent source found that 70% of Canadians are in support of this legislation. Many of the residents in my riding share the same sentiment.

I ask my hon. colleagues to think about the last time they experienced a power failure, a temporary loss of water, a shutdown of the elevators in their building, or a problem with their computer networks. We have all been through something like that. Even a very brief loss of a service or a system we depend on can cause a lot of stress. The longer that service is unavailable, the more it affects our quality of life.

When any crucial element in our infrastructure breaks down or is put out of commission, some people will suffer more than others. The poor, the elderly and people with disabilities are less able to adapt. They have fewer alternatives. There are even fewer alternatives for rural Canadians, like my constituents in my very rural riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

When a basic service or system breaks down or is withdrawn, everyone looks to the government to respond as quickly as possible to restore it, even if drastic action is necessary.

Our government believes that this work stoppage, if prolonged, has the potential to cause a lot of economic hardship. It will cause a lot of damage to our economy as many businesses in this country are just beginning to get back on their feet and the loss of postal services will just knock them down again. It will also cause grief to ordinary people who depend on the mail.

There are some who say that we can live without postal services for a while. This may be true, because there are always alternatives. Yes, there are some people and some businesses that will be able to weather this situation in relative comfort because they do have those alternatives. But those alternatives are not available or affordable for everyone, especially rural Canadians. There is no reason ordinary Canadians who are not involved in the dispute between Canada Post and CUPW should have to suffer.

Lightning or a surprise strike is unpredictable; nobody can really prepare for it. However, this work stoppage was not unforeseeable nor was it inevitable. Our government certainly did everything possible to prevent a strike or a lockout. We worked with Canada Post and CUPW for months to try to help them reach a settlement. Our efforts were unavailing.

Now Canadians want us to act, because the cost of this strike to our economy and to our society have become unbearable. The Government of Canada is not helpless. We have the means to solve this problem. I want to emphasize that we have legal means provided for in the Canada Labour Code. We have the right and the responsibility to use our powers to legislate an end to the work stoppage and to appoint an arbitrator. It is time to act.

That is why our government has introduced Bill C-6 and we are taking decisive action on behalf of all Canadians.

The bill imposes a four year contract and new pay rate increases; yes, increases. That will mean a 1.75% increase as of February 1, 2011; 1.5% as of February 2012; 2% as of February 2013; and 2% as of February 2014. It also provides for final offer selection, a binding mechanism on all outstanding matters.

In making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator would be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries. The arbitrator would also strive to ensure the short and long term economic viability and competitiveness of the Canada Post Corporation, maintain the health and safety of its workers and maintain the sustainability of its pension plan.

The terms and conditions of employment must also take into account that the solvency ratio of the pension plan must not decline as a direct result of the new collective agreement and that the Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse, undo increases in postal rates, operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.

Canadians have been patient but enough is enough. Canada is recovering slowly but steadily from the deep recession. That is why I am asking my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-6. Let us help Canada Post refocus and build a postal service for the 21st century. Let us keep Canada working. Let us protect rural mail delivery.

I want to point out to my hon. colleagues that this has a far more adverse effect on rural mail delivery than any us may be realizing. I want hon. members to think long and hard about that. It is rural mail delivery that will suffer the hardest and the longest because of this. That is another reason that we need to pass this legislation.

I talked about many of the people I have heard from in my riding. The other people I have heard from are seniors on a very fixed pension. I will not get into the details of their pension, but Joel and Greta write:

For elderly people on a fixed income...it is hard to comprehend that people making in excess of $50,000--are not happy. I have a grandson who was tickled pink to find a summer job, 3 days per week @ $12.00 per hour.

They point out the hardships, but basically, if we read the underlying facts, it points out the fact that their grandson, who is just entering the workforce, realizes how lucky he is to have a job in these times.

I have another one from Kathie, who writes:

I am very much looking forward to the end of the postal problem. I have a very small business and I have $2000 in invoices not received. If I am one sample of small business in Canada, we cannot afford to continue the labour problem.

I do try to side with the working people.... But small business in Canada needs their service.

So I urge parliament to legislate the end of the lockout....

In another one I have, Lisa talks about urban versus rural, which I spoke about. She writes:

It's easy to get to an Urban group box they are on every corner it's not in Rural areas. People would have to drive miles to get their mail. This isn't fair. Thank you for your support.

The reason I read those is to point out, not only the problem with this work stoppage and the problem we are having overall, but to point out the difference between urban and rural. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the House come from very rural ridings just like I do, and their people will suffer long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to say I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

Today is a dark day for Canada. The tabling of Bill C-6 is a blot on respect for democratic rights and workers’ right of association. This day will not go down in history as one where the government showed great respect for Canadians and for the rights of union members. The good news is that maybe the Conservative government has finally been unmasked. The mask has fallen away, revealing its true face. Unfortunately, it is not a pretty sight to behold. What we see is a government that is authoritarian, arrogant and contemptuous of working people, who just want to do their jobs in a reasonably healthy, safe environment. Instead of extending them a hand and pushing for real negotiations with the postal workers’ union, the government gets out its bazooka and bludgeon and tries to force the employees back to work by means of a special act, which even imposes salary conditions while not allowing the arbitrator to make a decision in full knowledge of the facts after drawing comparisons with the market and the economic situation at Canada Post.

I want to emphasize that this is a crazy, surrealistic, even Kafkaesque situation. I would encourage my colleagues to read The Trial by Kafka. It is very interesting and there are some strong parallels with the situation in which the postal workers now find themselves.

Since their negotiations were going nowhere and the employer was insisting on cutbacks in the collective agreement—I will talk a little later about the health and safety problems and the discriminatory treatment, especially in regard to the pension plans, which are a topic of great concern to many Quebeckers and Canadians these days—the union wanted to start applying gradual pressure. It did not want to launch a general strike because it did not want to paralyze the system. It wanted to use gentle pressure tactics at first, affecting one city at a time for 24 hours. The rest of the country would continue to function. This would get the employees talking and raise the awareness of Canadians, and the media would take an interest. That is how a dialogue is started with the public to move the issue along while pressuring the employer in a way that is legal, peaceful and progressive.

After only a few days, what did the employer do? The employer is a crown corporation and the government is ultimately responsible for it. The employer imposed a lockout. It shut down Canada Post across the country. It created the problem itself. The Conservative government is telling us that this is a terrible situation that is jeopardizing the economic recovery and the economic health of the country. But it is the one that created this situation by locking out the employees. If it is responsible for this paralysis, why is the government now riding in like a knight in shining armour to save the day and solve the problem, saying that everything will be fine, that it will bring in special legislation to force workers back to work? That is absurd. The Conservatives are the ones who stopped the delivery of regular mail across the country. Why do they not stand up and urge Canada Post to put an end to the lockout and to return to the bargaining table? This would enable members from Quebec to return to Quebec to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day tomorrow with their constituents.

I would imagine that Michel Chartrand is rarely quoted in the House of Commons, but the Conservative government cannot invoke its own turpitude. It created this situation. It must take responsibility and put an end to the lockout in the interests of the unionized workers and their rights, and also in the interests of the people and the small and medium-sized businesses of this country.

The situation is even more absurd, since Canada Post is a remarkable, efficient, economical and profitable public service. Let me be clear: the private sector does not offer an alternative way to move such a high volume of mail every day from coast to coast. This is the best way we have to ensure that Canadians can send mail to other Canadians and to people around the world.

As well as being efficient, it is economical, because it is a public service that does not cost a lot of money. If we draw comparisons with many other countries, like Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, the price of regular stamps to send a letter in Canada is lower than in most other OECD countries. Furthermore, and this needs to be emphasized and repeated, last year, Canada Post made about $281 million in profits.

Why attack the rights of workers? Why create a pension plan that will be less beneficial for new employees? Why risk the health and safety of workers when we have a public firm that works well and makes money to boot? Where is the problem? Why does the Conservative government want to force these people to take a step backwards? Why attack the working conditions of 50,000 people across the country? Why attack the living conditions of 50,000 families across the country? Is that how the Conservatives plan to treat workers and their families over the next four years? Is this how the Conservative government envisions the future for workers and the working class: moving further and further backwards? That is unacceptable.

Another very important aspect of all this, beyond working conditions, is that we are dealing with the fundamental issue of respecting people's rights. In the Canadian federation, certain rights are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is important to remember this. Canadians have the right to associate. They have the right to organize. They have the right to express themselves. They have the right to negotiate freely and to exert pressure, as set out in the Canada Labour Code. And that is what the Conservative government is attacking. It wants to destroy these rights. It wants to sweep them under the rug and tell people, “Hey, you have no choice; now get back to work”.

This is a threat to respect for the rights of all Canadians. All of the groups that are making demands, talking, protesting, getting organized and trying to peacefully improve things are worried today. Has history taught us that this is how progress is made? Is this how we moved past the middle ages, the industrial age and the widespread exploitation of workers? No, those things happened because people got together, joined forces, organized themselves and defended themselves, which resulted in social policies, social rights, the right to unionize, to bargain collectively, to have a labour contract that the employer must respect and to strike. That is why today, workers and Canadians are better off than they were a century or a century and a half ago.

The Conservative bill does not give the arbitrator the freedom and opportunity to decide on the best salary increase for Canada Post employees. This is unusual, new and very, very strange. We think that it adds insult to injury by setting salary increases that are lower than the employer's last offer. Should it not be the arbitrator, along with the two parties, deciding on the appropriate salary increases? How is it that the government is trying to save money by using special legislation that strips an arbitrator of the powers he usually has to settle this type of dispute?

If the employer felt it could offer these salary increases, then why is the Conservative government getting involved and imposing lower increases than the employer was offering? The employer itself acknowledged it could offer more and show more respect for the workers. Forcing the arbitrator to decide on lower salary increases is akin to stealing $35 million out of the pockets of Canada Post employees over the next four years. Just imagine what future labour relations are going to be like in that sector. Imagine how motivated these men and women are going to be if a labour contract is shoved down their throats. Is that how the government shows respect for those who provide good service across the country?

I think the government should react and respect the Canada Post employees, forget this special legislation, lift the lockout, ask both parties to negotiate and allow Quebec MPs to celebrate their national holiday.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the point of saying that the last thing we would like to see is this situation deteriorate any further and see businesses fail, unemployment increase and our economy go into a tailspin. Canada Post, a crown corporation, has more than 70,000 full and part-time employees. It is one of the largest employers in Canada. Every business day, it delivers service to 14 million addresses. Canada Post spends about $3 billion a year on goods and services and it contributes $6.6 billion to the country's GDP.

The Canada Post direct marketing sector accounts for $1.4 billion of its revenue. During the recent economic recession, this sector suffered financial losses. So many businesses still rely on Canada Post to get their business done and connect with their clients and customers across the country and internationally. While many aspects of business can often be accomplished online, not everything can be done in the absence of the mail. Mail service is still essential to the functioning of many small and medium-sized businesses and even large corporations.

Canada Post provides a crucial connection for Canadians in rural and remote areas.

Seniors are finding this work stoppage very difficult to deal with. Many of my colleagues have heard from seniors in their constituencies who would like to see an end to this work stoppage. A prolonged work stoppage at Canada Post may well affect some of the most vulnerable sectors of our economy.

How would Canada Post be affected as a viable business? Over the past decade, with the growth of the Internet, email, electronic billing and electronic funds transfers, there has been a corresponding decline in personal mail. However, small and medium-sized businesses still rely on the postal service for direct marketing, billing and filling orders. It is this sector of the business that could be jeopardized with a long-term work stoppage. Right now there is co-dependence. Now is not the time to put them at risk.

What is at stake is our economic recovery. All the job losses incurred during the global economic recession have been recovered. Our government has a responsibility to act on behalf of all Canadians to ensure the momentum continues. We have a process in place to deal with labour conflicts in the federal domain. It is called the Canada Labour Code and it has been followed each step of the way in this conflict.

The collective agreement covering CUPW and Canada Post expired on January 2011. Both parties have been bargaining since October 2010.

When those talks stayed at an impasse, a reconciliation officer was appointed. Throughout the month of May, a mediator from the labour program's Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service met frequently with the parties. The Minister of Labour even met with both party leaders. Despite all these efforts at mediation and conciliation, CUPW announced, on May 30, its intent to strike. On June 3, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers walked off the job. On June 15, 2011, the employer declared a lockout.

The postal workers have now been without a contract since January 2011, despite many rounds of bargaining. Of course, there are always cases when collective bargaining hits an impasse and the parties involved reach a stalemate. When this happens, the parties can request the Minister of Labour to appoint an arbitrator.

It is certainly not the preference of the government to intervene in labour disputes. Our government respects the right of free collective bargaining, which includes the right to strike or a lockout. However, when employers and unions choose a course of action that has harmful effects on the economy and the country as a whole, then it is incumbent on Parliament to stand up for the country and to protect our economic recovery.

That is why our government has introduced Bill C-6. We are taking decisive action on behalf of all Canadians.

What would the act do? It would impose a four-year contract and new pay rate increases. That would mean a 1.75% increase as of February 1, 2011, 1.5% as of February 2012, 2% as of February 2013 and 2% as of February 2014.

It also means, for final offer selection, a binding mechanism for all outstanding matters. In making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries. It will also strive to ensure the short and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of Canada Post Corporation, maintain the health and safety of its workers and the sustainability of the pension plan.

The terms and conditions of employment must also take into account: (a) that the solvency ratio for the pension plan must not decline as a direct result of the new collective agreement; and (b) that the Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse or undue increases in postal rates, operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.

As we recover from the economic downturn, it is more important than ever that we encourage co-operative and productive workplaces.

Let us recognize that this has not been an easy situation for the postal workers and for Canada Post. Our hope is that both parties can now turn this around and make the most of this agreement. I would urge them to focus on making Canada Post relevant to Canada for the 21st century.

I also ask my hon. colleagues to join us in supporting the bill.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent my government in its support of Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

This legislation, once enacted, will bring an end to the work stoppage at Canada Post. The labour dispute between Canada Post and CUPW relates to the renewal of collective agreements covering some 50,000 workers, including plant and retail employees, letter carriers and mail service couriers.

It is always better when two parties can reach a collective agreement at the bargaining table without the need for Parliament's intervention. The best solution in any labour dispute is one where the parties resolve differences on their own.

The Minister of Labour has been clear and has, at every occasion, encouraged both parties to reach an agreement on their own. In this case, however, the parties are too far apart, and that is too bad. The last thing we want to see is the situation deteriorate and see business—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

This bill would bring an end to the work stoppage involving Canada Post and about 50,000 members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Urban Operations Unit, or CUPW.

As my fellow members know, the government has used every tool available under the Canada Labour Code to bring the two sides together, without success. This legislation would end the strike. It would impose a four-year contract and new rates of pay. The legislation also provides for final offer selection, a binding mechanism on all outstanding matters.

Furthermore, in making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator would be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries and that would provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of the Canada Post Corporation, maintain the health and safety of its workers and ensure the sustainability of its pension plan.

The terms and conditions of employment must also take into account that the solvency ratio of the pension plan must not decline as a result of the new collective agreement, and that the Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates, operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.

The best solution in any dispute is always the one that the parties reach themselves. It is always better when employers and unions can negotiate contracts at the bargaining table without the need for Parliament to intervene. We have come a long way since the 1920s.

No member of this House is pleased about having to vote on this kind of legislation. However, it is absolutely vital that we do intervene. Parliament must act. In a moment I will talk about what is at stake for our national economy, but first I will take a little time to summarize the events that brought us to this point. I will start with some background on this dispute.

Canada Post is a crown corporation that employs more than 70,000 full and part-time employees. Every business day, Canada Post delivers approximately 40 million items. That adds up to 11 billion pieces of mail every year. Canada Post has to be reliable and efficient and offer services at a reasonable price if it is going to keep its customers. It also has to generate revenue and control expenses, like any other business.

For its part, the union, naturally, wants the best possible deal for its members in terms of salary and working conditions. The dispute between Canada Post and CUPW relates to the renewal of collective agreements covering some 50,000 postal workers, plant and retail employees, letter carriers and mail service couriers. The latest collective agreement expired on January 31, 2011.

Negotiations for a new agreement began in October 2010. Major and complex issues had to be addressed at the negotiating table, including the introduction of a short-term disability plan and Canada Post's interest in moving toward a two-tiered wage approach.

On January 21 of this year, the parties informed the Government of Canada that they had reached an impasse. The Minister of Labour immediately appointed a conciliator to help the parties resolve their differences. When no progress was made after the initial 60-day conciliation period, it was then extended by another 32 days.

A solution was still not forthcoming and on May 5 a mediator was appointed. Throughout the month of May, an officer from the labour program's federal mediation and conciliation service met frequently with the parties.

Despite this lengthy process and the breadth of federal government support, on May 30, CUPW gave 72-hours notice of its intent to strike. On June 3, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers started rotating strike action and, on June 15, 2011, the employer declared a lockout.

I heard the member opposite talk about what our minister and our government have done with respect to this matter. This gives a very good idea of the lengths that have been gone to over many months to attempt to resolve this dispute in a different way.

The postal workers have been without a contract since the end of January of this year despite many rounds of bargaining. The two sides have been unable to close the gap between their positions. It is unfortunate when employers and unions cannot find a way to reach settlements that are in their mutual interest.

However, the reality is that sometimes collective bargaining fails. When that happens, the parties have several options. They can jointly request that the Minister of Labour appoint an arbitrator. Employers can also bring pressure to bear on the union by locking out workers and trying to continue business without them. Workers can pressure the employer by withdrawing their labour. All of those options are of course legal as long as certain conditions are met.

Under normal circumstances, the Government of Canada does not intervene in labour disputes of this kind. We respect the right to free collective bargaining, which includes the right to strike or lockout. Parliament will stand aside as long as the people most affected are the parties to the dispute themselves and there is no threat of serious harm to the national economy or public health and safety.

When employers and unions choose a course of action that has serious consequences on the country as a whole, this situation changes. Parliament can no longer stand aside. Parliament may then decide that the right of the parties to exert pressure through a strike or lockout has to be weighed against the rights of all Canadians in all provinces and territories.

The losses caused by a shutdown of postal services are not borne only by Canada Post and its employees. They are borne by hard-working Canadians and their families across the country. Jobs are at stake and businesses are on the line. Whole sectors of the economy will be affected and the ripple effect will reach everywhere.

Bringing in back to work legislation is always a difficult decision, but in this particular case we feel we have no alternative. We must do what is necessary to keep Canada and the Canadian economy running. That is the strong mandate we were given in the last election.

We need to consider what a strike means in the mail order sector. By definition, these businesses depend on reliable postal services. They could hardly exist without them. Many of these enterprises are mom and pop operations run out of someone's home. Not all of them can afford to switch to courier services. If the strike continues, many small businesses will go under. As all parties in the House have been expressing support for small businesses, they should support this government initiative.

This is not speculation. Interestingly, my notes have me saying that I am sure everyone here remembers the mail strike of November 1997. However, mindful of many young parliamentarians, I would say that everyone over a certain age perhaps remembers that mail strike of 1997. It lasted for 15 days and many small and medium-sized businesses suffered or went under.

Reliance on postal services has diminished somewhat since 1997 due to the advent of the Internet and the increased use of faxes, email, electronic billing and electronic funds transfers, but small and medium-sized businesses still rely heavily on postal services for billing and order fulfillment. A work stoppage at Canada Post is hitting small and medium-sized businesses much harder than large corporations.

Again, if the opposition members are determined, as they have stated, to champion small business, I encourage them to proudly support the legislation.

Is it fair that hard-working Canadian entrepreneurs are held hostage by a postal dispute? Small- and medium-size businesses are engines of growth, and every day they make a significant contribution to Canada's recovery from the recession, a recovery, by the way, that is still fragile.

The 15-day strike in 1997 did a lot of damage. The strike we are now experiencing could cost our economy a lot more. I will give some figures.

Members of the House may not be aware that directly or indirectly Canada Post contributes $6.6 billion to this country's GDP. We know that past mail strikes have had a crippling effect on the economy in a very short period of time. Can our economy afford such a heavy blow when some sectors are still struggling?

The Canadian direct marketing industry, for example, suffered serious financial losses during the economic downturn. How would it cope with a prolonged postal strike?

What about the Canadian magazine industry? Those businesses have no practical cost-effective way to get their product to customers in the absence of postal service. For them, this postal strike could be nothing short of a disaster.

I could go on and on. If we do not do something soon about the postal strike, Canadian businesses will suffer. They already are. Canadian consumers will suffer. They already are. People who just want to communicate with family and friends will suffer.

I have a couple of examples of emails that I have received from constituents in my riding. One of them, which is addressed to me, says:

Canada Post does definitely affect the economy! A good portion of Canadians many of them Seniors, and the disabled, rely on Canada Post to deliver cheques, bills, bank statements, etc. Without the mail, they are stuck.

Another email came from a resident of Vancouver, B.C. I assume she thought that this might fall on deaf ears with her Liberal member of Parliament. She wrote in the subject line “I really need your help”, and said in the email:

I live in Vancouver, BC, I have a big problem, my young sister is going to marry on 01 of July this year in Mexico, in 15 days. My husband and I appl[ied] for visas to go to Mexico. Citizenship and Immigration Canada [says that] you need to send an Xpresspost from Canada Post to receive your documents faster. After 20 days of waiting they are all ready but I have a stranded envelope in a Canada post office in London, Ontario...with the passports and visas [for] my daughter, my husband and [me]. For the decision of putting down the labours in Canada post, I'm going to lose the opportunity to see my family and go to my sister's wedding. I have very important documents that are going to Mexico my country. Please help me to receive this envelope. I hope you understand....

She also said:

I really care about the problem between Canada Post and the CUPW but they really need to think of mine too.

We cannot do everything, even in this modern world, by email. For the sake of all Canadians, we must act now and pass the legislation. We must not wait until jobs are lost, until businesses start closing, and until the damage is too severe to be repaired. We must act now.

I hope all members of the House will join me in supporting the legislation.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, before I commence my speech, I want to pick up on something the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said.

He mentioned Davis Day, which is on June 11, and it is celebrated in mining communities across Nova Scotia. It is a very important day in the culture that I come from. However, it is also important to note that it is a day when a very tragic incident happened. It was the day when William Davis was shot in cold blood as a result of protests at the mines because employees were not receiving wages and, indeed, were being asked to take a further cut.

My take from Davis Day, however, is one that is even more important, which is that it only escalated to that level of violence after the government refused to intervene, even though the families and the men asked it to do so. That is valid. The Government of Canada should intervene when it is appropriate to do so in the public interest.

This government has been given a strong mandate by Canadians to complete our economic recovery. As Canada's labour minister, it is my view that the Government of Canada must take decisive action now before further damage is done to our economy. That is why our government introduced in the House Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

After eight months of collective bargaining and mediation, a labour dispute between Canada Post and more than 50,000 employees, represented by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers Urban Operations Unit, has resulted in a work stoppage. It is an event that, if left unresolved, could jeopardize Canada's economic prosperity.

Today I will discuss the specific details of this proposed legislation, but, first, there are some important facts that will help put this extraordinary legislative measure in its proper context.

Canada Post is one of Canada's largest corporations and delivers a service that many Canadians count on. It supports 70,000 full-time and part-time employees and contributes $6.6 billion to our country's GDP. A reliable postal service without interruption is an important part of what keeps our economy running smoothly.

As a result of a labour dispute between Canada Post and more than 50,000 of these employees, the service is now interrupted and at a standstill. However, this labour dispute has been simmering for many months and, now that postal services have stopped, this dispute is having more of an impact on the Canadian public, not just Canada Post and its employees. It could affect the livelihood of many Canadians across the land.

Contrary to the assertions of the opposition, we do not take back to work legislation lightly, but this measure is necessary. All other avenues have been exhausted. This is the right thing to do. There is too much at stake for Canadians and our economy on the whole. We must and we will act now.

I will take a few minutes to outline the potential economic risks entailed by this work stoppage. I will also talk about the intent of the proposed legislation.

As I indicated, a reliable postal service is far more than just personal mail. It is a fundamental part of doing business in Canada and the economic risks of no longer having that service are significant. Canada Post is an integral part of what keeps Canada in business and what puts money in the pockets of its citizens. Many small and large businesses rely on Canada Post to issue bills, to process orders and to receive payments. This is a service that matters.

There are Canadian families waiting for their tax refunds or HST rebates to arrive. There are citizens in the far north who rely on the mail for essential goods, like prescription eyewear, dental products, drugs and legal documents, and there are those who still make payments by mail. They will tell us that there is much at stake in this dispute.

Quite frankly, Canadians and businesses should not have to deal with this kind of uncertainty. They should not be the ones expected to bear the brunt of a labour dispute that shows no sign of being resolved through the collective bargaining process.

Just as important, our economy cannot afford to deal with a postal disruption brought by the lockout. Consider the costs that we are all having to pay. It has been nearly 14 years since Canada last had a work stoppage at Canada Post. A work stoppage could result in losses to our economy of between $9 million and $31 million per week. That means every day, more jobs at risk, more productivity lost, more challenges for business and more uncertainty for consumers.

Therefore I ask the following question. Can we afford to have this happen, especially when Canada's recovery from the recession is really starting to gain speed? I think the answer is clearly no.

As I said, every other avenue has been exhausted to help bring a full and lasting resolution to this dispute. Let me tell the House what has transpired over the last eight months.

On October 4 of last year, the union, CUPW, served the employer notice to commence collective bargaining for the purpose of renewing their collective agreement, the first step in the process. The parties negotiated directly from October 2010 to January 2011. On January 21 of this year, the union filed a notice of dispute and requested services of conciliation from the federal government. I appointed a conciliation officer on January 31 to help the parties reach a resolution. Through February and March, the conciliation officer met with the parties and on April 1 the conciliation period was extended until May 3, 2011 to get us through the general election. During that time, the conciliation officer continued to meet with the parties. As per the Canada Labour Code, the parties were released from conciliation in early May, and on May 5 a mediator was appointed. Throughout the month of May, the mediator from the labour program's federal mediation and conciliation service met very frequently with the parties. Unfortunately, despite all these efforts, an agreement between the parties remained elusive.

We need to take decisive action now. Canadians deserve no less.

This act provides for the resumption and continuation of mail services at Canada Post. First, it brings an end to the growing uncertainty that has characterized so much of this dispute in the last several months. As well, consistent with the recent settlements in the federal public service, it imposes a four-year contract and provides new pay-rate increases. The pay outcome will be a 1.75% increase as of February 1, 2011; a 1.5% increase in February 2012; a further 2% increase in February 2013; and a further 2% increase again in February 2014.

The act also provides for final-offer selection, which is a binding mechanism on all matters still in dispute and outstanding. Furthermore, in making this selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided by general principles that take into consideration the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries and that provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure both the short- and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of the Canada Post Corporation. It also takes into consideration the need to maintain the health and safety of the workers and to ensure the sustainability of their pension plan.

More specifically, the terms and conditions have to take into account two things: first, that the solvency ratio of the pension plan must not decline as a direct result of a new collective agreement; and second, that the Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates, operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service. It is a decisive approach and it is aimed at resolving this labour dispute.

In the absence of solution that is crafted by the parties themselves, which we have spent many hours trying to achieve since the rolling strikes of June 1 and which we would have preferred to see, this proposed legislation takes the steps that are necessary to safeguard our recovering economy and to ensure that Canadian families and businesses do not wind up suffering as a result of a dispute they had no part in creating.

Our government has put procedures in place to ensure the efficient delivery of services and benefits to Canadians, such as the use of courier delivery, early release of some benefit payments and in-person delivery through regional Service Canada centres. These are things we needed to do to ensure that Canadian citizens are still served by the Government of Canada during this postal stoppage.

However, by introducing this proposed legislation, we are not taking sides in the matter. What we are doing, and what all parties in this House have a responsibility to do, is working on behalf of all Canadians because that is what they expect of us. We are showing leadership in this matter. That means taking decisive action to keep business in Canada moving.

In conclusion, I would reiterate that we are taking extraordinary measures. We are doing so because no workable solutions have been found to resolve the dispute at Canada Post. Parliament has an obligation to respond in turn and we have to act in the best interests of the country. Canadians, quite frankly, deserve much better than delays or excuses or random rhetoric. They have a right to expect that Parliament will do the right thing to protect our economy and to ensure that the business of Canada keeps moving.

I would ask all members of this House to join me in meeting our collective responsibility to Canadians and support this proposed legislation.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct something the minister said. Back in 1997, the Liberal government did in fact introduce back-to-work legislation after almost two weeks of strike. We do believe that sometimes there is good reason to put in an arbitration process when it is clear that the bargaining process is not working.

Here we have Bill C-6 which makes a mockery of arbitration. It is very prescriptive. It does not allow arbitration in good faith in the normal sense. Why does the government not implore the management to lift the lockout, get the unions to get people back to work on a full-time basis and allow the bargaining process to occur? If it does not work after a reasonable amount of time, unlike the NDP that does not believe in arbitration, we do believe there is a place for it. Why does the minister not allow that process to occur?

Canada Post

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister on the so-called act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, Bill C-6.

Everyone recognizes, including the workers involved, that we want to see a resumption of postal services. The workers themselves have offered to go back to work.

Why then does that legislation completely limit the discretion of the arbitrator to find a fair agreement, deny the employees the ability to negotiate on salaries and, in fact, impose a salary regime for three years which is less than what the employer was prepared to pay?

Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our government is introducing in the House Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. This bill will provide as well for an impartial arbitration process to finalize the terms of a new collective agreement.

Our government agrees that employers have a right to freely negotiate collective agreements. I am sure that all members of Parliament are of the same mind on this fundamental principle of labour relations in Canada. The current federal system governing labour relations puts the emphasis on mediation and conciliation and is generally effective at resolving the disputed issues in labour agreements.

In these negotiations, though, we have done everything possible to resolve the outstanding issues but our efforts have been in vain. The parties still have not managed to find a basis of agreement, and under the circumstances, we must consider the repercussions of a work stoppage in a broader context.

No one is happy to see people forced back to work, but we are living in unusual times that require us to take action. We must act quickly to avoid a lengthy interruption of postal service, which is an essential cog in the Canadian economy at a time when the economic recovery is still fragile.

Before speaking about the economic repercussions of this work stoppage and our responsibility to act—as several of my colleagues have done today—I would like to share some basic information about the dispute and explain how the process has led to the situation in which we find ourselves.

The negotiations between Canada Post and the members of the Urban Postal Operation unit of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers started in October 2010. The collective agreement governing nearly 50,000 postal workers expired on January 31, 2011. After more than eight months, the parties have failed to reach an agreement despite the efforts at negotiation, conciliation and mediation.

On May 30, the union gave the employer strike notice effective June 3. On that date, the Canada Post employees began their pressure tactics by launching rotating strikes. The Minister of Labour has played a proactive role from the beginning. On several occasions, she tried to bring the parties together in order to restart the negotiations. Despite all her efforts, the employer and the union have not managed to reach an agreement. On June 15, management declared a lockout, thereby putting an end to the rotating strikes. Since then, postal service has been paralyzed.

We therefore find ourselves in the very unfortunate situation of a work stoppage in which the employer and the union have not managed to reach an agreement, and their positions remain very far apart. This is not only unfortunate but very concerning. Canadians from coast to coast are quite anxious about the consequences for the economy and the effects on them. They feel caught between management and the employees. All Canadians are affected and penalized by this labour dispute, whether in regard to their companies or families or to seniors all across the country, including in Lévis—Bellechasse et les Etchemins, or whether living in urban or rural areas, because Canada Post plays a key role in our society.

We all remember the 1997 labour stoppage at Canada Post lasting two weeks. At the time, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimated that the stoppage had cost small and medium-sized businesses $200 million a day.

Even though the postal service has lost ground since 1997 to technologies like email, fax as well as electronic billing and banking, small and medium-sized businesses still rely heavily on the postal service for billing and processing orders. By May 18, when the federation released an open letter to the management of Canada Post, the federation and its 108,000 small and medium-sized businesses were already sounding the alarm.

They said, over a month ago, that they were concerned about continually rising costs at Canada Post and their impact on SMEs, which they say will push even more businesses to look for alternatives for their mail and will have a negative impact on Canada Post.

They went on to add that “for other small businesses, a lengthy mail interruption may negatively impact their firms”. Consider magazines, newspapers and other periodicals, for example. A majority of their circulation depends on the postal service provided by Canada Post. During a postal interruption there are no other practical and viable ways to distribute those publications.

This means that the periodicals industry will be hard hit if this postal interruption lasts any longer. And this is not the only example. A prolonged work stoppage would have negative repercussions for many other industries and segments of the public, whether it be our families, our seniors or our veterans. Some businesses are on high alert and are calling on the government to live up to its responsibilities.

Receiving cheques and accounts payable and delivering customer invoices, as well as sending and receiving important documents, are all disrupted by this dispute. Canada is barely starting to show signs of recovery after the economic crisis that hit the entire world hard. We are in a good position, thanks to the stability of our banking system and the extremely positive impact of our government’s economic action plan, and our economy is indeed continuing to grow more rapidly than the economies of the other industrialized countries.

In fact, we have had 2.9% growth this year, and growth is estimated to be 2.6% next year. But it is still fragile. We are facing a number of challenges, including major budget cuts, not to mention that the global economic recovery is moving slowly and there continue to be risks in the markets.

Canada is not on an island, and is not immune to the fluctuations and crises taking place in other parts of the world. We cannot allow ourselves to rest on our laurels. At this stage, we have to do everything we can to stimulate economic growth and job creation. That is what we have undertaken in the Speech from the Throne. We have said very clearly that our government “will continue to focus on jobs and growth”.

A lengthy interruption of postal services could counteract all the efforts made, not only by our government but also by our businesses, our associations, our community organizations and all Canadians, to promote the recovery and strengthen the foundations of our economy.

The figures speak volumes: it is estimated that each week Canada Post employees are on strike represents losses of $9 to $31 million for the Canadian economy. Each additional day of lockout causes significant commercial and financial losses for Canada.

The parties have had ample time to reach an agreement: over eight months. It would be irresponsible for us to allow matters to take their course at the risk of the situation becoming poisoned and this work stoppage going on for a long time.

The Canada Labour Code applies to federally regulated employees in key economic sectors. Part I of the Code deals with the rights and responsibilities of employers, unions and the Minister of Labour in the collective bargaining process, specifically when parties are unable to resolve their differences.

Ideally, the parties will be able to prevent and resolve issues in dispute by themselves. However, a deadlock may arise during the bargaining process and result in a labour dispute with implications that are extremely damaging to the national economy. When this kind of situation arises, Parliament has a duty to act, as it has in the past when similar situations have occurred.

In the past 60 years, our Parliament has used this instrument 32 times. Under the legislation we are proposing, a four-year collective agreement may be put in place. This new collective agreement would include wage increases phased in over the four-year period. In addition to ensuring the immediate resumption and continuation of postal services, the bill we introduced yesterday would make arbitration the method for resolving issues that remain bones of contention between the parties.

The onus will be on the arbitrator to choose between the final proposals made by union and management. It should be noted however that this legislation in no way prevents the parties from continuing the bargaining process and reaching an agreement, which is what occurred in 1997. Our government lives up to its responsibilities and is pressing both management and labour to reach an agreement.

The bill specifically provides that parties may agree to enter into new collective agreements at any time. It is our fervent hope that the parties continue to negotiate to resolve this conflict before the arbitrator has to step in and make a determination.

Lastly, the act would come into force 24 hours after royal assent, thereby giving workers an opportunity to fully acquaint themselves with the requirements and implications of the legislation. This is an exceptional measure that has come at a time when economic recovery is still fragile. I can assure the House that this decision was not made lightly, as I have made clear. We are aware, however, that there is no benefit to delaying the process and that Canadians expect our government to live up to its responsibilities. We are determined to take the necessary steps to protect the interests of Canadians and of our economy.

In closing, in order to safeguard our economic recovery and the well-being of Canadians, I would encourage all members of the House to support our government’s actions to put an end to this dispute, thereby ensuring the resumption of regular mail services throughout the country.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in the House this session and I want to take the opportunity to thank my constituents in the riding of Prince Albert for their support again in this election. It was a hard-fought battle and I really appreciate their support.

Today I rise to support the legislation introduced by the Minister of Labour. Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services will protect our economic recovery and help the CUPW and Canada Post Corporation come to a lasting settlement.

Our government would prefer the two parties to resolve their issues and come to an agreement on their own. The best solution is when an employer and a union can come to a solution themselves. In fact, over 90% of labour negotiations in Canada are settled without ending in work stoppages. Failing an agreement, our goal is to be fair to the 50,000 urban postal workers while taking into account the welfare of all vulnerable Canadians and small- and medium-size businesses that depend on regular postal service.

Canada Post plays a significant role in Canada's economy. It spends about $3 billion a year on goods and services, thereby supporting an additional 30,000 jobs in the economy. It contributes $6.6 billion to the country's GDP and directly employs over 70,000 full- and part-time employees. A prolonged work stoppage could have some really negative effects on our economy.

Canada Post's three most important business lines are mail, parcels and direct marketing. The direct marketing sector represents $1.4 billion of Canada Post's revenue. During the economic slowdown or downturn, this sector suffered severe financial losses. A prolonged work stoppage would impact the sector by preventing large Canadian retailers from reaching their customers. This could result in decreased sales, which could translate into reduced employment.

The Canadian magazine industry would also be severely compromised, as it relies on Canada Post for most of its distribution.

Canada Post offers an essential lifeline to Canadians in rural and remote areas. Even where rural letter carriers are not necessarily affected by the current bargaining dispute, rural communities could still be affected as there would be no sorting or bulking distribution of post to rural communities for delivery.

People with disabilities have transportation and accessibility barriers that may affect their ability to receive goods and services. Shopping online and catalogue shopping still rely on the postal service to get goods from sellers to buyers.

I have received letters from constituents. It was interesting to receive a letter before the lockout and one afterward from the same constituent, which I would like to read for the record. The letter before the lockout read:

Please Sir, if there is anything you can do to stop this strike, I would really appreciate it. I am a small business owner here in Prince Albert, SK. We literally ship and receive 100's of packages every month through Canada Post. This strike could shut us down affecting my own single income family, my sister & family and my parents. We pay between $6-$13 to ship through Canada Post...to ship the same package through UPS/Canpar, etc is between $33-$46. This would put us out of business.

I urge you to please do whatever is in your power to stop this strike from going forward.

Thank you!

After the lockout, the same person sent me a letter, which read:

I would just like to say that I'm incredibly disappointed that Canada Post was allowed to lock out the workers and especially with no notice to the Canadian public. While I was not in favour of the CUPW strike, I did feel that at least they gave the public notice and mail was still flowing even if it was slower. Canada Post stated that they would decrease to 3 days a week delivery, but then suddenly dropped all deliveries. This was completely unfair to the Canadian public and businesses. They should not have been allowed to do this with no notice whatsoever. I have a lot of mail stuck in the system now that I would have shipped other methods. I am incredibly disappointed with how Canada Post has dealt with this. The CUPW was at least working to not interrupt all of the Canadian public & businesses. It was Canada Post who did that. For this reason, I am very disappointed. I would hope that this policy would be looked at into for future reference. It should not be legal for a crown corporation to completely shut down business.

Here we see someone who has actually been impacted by the slowdown and the shutdown. Here we see what can happen to a small business when all of a sudden it does not have the service. That is why we have to look at what the minister has done and move forward quickly to make sure that we do not lose these jobs, people and small businesses. Some of the most vulnerable aspects of our economy could be affected by a prolonged work stoppage.

The Canada Labour Code has been built on labour legislation and a policy that promotes the common well-being and rights of employers and workers. It does this through negotiations of terms and conditions of employment and the constructive settlement of disputes.

Since the Conciliation Act of 1900, the labour program has had a mandate to help prevent and resolve labour disputes. Canadian labour relations have benefited from neutral third parties who conciliate, mediate and arbitrate. That was the case in the recent CUPW and Canada Post dispute.

The collective agreement covering all units of approximately 50,000 postal workers expired January 31, 2011, despite the fact that the parties have been bargaining since October of the previous year.

A conciliation officer was then appointed and met with both parties throughout February and March. The conciliation period was extended from April 1 to May 3, 2011.

On May 5, a mediator was appointed, and throughout the month an officer of the labour program's Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service frequently met with both parties. Despite all this work, a work stoppage is now in effect.

We can let events control us until the economy goes into a tailspin, or we can take decisive action on behalf of Canadians. This is what the legislation proposes to do.

First of all, it puts an end to the growing uncertainty around Canada postal services. The act also imposes a four-year contract of new pay rate increases. This will mean a 1.75% increase as of February 1, 2011, a 1.5% increase as of February 1, 2012, a 2% increase as of February 1, 2013, and a 2% increase as of February 1, 2014.

It also provides a final offer selection, a binding mechanism, on all outstanding matters.

Furthermore, in making the selection of final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries and that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short- and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of Canada Post, maintain the health and safety of its workers and ensure the sustainability of its pension plan.

The terms and conditions of employment must also take into account that: (a) the solvency ratio of the pension plan must not decline as a direct result of the new collective agreement, and (b) that the Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates, operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.

It has been nearly 14 years since the last Canada Post work stoppage. Every avenue has been explored to help bring a full and lasting resolution to this dispute.

In the absence of a solution reached by the parties, something that was clearly hoped for, the proposed legislation will bring quick resolution to the dispute. It will safeguard our economy and ensure that Canadian businesses and vulnerable Canadians do not suffer.

Our government has taken steps to ensure the efficient delivery of federal services and benefits to Canadians. We have reserved courier services, set up the early release of some benefit payments, and provided in-person delivery through regional Service Canada Centres.

We are doing this because Canadians want leadership. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to act on behalf of Canadians.

We need to keep our economy working and build on our recent gains. We must maintain the momentum. Let us support the proposed legislation and bring peace to Canada's postal services for the months and years to come.

In my riding it is very important that we see this dispute come to a settlement. In talking to farmers or small businesses or people in small towns, a lot of their invoicing, a lot of their billing is actually done through the mail. When they cannot send a bill, they cannot get paid. They cannot pay their supplier. It is a domino effect that needs to end.

The only way this can end is through this proper legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support it. Let us get on with doing the business of the people of Canada and let us get these two parties back to work.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. I, too, have heard many of the comments, including some of the entertaining, at times, logical comments made by the member for Toronto Centre. However, this is in fact a very serious matter--

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate, but under the circumstances, I am certainly not happy that it is taking place, given the current crisis.

I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. I asked her why the government's bill sets out a 1.75% salary increase, which is less than Canada Post's offer of 1.9%. Now she is inviting the parties to return to the bargaining table to reach a collective agreement; otherwise, the government will pass legislation. What planet is she living on? Canada Post is saying to itself that if there is no settlement, it will not need to grant a 1.9% salary increase because the government will legislate that it be set at 1.7%. Is that bargaining? In reality, the government has taken away any possibility of bargaining. With its proposed bill, it is interfering directly with negotiations instead of finding a bargaining mechanism.

I understand that people need Canada Post's services and that this is hurting small and medium-sized businesses. I am aware of that and I have been receiving calls about it. But we need to understand what has happened here. Negotiations were under way, but the parliamentary secretary felt that they were taking too long. But sometimes that is what is needed in order for a settlement to be reached. That is how bargaining works. When the two parties come to an agreement, labour relations are better than if the government forces things by passing legislation. That is not the government's role. Let us be clear: many people today do not believe that unions should exist. I invite those people to go to countries where there are no unions, where people are paid minimum wage, which is not the same as it is in Canada. It is a form of slavery. Is that what the government wants?

This bill to force a return to work demonstrates a lack of respect for working men and women who were able to form a union under a statute of Canada. Unionization is a right. Today, the Conservative government is taking away that right. It did the same thing last week with Air Canada after only one day of strike action. The government used the economic recovery as an excuse, saying that it had received a strong mandate from Canadians to do whatever it wants.

Yes, the Conservatives received a majority mandate here in the House of Commons, but they did not in the rest of the country. Only 40% of Canadians said that they wanted to be governed by the Conservatives. I believe it may have even been 39.9% or 39.8%. That is 39% or 40% of 61% of voters. That is not even 100% of voters; it is a mere 40%. Before unions existed, people took to the streets to improve their situation. Workers had to take to the streets. There was fighting in the streets, blood was spilled and people lost their lives to improve their families' situation and to have the right to free bargaining.

So what happened? The government said that this must stop, that it was going to pass laws allowing workers to form unions and negotiate collective agreements. The government said that it was going to give workers the legal right to call a strike, which prevented all the bloodshed in the streets. That is what happened.

Do we want to go back to the way things were? Is that what the Conservative government wants? Canada Post is not going bankrupt. Canada Post made $281 million in profit. Canada Post's most recent financial report is two months overdue. I would like to see the latest numbers. I would like Canada Post to give them to us. Perhaps Canada Post made more than $281 million in profit.

At a certain point, Canada Post employees decided to hold rotating strikes. Employees in Montreal went on strike for one day and those in Toronto, Vancouver, Bathurst and Halifax, for example, each also took their turn at conducting a one-day strike.

Canada Post also decided to deliver the mail only three days a week. The Minister of Labour stated publicly on the news yesterday that she did not receive any comments from Canadians while the employees were working only three days a week or when they were on a rotating strike. She received maybe 30 emails on this subject and that was it. There was no problem.

What did the government want? The employees did not want to stage a general strike, so Canada Post, a crown corporation, responded with a lockout. Once the lockout was imposed, the government would decide to force the employees back to work and to take away their benefits. The government is proving this right now, with this bill.

What did Canada Post employees and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers say? They told the government and Canada Post to reinstate and respect their old collective agreement. They asked for their health benefits to be reinstated and said they would go back to the bargaining table without any rotating strikes. They asked that all workers be called back to work. Canada Post refused. I personally went to see the Minister of Labour to ask her why the crown corporation was not told to do that alone, that is, to go back to the bargaining table to try to resolve the conflict between the two parties and to reach a collective agreement.

The government refused to tell Canada Post, a crown corporation, to go back to the bargaining table and respect the collective agreement. Was it because the government does not want to interfere with a crown corporation? Yet at the same time, it is introducing a bill that is not good for workers.

What does this mean for other non-unionized workers who do not support what is happening here? Let us think about that. If Canada had no unions, if they all disappeared tomorrow, we can only imagine the abuses that would take place. Has anyone thought about that? The workers did not want to take away people's right to receive mail, since letter carriers were willing to go back to work if Canada Post would respect their old collective agreement.

I would remind the House that an agreement could have been reached to allow Canadians and our SMEs to start getting their mail again.

I remember when I worked as a miner in the Brunswick mine in 1976. In an 18-month period, six people were killed underground. I remember what we were able to do with the union: change the country's laws to give the families of the miners who got up and went to work in the morning the right to see their family members come home in the evening and to ensure better working conditions in order to prevent miners from getting killed.

Consider what happened at the Westray mine in Nova Scotia, when 26 miners were killed in the mine. The bodies of 11 of those miners are still in that mine today. The company violated every health and safety law. Even when the mine closed, the employees joined the steelworkers' union. They fought by bringing bills here to the House of Commons because under the law, the government could not even prosecute company presidents who were not in Nova Scotia for failing to meet health and safety requirements. We called it the Westray bill, to ensure that these people could be brought to justice. If the union had not fought for the health and safety of the miners, we would not have this legislation that every worker in Canada benefits from today.

I know the people of this country need their mail. We understand that. Postal workers understand that. They are professionals.

We all see people from Canada Post delivering our mail. These people are professionals. They work hard. We just need to look at the conditions they work in. On a hot day during the summer, they are outside with their backpacks delivering our mail. Even during a storm in the wintertime these people bring our mail to our door. We have to respect these men and women who work hard for us. They deserve a pension plan. The new generation deserves to have the same thing our parents and their parents fought for.

The government should not have introduced a bill to take away the workers' rights, their pension plans or their health benefits. The government has no business doing that or getting involved in the way it has.

Canada Post was ready to give a 1.9% increase to its workers, but in Bill C-6 the Conservative government is bringing that down to 1.75%. The government is telling postal workers that if they do not want that increase, they should get back to the table and negotiate a contract. And why does the government expect Canada Post to get back to the negotiating table and negotiate a contract when it will get a better one forced by the Conservative government of this country?

I do not know what is wrong with the Conservative government. Why does it hate the workers? Why is it attacking the workers through the bill? Why is it saying that a postal workers' agreement should be compared with those in other industries? I do not know if I sleep on a different planet, but I thought that Canada Post was the only industry in our country bringing Canadians their mail. Who is Canada Post going to be compared to? The United States? Mexico? Is it going to be compared to Brazil? What comparison will the arbitrator make?

If the government believes in workers, if it respects workers, then why is there not even one little paragraph in the bill taking the side of the workers? There is not one paragraph in the bill where the government sides with the workers.

Other workers might be next. Today it is Canada Post, tomorrow it will be somebody else, and it could be those in the private sector too. I say this because the government became involved last week with Air Canada in the same way. Other workers can sit back and wait, because this will happen to them. One day people will say enough is enough.

The government wants to save money for what? It gives big tax breaks to big corporations. We just need to look, for example, at Air Canada. The president and CEO of Air Canada paid himself $7 million and will leave with a pension of $350,000. That is no problem for him. The banks made profits of $20 billion and paid $11 billion in bonuses, yet the Conservatives have given them a break. The Conservatives are running out of money to give their big friends.

I respect the workers. The one thing the government should do is to get out of the negotiations. The government should provide a mechanism for the negotiations and tell the parties to get back to the negotiations, respect the old collective agreement and get to a contract. However, the government does not seem to believe in that. It will negotiate a contract and make sure that the parties do not negotiate one, and it will use the economic recovery as the reason and “take care“ of the workers for Canada Post.

Why? It is because the Conservatives are the friends of big business, not of the working men and women who get up in the morning and build this country. These men and women have the right to receive a pension and a decent living. They have that right. They earned their pension plans. They earned those benefits.

The Conservative government should be ashamed of itself. Yes, it got support. Yes, it is a majority government.

However, did the Conservatives ever tell all workers what they would do with them if they ever got elected? Did we see in their platform their intention to legislate people to work with a lesser collective agreement than their employer would give them? Did they say that? No, according to the union. It is not honest for the Conservatives to do that.

Just give the people free bargaining and the mechanism to do it. That is the way to go.

The government's behaviour is shameful. It is setting a precedent for which everyone will pay dearly. I cannot say enough that I do not understand why the Conservative government hates workers so much or why it is slapping them with a bill like this. I hope that in the coming days, the government will receive motions in amendment, will recognize what the workers do and will be able to find solutions.

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

Madam Speaker, just weeks ago our government indicated in the Speech from the Throne that our priority remains focused on jobs and growth. We also noted that the global economy remains fragile and risks to our recovery persist.

After many months of collective bargaining and mediation, a labour dispute between Canada Post and more than 50,000 employees representing the Canadian Union of Postal Workers urban operations unit has resulted in work stoppage, an event that, if unresolved, could jeopardize Canada's economic prosperity.

Canadians gave this government a strong mandate to complete our economic recovery. It is my view that the Government of Canada must take decisive action now before further damage is done to our economy.

Our government introduced Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. The measures in this proposed legislation are in response to an extraordinary situation facing Canadian families, workers and businesses.

For many Canadians Canada Post remains a vital part of how we connect to each other, even in this digital age. It is also an important part of small and large businesses across Canada. Reliable postal services aid in putting money in the pockets of families and Canadians in need. They play a role in how bills get delivered and paid on time, and ensuring that parcels arrive at their destinations.

As we can see, there is far more at stake here than just mail delivery or good labour relations between Canada Post and its unionized workers. As a result of this long-simmering labour dispute, this has now become a matter that puts Canada's fragile economic recovery on the line. That is a risk that Canadians do not want to take, nor is it one that they should have to endure. They are counting on the Government of Canada to act and that is why we introduced this proposed legislation.

I will take a couple of minutes to outline the intent of this bill, along with the proposed economic risks entailed by this work stoppage. I will also explain why it is important that we take decisive action now rather than wait any longer.

This act would provide for the resumption and continuation of mail services at Canada Post. It would bring to an end the growing uncertainty that has characterized so much of this dispute for the last several months. The act would also impose a four year contract and new pay rate increases. It would mean a 1.75% increase as of February 1, 2011, 1.5% as of February 2012, 2% as of February 2013, and 2% as of February 2014. It would also provide a final offer selection, a binding mechanism on all outstanding matters.

Furthermore, in making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries and that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of the Canada Post Corporation, maintain the health and safety of its workers, and ensure the sustainability of its pension plan.

The terms and conditions of employment must also take into account: first, that the solvency ratio of the pension plan must not decline as a direct result of the new collective agreement; and second, that the Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates, operate efficiently, improve productivity, and meet the acceptable standards of service. It is a decisive approach aimed at resolving this labour dispute. While the measures it calls for are not an ideal way of resolving this dispute, it would do what is necessary to safeguard Canadian families, businesses, seniors and workers.

Some might argue that we should wait, that we should let collective bargaining run its course no matter how long it takes. That is unwise. The risks to our economy are too great to ignore. Since talks between CUPW and their employer broke down, our country is now facing a potentially serious situation. Let us be clear about what has happened as a result of this labour dispute at Canada Post.

An integral part of what keeps Canada in business and what puts money in the pockets of many citizens is slowing to a standstill. Ask the small business owners who invoice and get paid through the mail. Ask a company that relies on the mail to issue bills, process orders and receive payments. Ask Canadian publishers and direct marketers whose livelihoods rely on the mail. Ask taxpayers who are waiting for their tax refunds and HST rebates to arrive. Ask citizens in the far north who rely on mail as an essential service of goods, such as prescription eyewear, dental products, drugs, legal documents, and still make payments by mail.

Our citizens cannot afford to be left waiting. They certainly should not be the ones who should bear the brunt of a labour dispute that shows no sign of being resolved through collective bargaining.

As of June 17, the minister received a total of 1,800 letters and email enquiries. Of those, 1,027 requested back-to-work legislation: 692 Canadian citizens; 328 businesses; and 7 charities. The remainder represents 561 employees and 212 citizens expressing concerns.

The Canadian National Institute for the Blind stated:

With 70 per cent of its funding coming from donations, more than half of which arrive through the mail, CNIB is now facing an estimated loss of $250,000 in much-needed funding for this time of the year.

The charity has also experienced $30,000 in unexpected costs associated with communicating its contingency plan to clients, donors and library users.

One stakeholder, a leading provider of integrated mail and document management systems, is requesting a rapid intervention of the government to ensure reliable postal services and supporting the view of Canada Post as an essential service.

Many Canadians are beginning to see the repercussions of a work stoppage and are requesting a government intervention for the resumption of postal services.

It has been nearly 14 years since Canada last had a work stoppage at Canada Post. The numbers speak for themselves. A work stoppage could result in losses to our economy of between $9 million and $31 million per week. The work stoppage at Canada Post is expected to have an immeasurable impact on our economy.

Canada's gross domestic product could shrink by up to 0.21% for every day of work stoppage. That means every day more jobs at risk, more productivity lost, more challenges for businesses and more uncertainty for consumers.

Every other avenue has been tried to help bring a full and lasting resolution to this dispute. Parliament must do the right thing and intervene.

The parties have negotiated for direct collective bargaining from October 2010 to January 2011. When those talks stayed at an impasse, a conciliation officer was appointed. The conciliation period was extended into early May and during that time, the conciliation officer met again with the parties. Throughout the month of May, a mediator from the labour program's Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service met frequently with the parties.

Unfortunately, despite all of these efforts, an agreement between the parties has yet to be reached.

While the best solution may have been the one that the parties reached themselves, we must do what is necessary to protect our recovering economy and safeguard Canadian families, workers and businesses. We must act now to keep the businesses of Canada moving. That is what this proposed legislation would do.

It is my hope that all members of the House will join me in meeting our shared responsibility to Canadians and give this proposed legislation the support it deserves.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)