Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I did not hear anything coming from the gentleman. I do not mind a little noise. I appreciate that because it is important.
Canadians have told us that the decorum of the House important. I know members of the official opposition are paying close attention to what Canadians said in order to conduct ourselves in that manner.
Let me get back to what I was saying. If Canada Post is causing the problem by having locked all the doors, then we would think someone in the government, the Prime Minister or the minister responsible, would pick up the phone and would tell to the head of the crown corporation, who earns about $650,000 a year, to take the locks off the doors, that we want to get the mail running, that our businesses, our communities, our charities and other organizations are dependent on the mail service.
However, that is not what the government does. I just do not understand. I am from Nova Scotia. We do things in a much more simple way there. We just get it done.
Maybe I am not paying attention. Maybe the government has other motives. I do not know. It is not like me to impugn the motives of the government, but one has to wonder. If the easy solution is to take the locks off, which is pretty simple, then why has the government come in with this big honking sledgehammer, bringing it down on the backs of working people?
Why is the government doing that? Why would we not think that this is just the first group, the first salvo? The government has come forward with legislation which imposes a collective agreement and a wage rate, which is less than the wage negotiated by the parties. It has set conditions for the arbitrator, for the final offer selection, which will have real implications on the solutions that will be found to deal with the issues of the pension.
I read the bill, and I am quite concerned about the parameters that it puts on the kind of solution that could be found for the pension.
Again, the government is setting the parameters and conditions. It is telling the arbitrator, whoever that person might be, how he or she will go about finding the settlement.
Why is the government doing that? I do not know. Whose rights are next? Which organization or which group of people, which group of Canadians is the government going to point its finger at next, deciding it is its turn? That is my concern. That is the concern of working people across the country. It is not only working people, but representatives of other groups that the government does not necessarily support.
Some members opposite and in the corner have asked why the NDP members are talking so much. They want to go home. They have things they want to do this weekend. They want to play some golf. The members of this caucus are going to speak up on behalf of working people. That is why we are doing it.
Two days ago the member for London—Fanshawe brought in the resolution about raising seniors out of poverty. Who stood up in the House and argued for that? It was the NDP.
In the campaign, who talked about affordability issues? Who talked about strengthening and expanding the health care system in our country? Who is trying to reduce the costs of drugs for seniors? It is this opposition party.
That is why we are doing this. We are doing this to speak up on behalf of people who are under attack by the Conservative government.