Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to rise in the House during debate, I will take the opportunity to thank the voters of Halifax who voted me back with a very strong mandate to represent all the constituents in the riding.

For those political trivia buffs, such as the member for Winnipeg Centre, it is an interesting fun fact to know that I was elected with more votes of any member since Robert Stanfield. That is not bad for a New Democrat.

I am here representing the constituents of Halifax, regardless of whether they voted for me, I have had a lot of contact from constituents since we started this debate in the House, and actually since hours after the rolling strikes began and the government announced in the House that it would introduce back to work legislation.

It is the constituents' voices that we are missing. We are doing a good job, standing up for the workers and for Canadians, but their voices are missing. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to bring their voices to this chamber, to this magnificent place, and actually share with hon. members what they are saying in my riding. Some of them are postal workers, some are not, but they all care deeply about this issue.

I will start with a letter I received from Thomas Beazely. He wrote:

My name is Thomas Beazely and I am a lettercarrier and 29 year employee of Canada Post in Halifax. I urge honorable members here today to reject the legislation before you. Remove this unjust act that impedes the ability for our union and Canada Post to negotiate a fair agreement for both parties. Allow history to show that government allows collective bargaining to resolve issues and does not permit legislation to tip the scales and handcuff the Rights of workers and labour in Canada. Let the record show that all parties here today worked together to make the playing field level so that Canada Post is forced to negotiate in good faith. This has not been the case thus far. We the workers, I a lettercarrier, want to do our work. We want to serve the citizens of this great country, we want to deliver the mail. We did everything we could to ensure our service was maintained with as little disruption to the public as possible while attempting to force Canada Post to negotiate in good faith. They have hidden behind the promise of legislation and today hide behind the act of legislation. They caused the loss of service to our customers and now should not be allowed to hide behind the misleading information they are providing to our customers. Let “nay” be the vote that carries at the end of the debate, let history show all parties are concerned about workers rights. Thank you for your time....

I have another letter I received from a constituent named Scott Mason. He writes:

...I am a mail carrier for Canada Post. I strongly oppose the back to work legislation because it gives the corporation a way out of bargaining in good faith. Why should Canada Post negotiate when they know the Gov't. t is going to side with them anyway. We started out with rolling strikes to put some pressure on the Corp. and very little on the public. We do not have any problem with the public, as a matter of fact we have been getting overwhelming support from the public. If we do not have the right to fair negotiations, what kind of future will we and our families have? What about future generations? It seems like we are going backwards! If the majority of the population is only making minimum wage, where will are economy be? The Prime Minister would be wise to think real hard about this situation, because there is a lot of unions in this country with a lot of votes. We are not asking for the moon, we just want a fair deal. We were ready and willing to deliver the mail, and still are. Now if the Prime Minister would legislate Canada Post to let us get back to doing our jobs, which many of us love and make them negotiate, he would earn a lot of respect.

The next letter is actually from someone in my riding who I know is not a postal worker. In fact, he is a scientist but he wrote to me because he cares about this issue as well.

His name is Chris Majka, and he writes:

A just and democratic society is one that knows how to hear and balance the voices, ideals, and legitimate concerns of all its citizens. The right to collective bargaining by unions representing working people, are an essential component of how modern, progressive, democratic societies work. These rights were hard fought for, and represent a significant triumph for citizens, not only of Canada, but also of nations throughout the world where the principles of civil society are respected. They ensure that working people have a right to be heard with respect to legitimate concerns relating to the conditions of their employment and the remuneration they receive. But they also represent something even more important--dignity. The dignity that is every person's birthright. Dignity to be respected as an individual, as a human being with fundamental rights--and not simply as a mechanical cog within an administrative or corporate machine.

And these rights must also not be toothless. Where collective bargaining fails to achieve a mutually acceptable consensus, unions, and the members they represent, must have the right to withdraw their services, and strike for what they believe in. Without this capacity collective bargaining pales into insignificance. Unions must be able to take a principled position on the picket lines, literally standing for what they believe. Except in demonstrably dire circumstances, this right to collectively bargain should not be abrogated by government.

Forcing workers back to work needlessly muddies the waters of collective bargaining. It disenfranchises workers from the fundamental rights of every person to have to have a role in determining the conditions, circumstances, and remuneration under which they offer their services to an employer.

I submit that in the case of the current [lockout] by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, there is no dire threat to Canada of the sort that would warrant the federal government passing back-to-work legislation.

I urge the Canadian government to respect the rights of workers, to respect the principles of collective bargaining, to respect the right of unions to undertake legal strike action, and to drop its plans to pass such legislation. Canadians from all walks of life are looking to see if this government intends to impose governance on its citizens, or work in concert with them. This is the time to demonstrate good faith and show a commitment to respectful civil society.

Actually, I feel like I could not have said this better myself. People have written really passionate letters and it is a real privilege to be able to bring their voices to the fore.

In the time I have left, I would like to read a little bit from Jim Guild in Halifax. He wrote:

Any fair-minded parliamentarian would have to rise and speak forcefully against the legislation forcing postal workers back to work. Any law that so precipitously and unnecessarily takes away the democratic right of workers to lawfully withdraw their labour would be reprehensible. But this Act is so flagrantly one-sided in favour of the employer -- Canada Post -- that it does discredit to even this Conservative government. And this is a government that most Canadians expect to be unfair and unreasonable.

Not only is the legislation an attack on public sector workers, it is a disrespectful assault on the very public service upon which Canadians rely. This is particularly true for Canadians who live outside our urban areas.

It is a slap in the faces of the very workers who created the Canada Post profits these past years that have flowed directly to the Canadian government coffers. And it insults every new employee before they have even start working for Canada Post.

This is the [Prime Minister's] gift that keeps on taking.

So I encourage any Parliamentarian to do whatever they can to delay, if not prevent, the enactment of this short-sighted and mean-spirited legislation.

As I said, those are the voices of people from my riding who I represent. I think they have put it just beautifully. I urge the government to start acting reasonably, take the locks off the doors and let the two parties negotiate and put an end to this lockout.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recognize the hon. member's passion in her comments but her comments are misguided and reflect her party's focus on narrow interests and even a narrower vision.

We have heard from Canadians overwhelmingly that the government wants us to act on their behalf and expects us to because of the strong mandate that they have entrusted us with. We will not break faith with the Canadian people.

Why can the member opposite and her party not join us in supporting the broader interests of all Canadians?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, Carole Woodhall, from the riding of Halifax, has the perfect answer to that question. She writes to us on the NDP side and says:

Thank you for your support of postal workers who have exercised their legitimate rights to bargain for a fair collective agreement. It would be a grave disservice to postal workers for the government to interfere in the collective bargaining process. The parties should be left to work out their differences without government intervention. What is the emergency? Postal workers were willing and ready to deliver cheques as they had done in past labour disputes during the 1990s.

This is a lockout and nothing else. It is time for Canada Post to cut the locks off.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am getting tired of hearing about special interests whenever it refers to working people across this country.

This debate today is not about just unionized workers. This debate is about all workers. If we want to talk about special interests, we could talk about a government that instead of telling Canada Post to open the doors so workers can deliver the mail, it introduces legislation which introduces a lower salary than that offered by Canada Post. So talk about special interests. Members across the aisle have a special interest, and that special interest is attacking working people.

I would like to ask my colleague to make a comment.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would like to bring up something that a constituent from Halifax wrote to me that directly relates to this question. She says:

“Postal workers have always wanted to continue to deliver the mail and have showed up daily to do so only to be turned back at the door. I ask you, how can the government legislate us back to work when we have never chosen to leave work or strike? I urge you to do what you can to squash this motion, have us legislated back to work and instead a motion that Canada Post be ordered to come back to the bargaining table to work on a fair and collective contract. We employees are not trying to be difficult or impede or inconvenience the Canadian public by demanding that we be treated fairly and with respect, and along with the help of the NDP and others in the House who realize this is wrong, we will continue to fight for justice”.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that my colleague has been reading letters from her constituents talking about the postal strike. I would like to read something from a constituent of mine who is an employer in the area. He says:

“As a business owner in your constituency, I am part of an industry that employs over 58,000 Canadians, and when you consider family members relying on those employees has an impact on some 150,000 Canadians in total. As you can appreciate, in addition to our loss of business, the impact on the cashflow for all small business is an extreme hardship we can ill-afford to face in these challenging times”.

What does the hon. member say to 150,000 Canadians who are in danger of losing their livelihood?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I certainly hope the member's constituent is watching right now, because I would like him to understand that it is her party and her government that has put the locks on the doors. The postal workers have said that they will go back to the table and bargain, but it is her government that put the locks on the doors.

I hope that all the businesses in her riding realize that it is that member's responsibility and that the losses that they are suffering are a result of her party's actions.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a different tack here today in this debate.

We have asked for a debate on what we call the six-month hoist. We heard the leader of the opposition last night give what I would have to say was one of the most magnificent speeches that I have ever heard in this chamber. It probably qualifies as one of the most magnificent speeches ever given in this chamber. He talked about the history of Canada and of the rights of people and of improvements to the lot in life for all Canadians that have been brought about over many years. He put the current situation in that context.

I want to talk a little bit about that. I am going to quote from a letter I received. It is a very moderate letter. I don't know where this individual lives in Canada, but he is a Canadian. He says:

Thank you for defending a fair settlement in the Canada Post Lock-out!

That sounds very bland, and it sounds like something we would expect to see happen. We would expect to see our government promote, and our laws designed to promote, a fair settlement of what is a dispute over a collective agreement. Collective agreement and collective bargaining rights are enshrined in our law. They are constitutionally protected rights. They are rights that are contained in the universal declaration of human rights. We brag about how we are a rights-based society under the rule of law. The rule of law includes the constitutional rules and constitutionally protected rights.

What he says here is,

Thank you so much for your strong stand in Parliament. It makes me proud to be a Canadian when I see that our politicians make personal sacrifices to protect workers in this country.

It makes me feel proud to be recognized that this indeed is what we are doing, protecting workers. From what? In this case from legislation that strips their rights to bargain collectively, that says to them, when they seek to improve by a bargaining position, “Here is what we would like and here is what you would like. Let's bargain. Let's talk about it. Let's trade proposals back and forth. Let's exercise our right to withdraw our labour.” In this case it was through a series of rotating strikes to bring attention to their circumstances and their demands.

What do we have? We have a government agency shut the doors. Now, within days, I think it was two days later, the government gave notice of this legislation. When the legislation comes, what does it do? It says, well, we do not really care about the bargaining that went on. We know that this company that produced a profit of $186 million made an offer to the workers based on its bargaining stance and other conditions. What does the government do? It passes legislation that says, no, you are going back to work, and you are going back to work for less than the company had offered you during collective bargaining.

That cannot be other than taking away the constitutionally protected rights of workers to bargain collectively, because they were bargaining collectively and the government said, no, we are not going to allow this bargaining to take place; in fact, we are going to interfere with this and order them back to work and order an agreement to be put in place--I would not call it an agreement, because it is not an agreement, but order a contract to be put in place that is not agreed to by the parties involved and that in fact gives workers less.

This individual also says:

I must give special thanks to the members from Quebec who are giving up their National Holiday to stay and fight [the Prime Minister's] unjust legislation. Bonne Fête nationale!

I want to recognize as well the sacrifice that our members from la belle province are making to participate in this debate, to defend a fair settlement for Canada Post workers and to make these sacrifices.

We hear about the concerns that people had, about small businesses and others who needed cheques or mail. I am very sympathetic to that. So is this individual. He said:

One point...I understand that, on the first day that Canada Post locked out postal workers, only 23 workers from three very small communities (Smithers, B.C.; Sioux Lookout; and a third from NF) were scheduled to rotate on strike. Without the lock-out, the small businesses would now have their cheques, as the posties ensured with the rotating strike.

Then he asks us to stay strong and keep up the fight. I can assure everyone that we will do that.

What we have here today is a manufactured crisis. The same powers that manufactured that crisis have the ability to make it go away. Just take the locks off the doors. Encourage the collective bargaining process. Encourage a fair settlement.

Instead, the government has tilted the balance. It has made it impossible for there to be good faith bargaining between Canada Post and its workers.

I am saying “Canada Post and its workers” deliberately. I want to say that to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Prime Minister himself, who has unleashed in this House language that I do not think is deserving of this place.

If he is speaking for the Prime Minister when he gets up in this House and talks about “union bosses” and “thugs”, then he is delivering a message on behalf of the Prime Minister that this is his attitude toward workers' representatives who were democratically elected and given a 97% mandate to negotiate an agreement on behalf of the workers. This member comes here on behalf of the Prime Minister and talks about union bosses and thugs. He hides behind a piece of paper that he says comes from one of his constituents.

That is not good enough. The bosses who shut down this operation are sitting over there. They are the ones whose agency locked the doors on Canada Post. They are the ones who are acting as bullies with legislation that takes away the rights of workers to bargain collectively. If there is any thuggery or any bullying going on, that is where it is coming from.

I want the government to tone down its talk and stop inflaming the situation.

[Bob Zimmer]

Stop calling the kettle black.

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

It is the kind of language that I am hearing from over there that is inflaming the situation.

I am objecting to that. It does not do them any credit whatsoever and it does not do this Parliament any credit to have a situation like this. Instead of solutions being reached, workers who are exercising their constitutionally protected rights are being vilified in this House. Their representatives are being vilified.

Members who want to understand could have listened carefully last night to the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about the advances made through struggles year after year, over many decades, to give us the kind of Canada that many of us share today.

However, this process and this approach is to say, no, we will not share the advances with the next generation. The benefits that have been won in terms of some security in retirement will not be shared by other people. The next generation that comes along will have to start off with lower wages. We will have a special policy where we will hire people on a non-discriminatory basis. We will bring all these people in on a non-discriminatory basis and give them an advantage in bringing them in. We will bring in aboriginal people, people of colour, disadvantaged people, and we will pay them half or three-quarters of what the current workers are being paid. That is how we will have equality in this country. That is the plan. New hires will get less than everybody else. We will adopt a very proactive policy that identifies and brings in people who are especially disadvantaged and we will pay them less.

That is wrong. However, that is what this leads to.

We need to have a fair settlement. That is what this individual is asking for. That is all we are asking for here. This legislation should be hoisted for six months. That is our motion, and we would like to see it implemented.

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

Madam Speaker, picking up on what the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering was saying earlier, I have my undergraduate degree in Soviet studies and eastern bloc political philosophy and history. I fought with perestroika and I had no further use for it. However, it seems to be coming in very handy listening to the debate over this matter.

With recent polls stating that 70% of Canadians support back-to-work legislation to end this work stoppage at Canada Post, can the member explain why the official opposition is not on the same side with the majority of Canadians but is only repeating its rhetoric with respect to the union position?

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

Madam Speaker, I thought red-baiting as well had ended some time ago, but I guess not.

Let me talk about the 70% of Canadians. I would be willing to bet the hon. member that 70% of Canadians, if they were asked, would not support this legislation. They would not support legislation that said the government shall move inside the collective bargaining process and order people to go to work so that they would get less money than their employer had put on the table in collective bargaining. I will bet that 70% of Canadians would say that is unfair.

They might want to see the post office workers back at work. If they were asked if the government should take the locks off the post office to allow postal workers to deliver the mail, 90% would agree to that, too.

Let us not play with statistics here. I do not think that 70% of Canadians or any substantial percentage of Canadians would want the government to follow through with this legislation and to do what it is trying to do.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. colleague is about the discriminatory movements I see with respect to this bill and the offer that has been tabled. For me as a young person, as a woman, and as a person who identifies as a person of colour, why is it that, in the opinion of this member, the government seems to be supporting this type of discriminatory behaviour?

I hear comments from across the way that says workers should have taken the first offer. That type of bullying tactic I do not understand. I would ask my hon. colleague to chime in and give his opinion on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess the Conservatives have an agenda, and the agenda is to lower people's expectations. They think they can convince anybody to go along with that by saying we have to get the mail going so we will stop this from continuing, and saying that the workers are looking for too much. Members hide behind other people's quotes that say they are lucky to have jobs, et cetera.

This is all really part of an agenda that ends up dividing Canadians instead of all of us saying we should try to get everybody up with better benefits, better pensions, better rights, and better opportunities. Let us not divide people, one against the other. Let us improve everybody's lot in life.

That is what the union movement is trying to do for its workers. As we have seen historically, this raises up everybody's benefits if it is allowed to happen. The government does not want that to happen.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned when I spoke previously, I am from a community which has historically distanced itself from political issues and from most of the Canadian dynamic. Growing up north of the 50th parallel on an isolated reserve conferred a certain number of advantages that I can gauge at their fair value in light of the situation we are dealing with today. The Innu have always made it a point of honour to oppose any kind of pernicious state interference in community management.

I want to emphasize the word “pernicious”, as it certainly applies here. State intervention in the form of social policy, to help people in need, is essential if we are to ensure that we do not let the neediest and most disadvantaged people fall through the cracks. The state has an important role to play in helping communities, be it through funding infrastructure or collecting data that allows it to determine the socio-economic profile of a community, and thus identify socio-economic problems as well as possible courses of action to solve those problems.

It is ironic to see this government, too often blinded by its ideology, seeking private subcontractors, at any price, to provide services to Canadians and fill the jobs associated with them. Although, in a labour conflict such as this one at Canada Post, market logic should dictate that the government allow both parties to find a solution to the conflict, the government's reflex has been the opposite: it has intervened although it did not need to. And what is worse, the government, by taking this action, has upset the natural equilibrium between the parties in question. The reason we are in this House today is to restore that balance and to ask the government to withdraw certain provisions in this bill, in particular the one that pertains to salaries.

We must allow the arbitrator and the two parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to all. We can restore the balance and reach an agreement so that Canada Post lockout ends and service to the population resumes. In the final analysis, that is our goal here today.

I would like to get back to what I was talking about earlier, pernicious government interference in community management. When the message does not get through and the government takes measures compromising the independence of our management structures and the general self-government of my nation, the members of my community do not hesitate to act and express that independence in a radical way.

I want to make this perfectly clear: I would not want to urge the Canadian population to resort to roadblocks to make its voice heard, even though we are clearly faced with a situation involving government interference with the right to freedom of association and labour relations. I would advocate another approach, that of restoring the balance I was just referring to.

The government is attempting to create a precedent that clearly indicates the type of approach it is going to adopt with regard to the Canadian population during this mandate. As we can plainly see, this approach is akin to the authoritarianism of certain regimes that are currently being criticized by international observers. It is not my intent to quote figures and authorities to support my statements in this House, as my position rests on the heartfelt conviction that is a hallmark of the Innu community.

It is that conviction that enables me to offer a human viewpoint on any situation that arises. We must never avoid the human aspect inherent in the situation that concerns us at this time. The government's interference in the human relations that are part of the dialogue between Canada Post employees and their employer opens the door to improper government intervention in labour relations between all employees and employers.

In this regard I want to come back to the imbalance created by the Conservative government with its special bill. We will recall that the postal workers had offered to extend the collective agreement while bargaining continued. That is what the bill provides, but the bill goes further by setting the parameters within which the arbitrator must operate.

Why do they want to substitute themselves in advance for what should be happening down the road? Why not let the negotiations take their course and give the parties involved room to bargain in good faith? Imposing special legislation is a draconian measure that should be considered only in situations where the Canadian public is at risk of serious harm. That is not the case here; we are not in a crisis. I would caution everyone, however, because a crisis point can be reached very rapidly.

The Canadian public has expressed its views on the role of government in the past, and the current situation in the House of Commons is setting the tone of the social dynamic that is imposing itself on the Canadian public.

The measures proposed by the Conservatives belong to a bygone day.

Labour relations are in a constant state of change, and I suspect that this progress lies at the root of the measures proposed by the Conservatives.

They will have to reassess their positions and policies if they are to keep abreast of the wishes expressed by Canadians.

Obstructing the exercise of the right of association and the flow of bargaining that happens in labour relations is direct repression and negation of the concept of free will.

We can be assured that the presence of the NDP in the House will influence the government's decisions. Therefore, opposition members have not hesitated to debate this essential question and will continue to do so tirelessly.

I therefore urge the Mamit Innuat, the Pessamiunnuat, the Chimonnuat, all Innu in general, as well as the Naskapi, to support the postal employees and to support them massively and visibly. Make yourselves seen, brothers and sisters.

We will see that when we pool our efforts, big things happen.

All Canadians need to heed the warning that this issue is very likely to herald a dark era. It is up to the public to take a position and make the decision-makers understand that they will not remain passive forever.

Quite apart from the interruption in postal services, these recent events will perpetuate the power struggle going on in the public and private sectors. It is essential that people mobilize to support the desire of Canadians to express themselves and to flourish.

If I must, I am prepared to sit until the royal couple arrives, so they can witness the dedication of the New Democratic Party members of this House.

In passing, I salute the superhuman effort made by the party's support staff, some of whom are sleeping only a few hours a night, to ensure that our efforts are coordinated.

Without them, we would not be able to sustain our opposition to the policies of the Conservative government. With their support, we are making history today.

And last, I send greetings to the people in my riding, people of all origins, and I wish them all a wonderful time at the festivities that have been organized throughout the region.

I would have liked to be with them, but my presence is more useful in Ottawa.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that while those members are prepared to sit here until the Duke and Duchess arrive, we are prepared to sit here until they are gone to ensure that Canadians get mail delivery returned to them.

For anybody watching this debate, there must be a confusion about the events that occurred. The fact is, and I am sure members will agree, the old contract expired last October. The union leaders were negotiating with Canada Post and failed to arrive at an agreement.

The old contract had expired. It is quite legitimate that once something has expired, one cannot operate under it any longer unless there is an agreement between the company and the workers. We had the situation where, because the union did not want to continue negotiations unless it could operate under the old contract, it started rotating strikes. Then there was the lockout, and now we have back to work legislation.

The bottom line is we want to get the postal workers back delivering mail across Canada to everyone who needs that mail delivery. We are asking the parties to work with us. Let us try and get the workers back to work and then we will negotiate from there. Hopefully, we will have a good settlement all the way around.

Let us get the mail going again.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would note that this kind of delay is inherent in the situation the workers and the employer are in. Events in that situation were fluid and that is how it should have continued: the parties involved had a responsibility to each other to sit down, and they would have reached an agreement, as has happened in the past. There was no urgency to intervene, let alone interfere, in that practice, which is proper and normal.

[The member spoke in Innu-aimun.]

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Manicouagan for not quoting letters. I think we have proved on both sides of the House that we could have letters stating opinions on either side. Quoting from letters is in fact simply a smokescreen to distract us from the real debate. It is an old trick that was known to the Greeks 2,500 years ago.

We will get back down to business, as the saying goes. Should we not leave the two parties free to bargain in good faith?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which follows on what I was saying.

That is correct, the ideal approach in this situation would be for the parties to sit down together, because in any event this is a power struggle and we are going to see this every day, whether we like it or not. So, it is better that the parties themselves be the ones who ultimately have to decide their fate. That is the normal way of doing things, and in this society it is how it should be done.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments and contrary to what he said, some small businesses do find themselves in a crisis, people cannot pay their bills and they certainly cannot meet their payroll.

We have heard over and over again from our side of the House about the hardship being caused to Canadians and to our economy. We have heard from the other side of the House that government should not intervene. In any negotiations there are two sides, and that is why we have a dispute.

First, the union chose to implement a job action which the employer countered with its job action. Given that the situation has gone on for eight months, how long would the hon. member allow this dispute to drag on to the detriment of families, seniors, businesses and the economy in general? How long, two months, eight months, ten months?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I am well aware of the hardship being suffered on both sides. However, social imperatives must prevail in this case. The effort to make our points is truly worthwhile for Canadians. In fact, that applies not only to this situation, but also to situations that will arise in future. That is why we are here today and we are making these points.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak in this debate. I would like to take the opportunity to wish my constituents in Montcalm a wonderful national holiday, in spite of the bad weather. Certainly, at present, the Conservative government does not seem to want to work in the interests of the Canada Post workers. In spite of this obstacle, I particularly want to mention Quebec's national holiday and say to my fellow Quebeckers that it is great to be a Quebecker at this point in history. I want to assure them that I am with them in spirit and I sincerely hope to meet them in the near future. So I wish everyone a memorable national holiday full of music, stories and legends of our very own.

It is unfortunate that the Conservative government does not recognize Quebec's national holiday, but I can tell you that my constituents recognize the importance of the job I have to do here in Ottawa, supporting the Canada Post workers.

In negotiations, it is preferable for the two sides to find common ground and reach a consensus; unfortunately, I have the clear impression that, since the negotiations began, Canada Post Corporation never intended to bargain in good faith. Withdrawing from the negotiations and imposing a lockout shows its lack of respect for its workers.

A lockout is not a strike. A strike is a protest action taken by workers, while a lockout is the temporary shutdown of Canada Post. It is a decision initiated by the employer.

Canada Post Corporation preferred to wait for the government to intervene by trying to impose special legislation. That approach completely takes away any workers' right to strike, since they would always be afraid of legislation like that being imposed on them, and unfortunately sends a negative message not just to the Canada Post workers but, and most importantly, to all workers in Canada.

Right now, back-to-work legislation will create dissatisfaction and discontent among the workers. They will find it hard to swallow this kind of forced settlement and it will leave a bitter taste in their mouths. And that is without mentioning the poisonous atmosphere that will prevail between management and workers for months if not years to come.

We must not forget that several thousand workers are affected by this lockout. When will the government finally understand that Canada Post Corporation employees are people first—I repeat, people first—with families, obligations and responsibilities?

This bill will take power away from unions, whose primary role is to stand up for employees and look out for their interests. Second, the union must also make sure that information is conveyed to the employees. By doing that, it fulfils its function of communicating between Canada Post and the workers.

Canada Post Corporation is acting as if it is confused by the present situation. That is incomprehensible. They are the ones who brought on this situation. The position the government has taken is quite simply a slap in the face to democracy. What has become of common sense? The workers are locked out, and on top of that the government interferes by trying to pass legislation to force the workers back to work. The Conservative government's true colours are showing.

The Canadian courts have recognized that workers have the right to negotiate their employment contract. The Canadian courts have recognized that workers have the right to form associations with other workers to enforce their rights and their employment contract.

The approach taken by the Conservative government has no basis. This procedure is going to create a precedent that no worker wants. Who is going to pay the cost, ultimately? Workers.

Instead of showing consideration and respect for our workers, the government wants to abuse its powers and give the back of its hand to workers' rights. This is unfair and oppressive.

I do not understand. The Conservatives form a majority government. Yes, they got the support they needed, but did they have the courage to really tell Canadians how they intended to go about governing the country?

Did they say they would come down on the side of the most powerful instead of helping workers? Did they say they would impose their legislation without considering the consequences for workers' lives? Did they say they would not give workers the opportunity to negotiate in the way that prevailing practices provide for union negotiations to take place? Did they say they would bring in a bill to take away workers' rights to be heard and cut their pension plans? Will they continue to impose draconian measures on Canadian workers who try to exercise their right to bargain for better working conditions?

I think that out of respect for the workers and their families the government should withdraw from these negotiations and not impose anything by special legislation, let alone take the employer's side. The Conservatives' way of doing things is clear to see here—it is easy to see who their friends are—and it is at the expense of Canadian workers

It is these same workers who day after day contribute to making Canada Post the postal service we know today. These workers have contributed to their pension plan, and like everyone living in Canada they are entitled to draw a pension when the time comes, and thus to be sure of a peaceful and serene retirement. I therefore believe it is reasonable to expect a little consideration from the employer, and also from the government.

Why not give the two parties a chance to bargain in good faith and encourage communication more?

At present, the employees cannot enter the distribution centres and have no access to the mail, so they cannot deliver it. The doors are barred, that is what a lockout is. Canada Post has to remove the locks from the doors and allow the workers to do rotating deliveries, as was the case at the beginning of the negotiations. Today, the government is attacking the postal workers at Canada Post Corporation; who will be the next victims of the government's extreme decisions? No one wants to have their wages cut and their retirement date pushed back five years.

This special legislation is going to give all Canadian workers cause for concern and uncertainty, since they will always be wondering whether they will be the Conservative government's next scapegoats. This special legislation is going to create a gulf between two generations of workers. This special legislation is going to cause wage inequality and social inequality. This special legislation is going to weaken labour relations, not to mention the poisonous atmosphere the workers will have to endure.

The message the government is sending to workers is clear. It will not hesitate to side with employers, even if workers have a lot to lose. No matter what the situation, employers will be favoured over employees. That message tells workers they have no chance of bargaining fairly and equitably, because if they insist and push too hard to enforce their rights and their collective agreement, the government will not support them. Quite the contrary: it will interfere and force the workers back to work by special legislation. What year is this? These workers have paid union dues for years. The union is doing its best to represent them, but the workers did not expect that the government would use a special bill to try to prevent the union from doing its job properly and would fail to respect their right to bargain their working conditions freely.

I am afraid this approach is an attempt to create a gulf between workers in different generations, and also between employers and employees.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are approaching the 24th hour of this debate. We are coming very close to it. This is the first time in my almost 11 years as a member of Parliament that I have seen this type of exercise carried out in the House of Commons. In some respects I appreciate it. There is good debate between two polarized sides, it would seem. I want to congratulate the opposition member, a new member, on winning, and I commend her on her speech.

My question to the member is this. It seems the NDP's identity crisis is over. In the first couple of weeks of this new Parliament, the NDP came forward with a supply day motion asking us to lower taxes. That is the first time I have ever seen such a request from the NDP, but it was on small business. It seemed that most of the NDP members were uncomfortable with that supply day motion because it was new. It was as if they were trying to show us that they were ready to govern.

The past 24 hours have shown us that this party is not ready to govern. We can see that NDP members have taken every legal step there is, and they have attacked.

My question to the member for Montcalmis this. Over the past number of years we have seen how the NDP feels about replacement workers. It calls them derogatory names, such as “scabs”. We know what they think about lockouts. We know what they think about back-to-work legislation, but apparently revolving strikes are all right.

Why does the NDP show that it is not ready to govern and that it will be forever in opposition by not recognizing what is going on in our economy and by not recognizing the need to get the postal workers back to work?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am well aware that Canadians need their mail; we understand that and the postal workers understand it too; they are professionals. But I think we have to respect the workers, the workers in our communities, the workers who must work outside whatever the weather.

To come back to Canada Post's young workers, I think the new generation deserves the benefits that our parents and their parents fought so hard for.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member for Montcalm, as well as the members of the opposition, that this debate is simply about whether or not we are going to resist the lobby pressure of those who wish to raid pension funds. That is what it boils down to. The pattern is always the same. Everyone makes mistakes, but the important thing is not to keep making them, especially after what happened in Walkerton, where people died because lobbyists took advantage of the opportunity to do their own laboratory testing.

I would simply ask the hon. member to answer the following question: should we always grant the wishes of lobbyists, yes or no?