Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

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

Madam Speaker, we have just heard the government House leader wonder why the filibuster is occurring.

It is becoming readily apparent to members of this chamber that the government exercised options here. The government exercised options in its tabling of the rules for how this debate would proceed. It did not set any limits on the time period for the debate.

The standing orders established what the time of speeches would be. Unlike other bills the government has introduced, for which it set limits on the time for debate at each stage, for this bill the government did not do that.

It did it for the HST debate. It did it for the budget implementation act. It did it for the mega-trials bill. It did not do so in this particular instance. It could have when it tabled government Motion No. 3, and it did not.

Why not?

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

Madam Speaker, the other side has the answer. The question should be put to them.

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

Madam Speaker, the big question here, as we know, is why the Conservatives are backing the lockout by Canada Post and why they are intervening in such a biased way in something that should be a labour dispute between employer and workers.

Labour disputes happen in virtually all modern market-based economies. They are a fact of life, and it is a normal situation for market-based economies. Therefore, I am surprised at the government. It says it is in favour of small government, yet we see it intervening in this way and as we know, the Conservatives are anything but small government.

The Conservatives have formed the largest government we have had in the history of Canada. It has the largest deficits and the largest number of cabinet ministers. It is a heavy-handed government that is interfering in our collective bargaining process.

Whatever happened to the supposed Conservative goal of small government? It is not there, not that I can see.

Now the government is interfering in labour market negotiations in a way that is nothing less than a violation of the Charter of Rights for Canadians.

If the Conservatives do this now on this issue, where is it going to end? Are they going to step in every time there is a dispute in the marketplace? Are they going to legislate every time two sides do not agree on something? It is worrisome.

Let us be very clear. We have no postal service right now because Canada Post shut down the service completely, backed by the government. It has locked its workers out, encouraged and backed by the government. It seems clear to all of us.

Instead of introducing legislation to end this lockout, to resume rotating service and negotiation, to get both sides back to the bargaining table and to get the mail moving, the government has decided to interfere with the rights of collective bargaining and impose a settlement even below what management had originally suggested.

Canada Post is being rewarded for shutting down the mail service that so many Canadians rely upon. This is a dangerous precedent, regardless of the particulars in this labour dispute or any other.

Knowing the mindset of the government, from now on will any large corporation in Canada, whether crown corporation or other critical corporation, simply refuse to negotiate and just wait for the government to interfere and legislate people back to work? Will Canada Post be encouraged in the future to just hold our postal service hostage and hold Canadian mail recipients hostage any time it does not feel like bargaining?

This is a dangerous path the Conservatives are leading this country down. It is one that can lead us to more entrenched positions; more, not less, labour unrest; and more, not less, interruption of services that Canadians use. In the future, what incentives will there be for corporations to bargain in good faith or to settle?

The government should not be in the business of imposing labour contracts for businesses or workers. It is not free or fair collective bargaining. It is not letting the process work. It is not the way it has been building and developing for decades. It is wrong-headed.

I am also left wondering if this has something to do with the government's desire to increasingly privatize Canada Post services and reduce services to Canadians, as they have been reduced in my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North to small communities. It is Canadians living in rural and remote areas who are going to suffer the most. My riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North has 31 communities, one large one and 30 small ones, and they have been increasingly impacted by Canada Post's reduction in services. The people in those communities feel threatened by this trend.

Canada Post insists it is still respecting its so-called policy of not shutting down rural services itself, because it can just throw up its hands and say there is no alternative. The government is supporting Canada Post in that.

The irony here is that Canada Post is profitable. It does not need to shut down rural services any more than it needs to privatize or walk away from the bargaining table in labour negotiations. As we know, it has been highly profitable for many years. The CEOs are well paid. Some would say they are quite overpaid. They have been getting much larger increases than the workers have been asking for.

I can agree with one thing that the Conservative government has been saying inside and outside the House, which is that we want to see the mail moving again. Both sides want to see the mail get moving. It is a shame that we have this impasse and that we have to have this impasse. It is mostly within the government's power to do something about that, quickly, in an hour, a day or a couple of days at the most. I hope it will reconsider.

I am a small business person. My businesses, like many across the country, rely on the post office for services. Many businesses rely on the mail to ship their products, including mail-order businesses. Many of them are waiting to send or receive cheques.

Canada Post's lockout and shutdown of all services has negatively impacted small business more than it has most Canadians, although all Canadians are negatively impacted.

It is also impacting the workers who want to work but who have been locked out of their jobs in the same way that Canadians have been locked out of their delivery services.

Let me talk about a worker from Red Deer who has worked for 37 years and used almost no sick leave during his entire career. Then he became very ill just as the lockout was happening. He was denied benefits, of course, because Canada Post locked him out.

My office has also talked to workers in my own riding. There is a single mom of two children, a 20-year veteran who has worked Canada Post, who needs medication to stay alive and be able to support her family. Like many Canadians, she has a mortgage to pay, but because Canada Post has locked her out, she can no longer afford to pay both. Her family either has to give up their house or give up the life-saving medicine.

It is our duty as parliamentarians on both sides of this House to figure out how to get the mail moving again and how to get people in these kinds of situations back to work so that they can receive the benefits they sorely need.

The other thing I would like to comment on is a big issue, but I am not going to go into it in big detail. It is the pension issue.

There is a real problem here in Canada. The Conservatives need to decide what they are going to do about seniors in Canada. They were resistant to the idea of giving us a CPP system that people can live on.

The NDP suggested basically a doubling of benefits so that people could actually live on CPP. If the government is not going to do that, in the short term it should at least allow a defined benefits program for crown corporations, public service workers and other workers in Canada who need sufficient money in retirement and need the security of knowing that it is coming and they will actually be able to live on it.

What is at stake here is much more than just the way the government has handled this one labour dispute. It is about the precedent set by interfering with the collective bargaining process. The right to organize and the right to collective bargaining was affirmed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, most recently in 2007.

The court ruled that collective bargaining was a right, not a privilege, protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Collective agreements are central to freedom of association, according to the courts.

The court also said that substantial interference with collective bargaining over essential rights violates Canadians' freedom of association. In 2007 the court found that the charter gives the same protection for collective bargaining as is contained in the international labour conventions that Canada has ratified internationally.

In interfering with free collective bargaining and imposing its ideology, the government is dangerously close to violating fundamental freedoms that generations of Canadians have fought hard for.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond by saying that I am somewhat an expert in management, but I am not an expert in negotiation, union contracts, or collective bargaining. Therefore, I will decline to comment on the specifics of what should be a collective bargaining process.

However, I do not think that this is the level of detail we should be getting into in the House at all, going back and forth by either side. We should be empowering both parties to go back to the table and do that collective bargaining. Let the workers go back to work. Let the mail be delivered. Let us empower and encourage them to solve the situation themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, the government, during the course of the debate, has accused the New Democratic Party of filibustering this particular debate. However, I would like to point out that the closure motion, which was tabled by the government, has interesting implications.

The government did not set any limit whatsoever on the time allocation of each stage of the bill. It used standing orders to set times for each individual speech by each individual member, but each stage of the bill was left without any special consideration. This is not how the government treated the HST bill in the previous Parliament, or the Budget Implementation Act in this Parliament.

In the previous parliaments and in this Parliament, the government had set, through government business specifically under Motion No. 3, a specific limitation on the time allocation for each individual stage of the bill. Actually, in the HST debate, the entire debate lasted six hours according to the government's own motion of closure.

If the government is so incensed about filibustering, why did it invite the New Democratic Party to do so and enable it by establishing rules for a filibuster?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte for his incisive question. I have wondered this myself.

A cynic might say that this is a wonderful opportunity to hold the Canadian public, postal workers, the system and House process itself hostage, if you will. It is to give only the appearance of caring about the delivery of service from the postal department to Canadians.

[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.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite and the member of the NDP who spoke before her asked several questions in their speeches, but they also have engaged in irresponsible and unfounded speculation.

We have been asked what kind of government we are. We are a government that believes in effective leadership. We believe in informed decisions. We believe in leadership and taking action, particularly when we are dealing with a fragile economic recovery that is threatened by a work stoppage for a crown corporation that provides, as we all seem to agree, an essential service and contributes $6.6 billion to the GDP.

The members opposite like to use the language of compassion, but they seem to have no problem denying mail delivery to those most in need of that compassion. Will the member opposite urge her opposition colleagues to walk the talk and let the mail through?

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

Absolutely. We will completely work with the members in this House to encourage Canada Post to remove the locks from the doors. Canada Post workers have said that they will come back to work with the same terms and conditions they have had. They are saying they will come back with the conditions they went out under. We are absolutely prepared to do that.

When we have a crown corporation like Canada Post that has had profits of $1.7 billion over the last 15 years, $281 million last year alone, and has pumped another $1.2 billion into the federal coffers in dividends and income tax, I fail to understand why the current government wants to tamper with that success. We have a winner here. We have something that is the envy of other countries. Why is the government undermining it?

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

Madam Speaker, the government members have been citing the need for expediency, referencing the essential nature of the service. They are saying this needs to be passed. The New Democratic Party is obviously taking up the challenge of the filibuster, but again I will go back to how the filibuster may have been arranged to begin with.

For those who may be tweeting this, on Thursday, December 3, 2009, pursuant to Standing Order 57, the government issued a motion regarding the implementation of the HST bill. The government prescribed very specific terms and conditions as to how that debate would be allowed to proceed should the motion be adopted by the House. The motion was indeed adopted by the House.

The motion indicated specifically:

not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill and, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill...[be granted].

And then it said:

not more than four hours following the adoption of the second reading motion, any proceedings before the Committee to which the bill stands referred shall be interrupted, if required...and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the committee stage of the bill shall be put....

While the government professes to be angry about the NDP's filibuster, and the NDP is angry that the government is not responding to their requests, the reality here is that a trap was set and a trap was taken. That is what has happened here with this filibuster--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I interrupt the hon. member to give the member for Parkdale—High Park an opportunity to respond.

There is one minute left.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has pointed out something very interesting, which is that the government, if it was so concerned about the timeliness of this debate, because it sets its own rules here in this motion, could have set a time limit on the debate.

I disagree with the member's implication that defending hard-working Canadians is somehow something not worth standing on. On this side of the House, and in this party, we support decent jobs, decent wages, and the hard work that Canadians do. We are proud to stand for that principle today and any day in this House.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just spoke. I just received messages on my BlackBerry because I told my constituents that I would take the floor at 10:45 a.m. They said they would wait until I rose to speak. There are currently people watching CPAC to find out what is going on. They are gaining an understanding of what the Conservatives are trying to sneak through.

Earlier, I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons speak, and I thought I detected some openness there. He said that Canadians want to receive their mail. We just have to remove the locks from the doors for people to get their mail. Before the lockout, people were receiving their mail.

When will the government realize that the NDP is not preventing postal employees from working, the Conservative Party is? The Conservatives are the ones who conspired to impose the lockout. When will the government realize that it has the power to allow the postal employees to work? With the consensus in the House, we could immediately decide to let them work.

When will the government realize that it has the power to unlock the lockout? If we had a consensus, we could put an end to the lockout right now. The NDP supports reopening post offices and getting postal workers back to work. Furthermore, when will the government realize that it has the power to unlock the lockout with a simple phone call? When will the government realize that we could require the employees to go back to work by ending the lockout, while we continue to consider the rest of the special legislation before us?

When will the government realize that small businesses could receive their mail as well as send and receive packages, that seniors could receive and send letters, cheques and gifts, that both workers and the unemployed could receive their cheques, and that all Canadians could once again have access to postal service, as soon as the government agrees that it is essential to immediately end the lockout, well before voting on this bill?

When will the government realize that ending the lockout is the only way to remove the threat to the economy, a threat it created, economic losses it created? When will the government realize that preserving a healthy employer-employee relationship is the only way to ensure a company's future prosperity?

When will the government realize that creating an unhealthy climate and adding to people's workload, which already is not obvious, will hurt the economy? Has it assessed how costly an increase in the number of workplace injuries will be to our society?

When will the government realize that it is flouting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and disregarding rights that were recognized and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007? When will the government realize that Canada Post is a profitable and efficient crown corporation?

Is the government's objective to increase the profits of its friends at the expense of workers? Is its objective to destabilize postal services in order to privatize this sector? When will the government realize that disregarding the rights of workers will do nothing to improve their physical and moral well-being, or the economic health of the country?

When will the government realize that in order to stand up for democracy in the world, it must also safeguard democracy here at home?

Since being elected to power, this government has thumbed its nose at democratic rights in Canada. I am talking about the rights of trade unions, the right to associate and everything connected with union rights, party financing, voting methods, the use of the media and public funds, to give you just a few examples.

When will the government realize that members have a duty to represent all citizens? They have a duty to work for all citizens. When will the government realize that the public will not put up with this kind of behaviour for very long?The official opposition is prepared to work with the government, but the government does not appear to be listening to us. The message goes in one ear and out the other.

We have a duty to represent all citizens and to do everything in our power to preserve our vested rights. Our duty is to defend our democracy and our democratic processes, along with our young people, their future and their rights. We must work together, not merely defend the interests of a select few.

Why is the government not worried about public opinion? Just like some government members, I, too, I have been flooded with words of encouragement to continue our opposition to this bill.

But what is the cost of the Conservatives' interventionist policy? The workers are paying the price by being oppressed. Negotiations require a consensus of both parties, we recognize that. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers knows that; the law recognizes it; and the people, whether they belong to a union or not, also know it; but not Canada Post and the Conservative Party.

Finally, with regard to a brief debate that took place earlier, I, too, would like to know why the minister misled the government by proposing this bill to deal with a strike. As everyone knows today, we are not dealing with a strike, but with a lockout. In fact, I would like her to take the time to explain this to us. Perhaps it was only the result of some confusion and not a premeditated act. She will now have the opportunity to clear this up or simply to explain things to us. But if the government was truly misled, this means it has introduced a bill for which there are no valid grounds. I simply want to ask the minister to take the time to reply, because we are debating this bill which may well have a questionable rationale.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Minister of State (Seniors)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the presentation by the hon. member.

I have already heard from a lot of seniors in my riding who are feeling really depressed because we have not solved this and because we are still talking and talking and talking, without taking any real action, because the opposition is stalling everything.

We all understand that this work stoppage of Canada Post is already directly affecting the lives of many people, including seniors in my riding. Young people are waiting to get their student visas extended, and a lot of low-income seniors and other residents need their cheques, as well as all the other convenience of the mail.

Why is the member opposite not cooperating with the government to pass this important legislation? We need to make sure that both sides get back to the table so that the workers can resume their duties in service of the general public.

This is the time when they really should get back to work, instead of politicking.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us end this lockout. Let them continue to negotiate. No one will be treated with contempt, and everyone will receive their mail.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is curious that it is Thursday in the House, but of course it is really Saturday, and it gets more bizarre after that.

It is entirely correct that the government itself set the stage in the terms of the motion we are debating today, so it's all nonsense about when will we stop. The Conservatives themselves decided not to put in any time limits.

To add insult to injury, I would point out that a lot of the questions that have been asked we cannot ask directly of government members because they are not participating in the debate. They are asking a few questions and making comments, but they are not taking any turns whatsoever to be part of the debate. So all of these questions that we have had directly from all of the members we cannot ask directly.

The parliamentary secretary earlier said that they are doing this, apparently, in the public interest. I would like to ask the member, what is the public interest here? Is the public interest forcing workers back to work, or is the public interest actually upholding collective bargaining in this country and allowing the parties to do the job that they need to do and to find their own solution?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. The public interest means respecting the rights of everyone in the country. In that way, we will be respecting the economy and the health of our businesses.

I note that the member said this is still Thursday, June 23, 2011. We also see that on the other side they keep repeating the same things. It would indeed be desirable for us to co-operate in the public interest. We are already proposing solutions. We are simply waiting for some phone calls to be able to put an end to this lockout.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I had the chance to visit my riding yesterday. I met people who have placed their confidence in us and they asked me something. It was a young couple, Marie-Josée and Martial, who have just had a baby. They are now the proud parents of two little boys. They mailed in the documents to claim their parental leave. Everything is all tied up. This young couple needs their money to make their mortgage and car payments and to survive.

Will the member opposite work with this House to call a vote on this bill so that Quebeckers and Canadians can start receiving their mail again on Monday?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my former MP—since I once lived in his riding—that I would like to work with the government and with him in our vast region. We are already bringing forward proposals. Let us end this lockout. It will all be settled and people will get their mail.

[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.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. He talked about how we need more and more unions and how we need redistribution of wealth, two hallmark policies of socialism. I thought when the NDP went to the Vancouver convention they were talking about removing socialism from their party constitution. I was happy to hear that, because socialism does not work.

Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing not of money but of misery.” That was Winston Churchill, one of the greatest leaders of the previous century. He knew what socialism was and he recognized it for the dangers it provides.

The NDP also talk about democracy and the democracy of the union. Now, why are thousands and thousands of Canadians across this country forced to join unions? Why must they join a union to be a teacher? Why must they join a union to be a postal worker? If they are democratic, why can they not have a choice?

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

Madam Speaker, in what a demagogic way my words have been twisted. I never said that Canadians must join unions. I said that we hope that there will be as many unions as possible. In fact, in modern western countries where unions exist and wealth is distributed, life expectancy is higher, there is less illness, and social services are well supported. Those countries have the most vibrant economies. We need only look to Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

This is the basis for my comment about the need for unions. In countries where there are no unions, people work for 10¢ an hour and have no services—no health services or social security. That is the logic behind my comments.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord. Over the 37-hour debate, the sound of a broken record has been reaching my ears from the other side of the House. The same arguments have been brought up over and over. The Conservatives claim that the NDP is to blame for the 37-hour debate, since it refuses to accept the bill the Conservatives have tabled. There are specific reasons why we do not agree with the bill.

However, we have proposed alternatives to the bill, which the government knew we would not support. We proposed that the government replace the bill with back-to-work legislation that would not affect the workers' right to a rotating strike. We proposed that the government replace it with a bill that would extend the collective agreement by a few years, so that the two parties could come to an agreement naturally. Instead, the government presented us with a bill that imposes unfair conditions on employees and forces a return to work in violation of the free bargaining provisions. Therefore, I ask that my colleague tell me which of the three options proposed he prefers and whether that option would help us go home sooner.

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

Madam Speaker, it is obvious that withdrawing this immoral and unjust bill would be the best solution. Postal workers have told us that if the government withdrew the bill and the Canada Post Corporation ended its lockout, the workers would return to work today. What are they waiting for to withdraw this bill? What are they waiting for to end the lockout? What are they waiting for to negotiate in good faith instead of pursuing a hidden right-wing political agenda? That is what we are wondering.

Canadians are wondering the same thing. Where is the government headed when it comes to workers? What does it intend to do about our rights and our existing social benefits?