Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[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.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's speech. I know he has been working on it for the last couple of days.

It is my second Saturday in Ottawa since I was elected five and a half years ago. The first Saturday that I spent here was for a wedding and it was much more enjoyable.

The question I have is very simple. New Democrats have been saying that all we have to do is call Canada Post and tell them to unlock the doors. Does that mean there is a commitment from the NDP that it will tell the union that if Canada Post unlocks the doors, the union should make a commitment not to have rotating strikes and sit down and negotiate?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot do anything about the first Saturday that my colleague spent in Ottawa. It was his choice to go to a wedding.

However, he cannot blame us for this Saturday. All he has to do is to come down here, walk this way and speak to the man who is pulling the strings. Do not go talk to the puppet, but speak to the man who is pulling the strings. Then this strike would be over on Monday morning.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague comes from a strong labour background, which has also shaped the community I am from in Thompson, Manitoba, and here I am thinking in particular of the work done by the steelworkers.

I would like to ask him if he could elaborate on the value of having unionized workplaces. We hear so much criticism from the other side. Is it not the case that the process of collective bargaining has managed to bring so much benefit to communities across our country and truly raise the standard of living in Canada?

Rather than hearing such contempt for the work of unionized people and workers, could this member talk about the benefits of their work?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to repeat that this lockout could be over on Monday if the government unlocked the doors.

We all know what collective bargaining means. It means that the workers in those communities will have decent wages that they can spend in their communities on a house, a new car, or at local malls, compared to workers who are not unionized, who are working at minimum wage and have to shop at food banks.

Trade unions are very important to the economy of this country.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to many nostalgic comments across the way about the old labour movement and the unions back in 1946. I am wondering if the members opposite recognize that we are in 2011 and that we have just come through a great recession that has damaged so many countries and from which we are just recovering.

I am also wondering if they will listen to Canadians who are dealing with problems today, as well as the postal workers who want to get back to work, who want to earn money and be productive.

When will they realize that we are not in the old socialist days of the good old union? We are in 2011.

It is leadership that we need in this Parliament. Leadership looks ahead. We are not looking in the rear-view mirror at what happened in the past. We need to look ahead at what we will be dealing with in the future.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. We are in the 21st century. However, the government, along with this member, would like to bring us back to 1946.

Today, modern unions give their members the right to vote on collective agreements, unlike what the government wants to impose on workers.

As the hon. member was saying, back in the 1940s people were starving. There were a lot of people who were hungry back in those days. However, it was because of good trade unions that we were able to raise the standard of living so that people could have a good life and afford to put their kids through college or university and pay for health care. Everything is good, but the government would like to take us back to 1946.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, Canadians voted for change. The Conservatives like to say and let it be known that Canadians voted for the following:

a stable, strong, national majority government.

The ship should be called the SS NMGO from now on. That will be my name for it, shorthand.

It is as though Dorian Gray was admiring himself in the mirror believing that he was still young. Canadians did not vote for a majority. They voted for change, and they are disappointed because they believed that things would be done differently, here, in Ottawa. I can see the members opposite. They are tired and spent from defending this bad ideological law. Canadians deserve better than this. That is what we get when we allow ideologues to introduce their legislation and when they are not prepared.

I feel sorry for the members on the other side who have to defend this sloppy legislation of their leader. I had a conversation yesterday with a member of the government. The member regrets that politics in Ottawa has become so leader-centred that members must follow party leaders in every decision he or she makes. I feel sorry for that member because I feel that our caucus is based on respect and teamwork, not the leader. We respect our leader, but he respects us too. He would not present legislation that the caucus would not support.

I truly feel sorry for all members on the other side of the House who have to follow their leader's sloppy legislation, this back to work legislation.

I do not think the members opposite believe in this legislation. They have to get up to defend this terribly sloppy legislation.

Canadians voted for change on May 2. They wanted to see Parliament work differently. The Prime Minister wanted to win the trust of Canadians. Canadians trusted him to make incremental changes. He betrayed Canadians with this legislation.

I have a message for the Prime Minister and his increasingly restive caucus, that we will not let up. In four years when Canadians see how the government legislates and betrays the trust put in them by Canadians, we will be on that side. We will be the government.

The Liberals have asked us many times what we would do to this legislation. We would take the final offer out of the legislation. It is a bad way to legislate. There are judges, academics and experts who say this is not the way to legislate. It does not work. It puts all the weight on management's side. It shows bad faith on the government's part for taking the side of management. This is not a fair way to proceed. This is not the way to legislate workers in this country.

The other thing that we would change is the wage offer clawback. The government is being so unfair to workers by offering them a lower wage than the corporation itself offered. All Canadians know that is a bad way to proceed; it is a slap in the face of all working people in this country.

Some people may look at the postal workers and say, “Oh, they have it cushy. They have a good life.” These postal workers work their hardest, working their bodies to the bone. They deserve all of our respect. The government does not respect those workers with this sloppy legislation.

Apart from that, the government is sowing the seeds of inter-generational strife. It is dividing the older workers versus the younger workers. The older workers will have more benefits, the younger workers will have fewer benefits.

This is not a way to bring the country together. We need real leadership. This is not leadership but an ideological push of sloppy legislation to appeal to a very narrow base of voters. This is not what Canadians asked for when they elected a stable majority government. This is not a stable government. This is an irresponsible government because it is not taking care to properly craft legislation. It was less than two weeks ago that the Minister of Labour, at the Conservative Party convention, said that it was too early for back to work legislation. That was less than two weeks ago.

It was too early then, but on the last day of Parliament, its last sitting day, that was the time to introduce this legislation. All of a sudden it had become time, very quickly.

This legislation has been a spoke in the wheels of negotiations between the two parties because it sends a message to the management side that it does not have to negotiate in good faith. The government has been all about divide and conquer.

Some people in my riding have complained about cutbacks in the infrastructure of the postal service and the fact that it has been centralized. I want to speak to that.

The government speaks a lot about reforming the postal system and how it is not working anymore. However, Canada Post made $281 million in profits in 2009, much more than in previous years. Workers of Canada Post delivered more than 11 billion pieces of mail in 2009. It is a profitable corporation. The workers and the people who have supported all the changes that have happened deserve more than this terribly sloppy legislation.

I would like to read a letter, or in fact an email. We are not getting letters anymore. This is from a constituent: “We are writing to let you know that we support wholeheartedly the striking postal workers. It is clear that the issues in this strike go beyond the workers' immediate financial concerns. As serious as those are, there are forces at work in North America which hope to degrade the power of united working people.”

The constituent continues: “Throughout this continent, unions made the benefits of industrialization available to the masses. Within Canada the postal workers have been at the vanguard of the fight for such essential and just matters as maternity leaves and reliable and sufficient pensions.”

Let me say that this party will stand behind the working people of this country and will defend their rights, whether it is today, tomorrow, the next day, or the next four years. We are here to defend the rights of workers to bargain collectively.

Canada Post Corporation is not bargaining in good faith. The CEO makes more than the Prime Minister of the country, with a 4% increase every year. The union offered to stop rotating strikes if Canada Post Corporation came back to the table and reinstated the contract temporarily. Canada Post Corporation refused. Why? They knew this legislation would save them in the end. Why would the corporation negotiate in good faith if they knew that the government was going to back them up?

To the leadership and to the caucus of the government, take off the locks and let the workers get back to work.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member opposite.

I would ask him to take into consideration a few things: the state of the world economy, the situation in Europe, the situation with Greece, the challenges the United States faces with respect to deficits and debt, the modest economic recovery we are seeing in Canada, and the realization that disruptions to the economy now are clearly undesirable and create further risk to the modest growth we have in the Canadian economy.

Does the member not recognize that such disruptions as this work interruption are harmful to the Canadian economy itself and are a risk that we ought not to take at this time?

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

I thank the hon. member for his question. I agree the recovery is slowly happening. However, we do not build recovery by stopping people from working.

There is a lockout on these workers. When working people are allowed to work, they start stimulating the economy. We have to let the system work out the way it is supposed to work out rather than intervene.

The government said it was not going to be interventionist, but obviously with this legislation it is intervening in the bargaining process. It is intervening in the ability of postal workers to get back to work. Not letting these postal workers work is actually harming the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to intervene one more time.

In my first two speeches in this place I very rigidly tried to explain the evolution of and reasons for the trade union movement. I did this because I know that across the way not too many people really understand. I thought in fairness, to help the debate, I would try to help bring that understanding forward.

In a debate like this, with the very reasoned question that came from the Minister of Finance, the reality is that we can raise the level of debate. We can stop the silliness of name-calling or whatever. However, what concerns me is that this particular piece of legislation has a direction in it that will define an “us and them” in this country.

I referred to 1946 because this was when the workers felt they had to push back. We do not want to create a climate like that again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member. It seems the current government is dedicated to dividing and conquering the Canadian people by separating out these postal workers from the rest of Canadians.

The New Democratic Party believes in the evolution of things, and that all these rights for workers have built up over time. We strongly believe in evolution. I do not see that belief in evolution on the other side.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about email messages. I received a phone call from a local businessman who has an art gallery. Unfortunately, as a result of the union action and the NDP action, the flyers for a great event at the art gallery could not go out. The businessman expressed his concern, as did many others.

The longer the NDP delay this process with their filibuster--all Canadians are quite disgusted by the filibuster going on here--and the more the NDP speak on it, the more Canadians realize that the NDP have ideologies that are basically self-serving and serving their union leaders instead of Canadians.

Why do the NDP disrespect Canadians so much, after they were elected?

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

Mr. Speaker, simply put, I think it is the government that is disrespecting Canadians. The member's comments show his disrespect for the democratic process. This is a democratic process we are undertaking. It shows Canadians that the Prime Minister cannot just shove through sloppy, badly written legislation.

I have sympathy with the small business owner who is unable to send his flyers out, but it is the Conservative government that refuses to intervene to stop this lockout. It is the government that is stopping the work.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a couple of the statements made by the previous speaker.

The fact is that the dividend that Canada Post has acquired in the last little while has gone directly back into reinvesting in modernization programs at Canada Post so that it can provide efficient, effective and timely delivery of mail.

The member also suggested that the government can simply unlock the doors. The government does not get involved in the day to day operations of Canada Post. What we are trying to do here is bring together two parties that have not been able to agree. That is what the legislation would do. It would provide a vehicle to get the post moving in the country as soon as possible. That is what we are debating today.

The NDP filibuster is just delaying what Canadians want. I think Canadians regret having elected a whole lot of people beholden to the union movement. This is harming Canadians. Please let us get the mail going. Will the opposition stop the filibuster and support the government's legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, we all want to see the mail moving. Nobody wants that more than the postal workers, who some days ago made it very clear that they are prepared to continue to negotiate and to continue to work under the existing agreement. It is simply a matter of taking the locks off the doors and that would happen.

I am glad to hear that over the last couple of years some of the dividends have been put back into the post office. We have a good quality post office but it could be better. Other services could be offered. That is a good use of that money. Some of it was offered to the workers and the government wants to take it back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the member for St. John's East and earlier comments about the history of the unions, which some government members question.

I recall a very old retired coal miner from industrial Cape Breton who told me he must have gone into the mines very young, and he remembered how young he was when he recalled coming home one day crying and saying to his mother, “You should have told me”. He was a coal miner at the time. She said, “What should I have told you?” He said, “You should have told me there was no Santa Claus”. That is how young he was when he went into the mines.

Would the hon. member for St. John's East agree with me that unions gave us a great deal but that they must not be idealized and glorified? Everything changes over time and all unions are not perfect and all corporations are not evil. How does he respond to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite astonished to hear that from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I do not recall being as idealistic as the member herself may once have been, to think that there was perfection to be found around us throughout our life, and I would not want to be accused of that. Obviously, we live in a democratic world where people disagree and people have many different degrees of idealism associated with their work.

However, I will say that more good has been brought by unions than just about any institution I can think of, over the last hundred years, in improving the lot of not only their own members but working people in society in general. Unions have brought about a great deal of progress and a greater sense of equality. Unfortunately, the government wants to put that backward instead of bringing it forward.

[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, it is pretty clear that the government members are picking and choosing things they think will continue to divide Canadians, not things that will bring them together and hopefully see a solution to this particular situation.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here, 43 hours later, because we fundamentally believe that we as people can work together. We believe that if you give people the time and the space they can come to an agreement. They can work things out, they can negotiate, they can see each other's points of view and find the common ground and find a solution. That is what New Democrats are about. We believe people can work things out if given the chance, if given the time.

Instead, what we have is the party opposite that believes in laying blame just on the workers. It believes in dividing, that there is an us and a them. There are these union bosses, or whatever they call them, and then there are the ordinary people, and then there are the Canadians versus the workers.

If we continue to divide people, we just get a society that is not going to be peaceful. We are really, at the end of the day, in it together. We want our young people to have a fair wage when they start working in the post office. They should get the $23, which is the starting wage of previous workers, rather than get $19. That makes sense because young people are just starting this. They want to start a family. They want to maybe save enough to buy a home. They should be given a chance to do so. Let them work it out in their unions.

We also believe that there should be safety in the workplace. It is difficult to carry 35 pounds of mail from time to time and they do get injured. We know that 1 in 10 postal workers are injured on the job. Some are injured very severely. Many are disabled. In fact there have been 6,335 incidents of injuries in the last year.

We also believe, and the workers believe, that they should be given the right when they retire to know precisely how much money they are going to receive, and that it is not determined by the market but determined by how much they have contributed and how long they have worked, so that their lives can be predictable, that when they are ready to retire they will be able to do so with some sense of security. That is not too much to ask for.

What the workers are saying is “Look, give us the 2% or 2.5%; the dollar amount is not huge given that the CEO of Canada Post on average in the last few years has gotten a 4% increase in each year”.

Canada Post would have given them 1.9%, but this legislation says “No, a 1.9% increase is too rich; give them 1.5%”.

We have tried to give the space for people to come together and work together, because fundamentally those are Canadian values. That is what Canadians want us to do. Canadians believe in sharing. They believe in coming together. However, I think this is a first major test for the Conservative Party since the election. It has failed. It has failed miserably in trying to bring people together. It has failed to find common ground, failed to bring labour peace. Instead, what do their members want? They want war. They want warring parties, us and them. They prefer to bully, they prefer to put the workers in a corner, bully them some more and then blame them for not working.

They want to work. They have been saying they want to work. They just need to be allowed to go back to work. That is why we have been saying that this Conservative Party, this government that appointed the board of directors of Canada Post, should pick up the phone, call the CEO, call the board members and say “Bring them back to work”.

Allow them back to work and then they can negotiate and talk some more. No, that is not what the government wants. it just wants to push the workers into a corner, bully them and lower their wages. What a sad, lost opportunity we are witnessing here.

During these 43 hours, there have been negotiations. The unions have been trying to come to an agreement, but that is not what the government or Canada Post wants. They want to impose a solution; they want to tell people what to do. They do not want people to work together. It is about rubbing salt in an open wound. It is about kicking people when they are down. It is definitely not Canadian values, and that is not how Canada should be governed.

Let me read a letter from a young person who lives in my riding. She said:

As a young worker living in Toronto, I struggled to make ends meet. Even though I gave up on my dream of a career in the arts to be “practical”, lived in a dirt-cheap basement apartment that was, frankly, quite terrible and didn't own a vehicle, I was unable to afford both my living expenses and my student loans. As a person with a prestigious degree and a full-time job, I was too embarrassed to look for help and went into default.

It took me a long time to work my way out of the financial mess I built for myself by trying to get the education I thought would help me succeed. Working a second job after you leave your full-time job and living below the poverty line with absolutely no savings isn't something I wish on any young person. I'm thankful we have public healthcare in Canada, or the situation for a young person in the same situation would be even more precarious, and in fact dangerous.

A young worker's basic expenses are not lower than anyone else's. He or she is entering a job market with less experience. Being young, unless you have the fabled “connections”, which most of us don't, means you fight harder to earn a spot in a competitive workforce as an unproven commodity. You are less confident and afraid to rock the boat with your employer, so you are vulnerable to harassment, abusive work conditions and inequality. Who wants to walk away from one of the first or only jobs they've held with the infamous “bad reference”? Who will be believed in a case of conflicting accounts, the experienced manager or a young person who hasn't made it through the trial period?

As a young worker, your time and energy aren't worth any less. Even with equal opportunities, you may find it difficult to gain the trust of many employers who may see the world very differently and place less value on your skills.

It goes on to say:

Let's not fragment our CUPW workforce and tell young workers they have to start the career race from the starting line that is far behind everyone else's. That's just not right. In many ways the postal service is a flagship, and our flagship is going to be flying a black flag for Canada's youth if this legislation passes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently and I have been following the filibuster by New Democrats quite closely.

Earlier the member of Parliament for Vaudreuil-Soulanges tipped the NDP's hand that it will be moving amendments with respect to the wage settlement. The NDP member for Trinity—Spadina, in her intervention just now, is suggesting that 2.5% a year is a fair settlement.

Because the union strikes provoked a lockout rather than a favourable settlement, can the member confirm, one, that the NDP will turn the committee of the whole into a bargaining session with its amendments; two, did the NDP consult with CUPW on the nature of its demands; and three, will the NDP seek a wage settlement of 2.5% a year for four years?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not up to me, nor is it up to members of Parliament across the way, as to what percentage it should be. I am not suggesting any percentage. I am saying that salary ranges should be negotiated between the workers and the management. I am not saying it should be imposed. I do not believe that a salary range should be imposed. It should certainly not be imposed in the way this was done, from the 1.9% that was offered to 1.5%.

If this member cannot justify why they would lower the wages of ordinary workers, I will not even bother trying.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, we have conducted this debate for a number of days now, and I want to read this email into the record. It came from a constituent of mine who wrote me on the first day.

He stated, “I have emailed my comments to many members in the last 36 hours.... That being said, after having watched many hours of the debate since last night, I have to admit that my position has changed tonight.

As a small business owner, I had felt this disruption was not good for business. However, knowing that the government has brought this on by locking workers out and could easily reverse this decision, upsets me. I feel misled about this issue by my government. My mail is tied up by the government. I am disappointed, very disappointed with this Conservative government.

Despite the hardships brought on by this, I can get my business through it. I can't speak for other businesses, but I will manage.

As of this evening, I now believe the government should end the lock out so the mail can move rather than legislating members back to work.”

Does the member agree that this debate is worthwhile and it is changing Canadians' opinions about the nature of this government and its relationship to—