Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow our member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to speak today to this motion.

I want to say right at the outset that I feel shameful that we are here having to debate this motion regarding back to work legislation and that the first order of business that has come from the Conservative government is to force workers back to work and not give them a fair shot and a fair chance at collective bargaining.

I was first elected in 1997 and in December of that year we faced a similar situation of back-to-work legislation for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. What is ironic though is that at that time it was a Liberal government. The legislation that we are dealing with today is very similar to the legislation that we dealt with in 1997. The same incredible, outrageous fines, $50,000 for union leaders and $100,000 for the union as a whole, were in the Liberal legislation, and the same kind of restraints on the arbitrator that we see in the legislation today. Back then it was also a lower wage that was legislated, a wage restraint, than what had actually been at the bargaining table. It has been ironic to hear some of the Liberal members rise to say how they feel about this legislation when they forget their own history of what they did in 1997. I just wanted to remember that because I was a new member at that time and I remember that debate also went through the night.

I want to begin by thanking postal workers. I think they have had a really rough ride from the Conservative members in the House. They have been vilified, demonized and have been set up as the bad guys when, in reality, what the union and the members of the union want is a fair collective agreement. They do not want to see back to work legislation. They are willing to go back to the table.

Look at the circumstances that are now unfolding. We have a Conservative government that is using a sledgehammer and putting forward legislation, Motion No. 3, that we are now debating, that would actually put workers in such a constraint in terms of any collective bargaining that we might as well say goodbye to collective bargaining.

I want to reference that because some of the Conservative members have said that this is only about this situation, that it is only about the postal workers, that it does not affect anybody else other than, of course, the various people whose messages they are reading. But the fact is that the back to work legislation affects all workers in this country.

It may surprise members to know that even today Canada is not a signatory to one of the very important International Labour Organization conventions, ILO Convention No. 98, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention and so, that right is not even enshrined in terms of Canadian practice. Is it any wonder that we see this assault on Canadians workers? What happens to these workers is a signal of what is yet to come. For that reason we should be deeply disturbed and concerned about the legislation and how it would affect other workers, whether they are under a collective agreement or not.

The other issue that we have to be very concerned about is the implication and impact on pensions. Every Canadian is concerned about what is going to happen to their pension system. One of the issues in this particular round of bargaining is the employer trying to change the pension system so that workers would no longer have an assurance of what it is they can expect from their pension when they retire

This is a very basic value to all Canadian workers, again, whether they are unionized or not. For the employer, which happens to be a crown corporation controlled by the government, to run the gauntlet, lay this down and say it is going to change the pension system is really a warning sign of what is to come.

As New Democrats, we know that we have to fight this tooth and nail with the labour movement, with progressive people in this country, because we can see the signal and we see the direction that the government is taking.

In addition, one of the proposals that the union has had to deal with is facing a two-tiered wage system. Again, this is about an employer now supported by a government that is trying to put in a wage restraint through legislation.

It is pretty outrageous when the government itself tables a proposal in the legislation that would actually decrease the wages that were put on the table by the employer, which in itself would start workers 20% lower than existing postal workers. We can see where this is going.

I find it very ironic that the government says it is interested in economic recovery and stability on the one hand, but on the other hand everything it is doing is driving wages and working conditions down and making things less secure and more difficult for workers whether they are unionized or not.

These are all elements of this back to work legislation. The idea is that this is a one-off piece of legislation and we do not have to worry about it. In the debate unfolding today, which will go on for several days, it will become very clear that there are much broader implications for all workers in this country and it is something we should be concerned about.

Today in the House I tabled two private members' bills relating to what we call social condition, which is a recognition that people who are poor and have low incomes face discrimination based on their economic circumstances. I see a relationship between the tabling of those bills and what we are trying to do by removing discrimination from people who are economically disadvantaged or living below the poverty line and what the government is trying to do in this back to work legislation.

The fact is that when public policy goes in a direction that takes away people's rights, drives down wages and says collective bargaining will not be tolerated, that affects everybody. When unions do well and minimum wages go up, it benefits all workers in this country, including people who are living below the poverty line and struggling on minimum wages, whether it is $8, $9 or $10 an hour depending on where they live.

These issues are related. We can see that the legislation that will be coming forward after we vote tonight, presuming this motion passes, will have a huge impact not only on CUPW members but on workers as a whole. Those in the labour movement are watching this with very keen interest. They are very concerned about what is taking place.

I noticed that one such union member, Fred Wilson who works at the CEP, noted in a blog on rabble.ca:

—the Conservatives have rigged this game completely. The outcome is now determined; there is nothing left for free collective bargaining to accomplish.

I would certainly echo those comments. I feel the sense of shame and distress about the road we are going down.

The government did not have to intervene. We often hear that the Conservatives do not like to intervene in the marketplace. Why is it in this case they decided to intervene on the side of Canada Post? Why is it that they have not said anything about the lockout of the workers that is taking place?

We have heard Conservative member after Conservative member attack the union and those who are trying to get a fair deal with their employer, and yet I have not heard one word from any of those members about what the employer has done. The reality is the government is backing the employer. The government is saying it is onside with Canada Post 100%. Where is the balance? Where is the idea that fairness should exist?

We are very opposed to this motion. We are opposed to the process of bringing in closure on the bill that will be before us tonight.

We believe in collective bargaining. We stand for the rights of workers to get a fair deal as outlined by the International Labour Organization. We support convention 98 as all people in this country should do. We demand that the government respect those rights, that it think about the position it is taking and what it is imposing in such an unfair and discriminatory manner.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a veteran of this House and I greatly respect her thoughts and comments on this piece of legislation.

I am quite concerned about the position of the New Democrats. They never talk about the viability of Canada Post as a company, as a service provider to Canadians.

A first class stamp costs 59¢ now. The cost seems to go up every year. I think the cost of stamps is likely hurting lower income people. I never hear a comment about that from the NDP.

I never hear the New Democrats say they are concerned that Canada Post can be viable for the long term. It is to some degree a monopoly. Many Canadians do not have an alternative service provider other than Canada Post for basic mail delivery.

We have heard about the impact on small business and on community groups specifically that rely on the mail for fundraising and much needed donations that come in the mail.

Why is it that we do not hear from members like the member for Vancouver East about their concerns regarding the long-term viability of Canada Post?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is possible that the member has not been in the House all day, but I have been because I have been on duty today. I have listened to the debate and I have heard NDP member after NDP member get up and actually talk about the viability of Canada Post and the fact that last year it made $281 million in profits. This corporation has made profits year after year. That money has gone back into general revenue. Surely at least some of that money should be reinvested in the corporation to allow it to improve the working conditions and the environment for its workers.

We believe very much in the viability of Canada Post. In fact, we have been saying just the opposite of what the member is saying. It is a viable operation. Why is the government trying to knock it into the ground? Why is it trying to knock into the ground the workers who go out day after day delivering our mail, sometimes in incredibly difficult environmental circumstances?

In terms of the rates, again NDP member after NDP member has pointed out today that our postal rates are among the most affordable in the world. There are many countries where the rates are much higher.

I do not think the member has his facts correct.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit disappointed in terms of what the member for Vancouver East had to say.

We in the Liberal Party do not support the legislation that is being proposed by the government. I must say that she is not alone. The NDP attempts to say there is no difference between the 1997 legislation and the current legislation. Surely she can understand the difference between a lockout versus a strike. Today it is a lockout. Back then it was a strike.

Surely she can understand the difference in the legislation. All she has to do is read the legislation that was proposed back in 1997 compared to the legislation today.

I care about the workers. I care about the Canadians who are receiving the mail. I think it is important that we have some facts on the record.

Are there any circumstances whatsoever that the member could possibly imagine where the NDP would support back to work legislation?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was only responding to what I heard from Liberal members both on Tuesday and today in debate. I heard the Liberal House leader say earlier today that he believes the bill makes a mockery of arbitration, and I would certainly agree.

I was just pointing out that in 1997 very similar legislation also restrained the arbitrator in terms of what he or she was able to do. I find it ironic and surprising that the Liberals thought it was okay then but they do not think it is okay now.

When we started debating this motion on Tuesday, I heard the interim leader of the Liberal Party express his concerns about the wages and the fact that the wages in the legislation are lower than what was on the table. I agree with that too. Again in 1997 the same situation existed and apparently the Liberals were not concerned about it.

I am only responding to what the Liberals said and pointing out their inconsistencies.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering where this member is coming from. This is a lockout. It is not a strike. It is the company that put the workers on the street permanently and interrupted full mail service.

During the negotiations, the union did institute rotating strikes, which did not shut down the mail but drew attention to the issues. It even had an agreement to deliver pension cheques for seniors and other cheques. This is being characterized that somehow these union workers are doing this. It is not their fault. They were locked out by the company, backed by the government.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague speaks a little bit in half truths. The fact is that this started with rotating strikes. I heard, right from the very start of this, from my constituents about how it was affecting them. Sure, there was still some mail trickling through, but we should not think that it did not disrupt services in different parts of the country.

When I heard about the rotating strikes, I knew it would lead to a lockout, or I suspected it would.

I am not taking sides here. The bottom line is that they need to get back to work, sit down and talk about this and come up with a suitable resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot about the workers and, of course, the opposition seems to forget the 34 million Canadians who rely on the postal service. The opposition does not want to talk about that. In my hometown of Stouffville, the workers have a sign that says that all they want to do is get back to work. We know what the NDP is doing. It is supporting the union. It is not actually supporting the workers of Canada Post because it has never actually had the interest of the workers in mind. If the NDP did, it would be encouraging its union friends to allow the workers to vote on the contract that they wanted to accept so they could get back to work delivering the mail.

Could the hon. member comment on why he thinks the NDP is so focused on supporting the union bosses over the people who actually want to deliver the mail in this country?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I will call the eighth wonder of the world. Maybe none of the names of the union leaders were on the NDP ballots, at least not in print, but I think we know they were there.

The bottom line is that we are here to support people as a whole in this country. There is a dispute out there that is affecting everyday Canadians. The postal system is a public service and, with our economy in the still fragile state that it is right now, it cannot afford this work stoppage and strike. It is a combination. We can try to cut hairs on it but that is what it is.

We are to a point where we need to pass this legislation and get these people back to work so our small and medium-sized businesses and people in general can survive and get on with their life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and the point trying to be made by the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, talking about the workers going back to work.

In fact, when the workers met with Mr. Chopra, they clearly indicated that they would go back to work, that they wanted to go back to work and that they would go back under the conditions of the past contract. They were very clear on that. They do not want to be off work. We have injured workers who do not have access to benefits packages. They have medication that has to be bought. They have children who have to be fended for. All these benefits are gone as long as they are locked out. They did offer to go back to work.

However, knowing that the government would bring forward this legislation, does my friend not see that they did not walk down the middle of this one, that it has put this squarely in favour of the corporation on this particular piece of legislation?

[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.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite if he could tell us more about the importance of division in the Conservatives' strategy: rural vs. urban, unionized vs. non-unionized workers, those with pensions and a decent salary vs. those who struggle to survive.

I would like him to explain to me just how important it is to divide people in a debate like this. Would it not be better to try to level the playing field rather than taking benefits away from those who have them? Can the government not try to establish some equality in society rather than seeking to divide?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague to this great place, the House of Commons of Canada.

I will throw the member's question back at him. We have a democracy in Canada and right now 70% of Canadians have shown over and over that they support this legislation. I think what the member is telling all of us in a roundabout way is that 30% of the people should win in this and the other 70% should be overlooked, and that is not the way it is. In a democracy, the majority rules. Seventy per cent of Canadians want this work stoppage ended and that is exactly what we intend to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to mention the ongoing bombing in Libya, but 70% of Canadians oppose that as well.

I agree that Canada Post is more essential to the lives of rural residents. I am from a rural community myself. A larger concern around Canada Post is whether the federal government is really committed to keeping a public service for all regions of the country.

Canada Post has lost some of its most profitable divisions to t companies like UPS and FedEx. I think this debate about the back to work legislation could rise to a level of analysis. How do we protect Canada Post? How do we keep it public? How do we ensure that we have rural services?

Can we not compromise in this place to have back to work legislation that does not undermine the workers in that great union?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member and I, who has been to my riding a few times, may agree on one thing, which is that we do care about these workers. Today they are not getting a wage at all as they are locked out but they started with rotating strikes. Again I will not pick sides in that, but both are at fault here and it has led to a certain point. We are going to tell them to sit down at the table and resolve this.

The member talks about rural mail delivery and saving it. I have been fighting to save rural mail delivery for all of my seven years here in the House of Commons. Canada Post employees, management and non-management, should understand that the work stoppage and rotating strikes, the whole shooting match, is long term hurting the viability of rural mail delivery. The main reason that I support getting these people back to work is so that my businesses and constituents do not have to suffer through this any longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

This is my first speech in the House since the 2011 election. I am very proud to represent the great riding of Timmins—James Bay. I would like to wish the Franco-Ontarian community a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I have a great deal of respect for the Franco-Ontarian community, for its identity and for its language.

I wish I were there with them but they know why we are here. We are here for a principle that was wonderfully articulated by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound who, I think, finally told us the Conservative viewpoint.

He talked about the senior citizens in his riding who told him that they were tickled pink that their son got a job at $12 an hour for three days a week and that he should be lucky he has a job. I have heard that language before from that kind of Republican Tea Party mentality, that one should just be lucky enough to get whatever they give you.

I have never had a senior citizen come up to me and say that they were tickled pink that their adult son could only find three days of work a week. The senior citizens in my riding are asking what has happened in our country that their 28-year-old son or daughter is still living at home because he or she is getting by on minimum wage. They tell me that when they were younger they built up a pension plan in Canada, but they know that their children will not have the kind of pension or the kind of life that they fought for. What has happened in our country?

One can hear it from the benches over there with the smug comments about the union bosses and that this is somehow rural people being picked on by urban people, the division and wedge issues.

I did hear my hon. colleagues from the Conservative Party on the bus talking about the SOBs, the workers. That was their attitude. They came in and they were all smug. They need someone to blame so they come in here and pretend that they are not picking sides. The message was clear: a crown corporation shut down service--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You may want to check on this and rule on it, but I am not sure that “SOB” is appropriate parliamentary language, whether it is being said directly or being attributed indirectly.

Second, I hardly think it is fair to attribute something to people who may not be here to defend themselves. The member should observe some decorum in the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I will note the concern raised by the member for Essex and would caution the member and all members to—

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

Mr. Speaker, I have such great respect for the House that I would never call one of those members an SOB. Out of decency to them, I would never point out the members who would use such words. I take that under advisement and think it is really important.

However, it speaks to the underlying contempt that this is a manufactured crisis. I look across the way and I see the old Mike Harris wrecking crew. The members of that crew are all sitting there. I saw what they did in Ontario. The only one missing from the gang is the famous John Snobelen. John Snobelen was quite the character. He got a hold of the education system and, while not knowing he was being filmed, said that the government had to manufacture a crisis in order to act. That was the old Mike Harris wrecking crew gang.

What did we see? There was ongoing debate between the postal workers, in their right to collective bargaining with management, and those guys saw the opportunity to manufacture a crisis. What did they do? They locked out the workers. They shut down postal service.

Then Conservative backbenchers start saying, “Look what those bad posties and their union bosses are doing to senior citizens”, even though the postal workers were willing to deliver pensions, “Look how they are destroying business”. Conservatives shut down Canada Post and now they are intervening with legislation that is stripping rights that have been negotiated at the bargaining table.

They say that they are not picking sides. We know on what side those guys have been. They have always been on the side that will undermine the pension system in Canada. They have ridiculed defined pension benefits ever since they have been here.

They are against the right of workers to defend themselves. They tell us in the House that young workers today should be tickled pink that they work three days a week for $12 an hour. My grandfather worked for three days a week at the collieries in the coal mines in Cape Breton. The workers were told that they were lucky they had jobs. Then they started to organize unions because men died so young. It was so bad in Cape Breton, they actually had to go to Timmins to work in the mines. The mines in Timmins were nicer than the mines in Cape Breton. That is how bad it was. The right to collective bargaining was won in Kirkland Lake in the 1941 strike.

The gang of people who have always been on the other side were calling the workers communists and telling them they were lucky to have jobs. They tried to intimidate the miners in Kirkland Lake. Another gang from Ontario sent up 500 police officers with machine guns and marched down the main street of Kirkland Lake in -40° weather. The next day 500 women and children marched back to show the cops that they would not be intimidated.

That is where the right of collective bargaining was won. It was won by people who were blacklisted later, who lost their jobs and homes in that strike. However, they won the principle that people should be able to negotiate legally.

This manufactured crisis by the government is the first step. This is the Wisconsin principle being brought into our country. When a government is allowed to lock out a service, blame the workers and then impose a wage agreement that is less than was negotiated at the table, it has taken the fundamental principle that people in my community and others fought for and literally died for and thrown it out the window.

Do members know why the government thinks it is going to get away with it? Because it thinks the Canadian public is stupid and would love to rise up and kick the local postie. I do not think so. I come from a rural area and know the importance of rural mail. I will tell everyone what people back home have been saying. They have been waiting for these guys to take a run at Canada Post because they do not believe in public institutions.

The cost of a stamp in Kenabeek or Matachewan, Ontario is the same price as it is in downtown Montreal because it is a public system. However, it is not that profitable. It is not profitable to keep little rural post offices. The only reason those guys have not started to cut there is because they know there will be a backlash, so they manufacture a crisis and say that they will fix things. Then they will start hiving off where the easy money is and give it to their friends. That is the neo-con agenda.

Then the Conservatives will say Canada Post really is not all that viable and, of course, union bosses will get blamed again. By that time, what they will have done is sell off the money stream. They have not been able to get away with that because they know rural Canadians will fight for their post offices and would throw any Tory out who tries to mess with it. They needed a crisis and now they have one.

NDP members will debate this as long as it takes. We and our colleagues from Quebec, who are giving up their national holiday to be here, are doing this because we are sending that gang a message. If the Conservatives get away with this one, we will see them go after every collective agreement. Every time there is a strike, we will see them go after the fundamental rights of pensions and defined benefits plans, so we have to stop them.

I was kind of crying on my own shoulder, thinking I would be on the all night shift. I am getting kind of old and do not want to be here at 5:30 in the morning. I was thinking that I wished this would be all nice and we would settle. However, then I thought of the strike at Vale Inco, when those men and women were out for over a year because they were sold out by the government. The government allowed two of the greatest mining corporations in the world, Falconbridge and Inco, to be sold off to corporate raiders. I watched how those workers at Local 6500 stood up because it was the same plant that destroyed their defined benefits plan, that destroyed what they had done for 50, 60 years in the union. The workers at Local 6500 stayed out for over a year.

I remember being out there in January in the cold and their slogan was “One day longer, one day stronger”. They held the line and they pushed back one of the most brutal mining companies in the world. Vale got a black eye, but Vale was aided every step of the way by that gang and the then president of the Treasury Board, who was their friend.

There is a principle here. We are not kidding around. We will be here as long as it takes because we are drawing the line in the sand. The government's world is wrong and we will defend the rights of people to have pensions and decent wages in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite funny listening to the debate today. We have the Liberals claiming one thing, but when they were in government they brought in similar legislation. Now it is all different.

Then we have the New Democrats who have the nerve to get up in the House and say that somehow they are the great defenders of the public service and of the union.

What about the workers in Ontario who had to suffer the Bob Rae years when he was the NDP premier of Ontario—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order please. The hon. member should recall that he may not use the name of a sitting member of Parliament while he is speaking in this place.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are right. I would rather refer to him as the NDP premier of the province of Ontario who imposed the social contract on the workers of Ontario.

What was the social contract? It was the NDP government of Ontario reopening the collective bargaining agreements that those workers had signed in good faith and deciding that they should take 12 days off a year and cutting their wages.

Who did that? That was the NDP. Some of the members of that unruly gang at that terrible ministry are in the NDP caucus today. Its members are so embarrassed by it that they shuffled that leader, who is now currently the Liberal leader, off to the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, is that as good as it gets in the House?

I would answer that question. It is really so ridiculous and so beneath me to engage that guy in mudslinging that we have to get us back to where he was before when he was heckling about the union bosses.

That is the Mike Harris wrecking crew. We saw what its members did in Ontario. I will not defend or attack what was done by the Liberal leader when he was in Ontario. However, what was done by the Conservatives in Ontario people will never forget. Look what they did to the education system, to the health system and to natural resources and how they brought their gang of buddies in and sold things off. What is it always about? It is always about who will benefit and it is always their pals.

I would love to sit and debate Ontario history with my hon. colleague, but we have a bigger issue here, which is defending the pension benefits of Canadian working families.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question, which I have attempted to get answered from other members of the New Democratic caucus.

Does the member believe there are any circumstances whatsoever in which the NDP could envision themselves supporting back to work legislation?