Mr. Speaker, as my colleague did, I too wish to thank you, and all of the speakers, deputy speakers and staff, including the staff on the Hill, for their patience and perseverance in continuing to make sure this democratic process continues and functions. My sincere thanks to you.
Similar to my colleague the member for Trinity—Spadina, who just spoke, I suppose it is my propensity as a lawyer to start with the legislation. I looked up the legislation that gives a mandate to Canada Post. It may be of interest to the House to learn what the statute provides for Canada Post in the way it is charged to deliver the service of providing mail service to Canadians.
How do we view this bill that the government has put forward in light of the legislative mandate to that institution? Under the object section of that legislation, it states in section 5(2):
While maintaining basic customary postal service, the Corporation, in carrying out its objective, shall have regard to...the need to conduct its operations in such manner as will best provide for the security of mail;
In other words, it is to give priority to the continuing functioning of the postal service and ensuring all families, small businesses, large businesses, the House of Commons receive their mail in a timely manner.
Secondly, they must give regard to “the desirability of utilizing the human resources of the Corporation...”, in other words the postal workers, “in a manner that will both attain the objects of the Corporation”, which is to ensure that we all receive timely, effective mail service, “and ensure the commitment and dedication of its employees to the attainment of those objects.”
A reasonable person would interpret that to mean that in establishing the delivery system and its salary bases, and in establishing the rules of operation for the workers, they need to make sure they have well-paid, healthy workers who will continue to deliver the function of Canada Post.
Regrettably the actions of Canada Post in locking out its workers, and the bill before our House, I would suggest go exactly against the purposes and intents of the legislation that Canada Post is operating under.
Clearly Canada Post has the power to open the doors to its institution. Clearly the government has the power to direct Canada Post to unlock the doors and continue the mail service.
Secondly, what has deeply concerned me and many of the members in this House, the public, and the constituents we are hearing from, is the tone set for this debate.
I am used to being vilified personally by some of the members across the way. In the last Parliament I was used to being vilified every time I stood up. The screaming and harassment actually encouraged me to speak out more.
However, what I do not have patience for is the vilification of my constituents, many of whom include postal workers. What I found particularly offensive in this debate is that I heard very few references from the other side about how we value our postal workers, how important they are to the continuation of the economic recovery of this country, and how every family member and every business in this country values those efforts. Towards the end of my remarks I am going to give some examples of the high regard my community holds their postal workers in.
Many have raised concern with the opening remarks by the Minister of Labour about setting the over 40,000 postal workers against Canadians.
I would really appreciate when the minister returns that she take back that remark, apologize, and commend the postal workers for their work by saying that postal workers are also Canadians and that we value their contribution to our society.
There is of course also the vilification of my fellow members of the official opposition, labelling us as communists, and labelling the senior union officers in the postal union as thugs. Only a few moments ago I had the opportunity of meeting two of those people and I could not meet two individuals further from that. I am advised that in the case of a lockout or a strike, they do not receive pay. That is hardly being a thug. They are not benefiting from speaking on behalf of their members.
I have been very disappointed by that language. Generally speaking, the dialogue has been what I would consider the type of dialogue that should occur in the House of Commons, but I found some of the language extremely distasteful, and regrettable for my constituents who have been listening.