Madam Chair, clause 22 deals with the coming into force of the bill and provides an opportunity to mention one last time what has taken place here, over the past few days. The public has learned a number of things, and that is good.

First, the public has been able to find out what the agenda of the government is as it looks at a statute that would impose lower wages than those that the employer was willing to give. This constitutes an attack on pensions and imposes two-tier wages. The public has been able to take advantage of this debate as we tried to create the time necessary to allow for a negotiated settlement.

That leads to the second revelation of this debate, and the two are connected. The second revelation is with regard to the notion of good faith. During the meeting that my colleagues and I had with the media just before we entered here this evening, we said that it was a question of good faith and that we were presuming good faith.

In French we say that good faith is presumed.

One of the things members on the government side have been telling us non-stop for the past three days is that they wanted to see the amendments. At the same time, we were meeting with the minister, with her representatives and with the parties trying to use the opportunity being afforded by the detailed analysis of the bill that we were carrying out to give them the time necessary to come to a negotiated settlement.

What did we get instead? We have just had the results tonight. They went very close to what was discussed Thursday night, and again last night, but not one of the amendments to improve the arbitration process, to be more fair and respectful of the Charter of Rights on wages and to be respectful of section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights with regard to freedom of association were accepted.

We have to come to the conclusion, as we study clause 22 on the coming into force of the bill, that there is one thing that links these two elements. The government, for example, tells us that it is at arm's-length from a société de la Couronne like Canada Post and that it is a crown agency and it will not get involved. People will now be able to read the exact words of the minister just a few minutes ago in the House. The minister said that all of this was about the government imposing on crown agency wage settlements. A total contradiction in terms.

The result of the two is that the government cannot be trusted.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:10 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Conservative

Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Labour

Madam Chair, the act will come into force 24 hours after it receives royal assent.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:10 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Madam Chair, I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleague, the House leader for the official opposition. His summary was only partly accurate. Canadians who have been watching for the last 40 or 45-odd hours have a right to be a little bit in despair. They have been watching carefully to see how this transpires, how this process evolves.

Canadians now know that the government had an opportunity to bring time allocation to bear in the bill when it was drafted. They know that the government could have solved this problem as of last Thursday. Canadians know this. Canadians are telling us this. Canadians also know that the government had no intention whatsoever of accepting any amendments presented by any party, and presumably from their own members who quietly, in their own despair, were trying to improve the bill.

We have heard from the NDP labour critic that this was an opportunity for his caucus to have a learning experience. Some learning experience. How to filibuster a bill 101. How to posture for the media 101. How to rack up expenditures for the Canadian taxpayers 101. If NDP members want to team build, they can leave by the back door of this building and climb the Gatineau Hills.

Many times throughout this debate, Canadians could have been forgiven for thinking they were hearing speeches in a union hall and not in the House of Commons. The government's behaviour has been no better. The government made a deliberate attempt to reform labour law by bringing the hammer down, by using a statutory instrument in an unprecedented fashion to bring in through the back door what the Prime Minister knows he could never get through the front door of Canadian citizenry.

Both leaders have fed the conflict machine called the media. In this, Canadians believe the leaders have been successful. However, the biggest loser here is the Canadian citizenry and here is why. Unionized or not, unemployed or employed, healthy or sick, retired or working, the Canadian citizenry has been stuck with the bill. Small businesses, seniors, waiters, drivers, teachers, bricklayers, are all being asked to pick up the costs for an unfortunate, unnecessary and irresponsible process.

I ask the leaders of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to go out to the cameras and tell the Canadian people exactly how much this experiment has cost them.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 7:15 p.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Chair, unfortunately, a new day is dawning today. We are sad to see how the government is going to be doing things for the next four years. Workers' rights will be thrown out. The message is clear: this government has no respect for the legitimate right of a legally certified association to bargain in good faith for a collective agreement. This interference sets the tone for the next four years and the message is clear: workers will have no right to be heard from now on.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your handling of the debate, but unfortunately this is a dark day for Quebec and for Canada.