Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In public policy we have essentially nine instruments that any government can use to solve any policy problem. Sometimes a combination of the instruments is used. I will just walk through these, because it is really what the government should be considering as it goes through any policy problem, including this one.
The first instrument that the other side of the House would probably favour in most circumstances is a market solution. It is the least coercive solution, where the government is hands-off and lets the parties solve things.
The second has a little bit more coercion. It is something called the symbolic gesture. The government might strike a commission to look into the situation, and the commission might make a report that is non-binding. The government is making some kind of expenditure, but it is not binding in any kind of way.
The third is exhortation, or asking people to do things publicly. The government could have asked the two sides to come together and make a solution for the good of Canada. Again, it is expending money, but it is not actually doing anything forceful at this point.
The two next ones would be tax expenditure. The government could kind of give people a break on taxes. I do not think that is applicable in this situation. You could do public spending: you might be able to supplement one of the sides to make up for the problems they are having.
Another instrument might be regulation. Again, that is a non-forceful way of regulating how the two bodies would talk together.
Another solution might be taxation.
Public ownership would be to totally reabsorb Canada Post back into the government.
The last one, of course, is a state of emergency. A state of emergency is perhaps the most draconian thing a government can do. What they can do is basically force parties back to the table in this situation.
What is strange to me is that a government that professes to be non-coercive and professes to say that market solutions are the way forward in most situations in fact has gone to the other end of the scale and used the most coercive measure possible to try to end this lockout.
I am quite puzzled by that. I do not understand why this has been the policy instrument the government has chosen to use in this situation. Perhaps it would have been better to leave the parties to work these things out on their own. Not forcing them back to work would definitely be preferable to the current Bill C-6 that is before us.
In closing, I have enjoyed the debate. I look forward to future debate on this. It is a great pleasure to stand and speak in this House.
Thank you very much.