House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was post.

Topics

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 a.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Madam Speaker, my response will be very brief. All the government has to do is end the lockout. It pulled it out of nowhere, and built it from the ground up, so it can put an end to it. If the Prime Minister is no longer able to pull rank over the chief executive officer of a crown corporation, then my goodness, it was clearly a mistake to elect him.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, this discussion and debate has now taken us through several calendar days, although, as we know, the date on the table remains unchanged. I hope our minds do not remain as fixed as the table date of Thursday, June 23.

I will review some of the things that I think are salient about this situation and see if I can shed some light on it, hoping that it does some good to the discussion we have had here.

The first thing is to look at Canada Post. It is the most important public service for delivery of mail and other things that are really important to us.

As a public service, it is worth noting that it has been profitable every year for 15 years. It is also worth noting that it is facing challenges and its profit margin is going down in competition with other areas, competition with email and with commercial carriers like UPS and FedEx, even though it was able to take over Purolator and run it very profitably.

It is in a challenging situation. One of the reasons it continues to turn a profit, and in the last year I could find was for 2009, a $281 million profit, is due to the dedication and professionalism of its workforce.

We take these things as good starting points for maintaining what we want. I presume we all want Canada Post to be a public service and not privatized. I agree with my friends in the official opposition that there is some risk of that, but I do not think it is as blatant as they do. We have to guard against privatization by ensuring Canada Post remains public and profitable.

Into this we now have, and have had for some time, difficult labour management relationships between Canada Post management and CUPW. The remaining issues on the table, when things fell apart, really had almost nothing to do with the wage issue except for the differential wages for younger workers. Other issues included health and safety issues, which makes sense given what the postal workers go through, as well as staffing issues, sick leave, questions of short-term disability, wages, pensions, benefits, job creation and the ongoing issue of training.

These issues are certainly solvable. I practised in a number of areas of law, but for about three years I practised union-side labour law. I am somewhat familiar with collective agreements and bargaining, working with unions and having long negotiations. Eight months really is not that long as long as a collective agreement can be honoured and stay in place while the parties negotiate.

This is just some of the background that came to me and it is worth looking at it.

We all know the chronology. As things began to fall apart, CUPW instituted rotating strike action, which led, very short days afterwards, to a lockout. I think we all find it somewhat inexplicable that Canada Post management took that route because it brought mail service in Canada to an absolute standstill. We now find ourselves here.

I will start with where we all agree. Then I will deal with what I think are the red herrings where we do not agree. I believe we all agree that we want the mail to move. We all agree that we would like it to move as quickly as possible. I think we probably all agree that we would rather not be here at 2:15 on a Saturday morning. I think that is a presumption that will probably be shared around the room.

On the other hand, despite the occasional moments of lack of decorum, overall all members of Parliament from all parties have conducted themselves with that sense of duty, recognizing that we are here and this issue is important. It falls on us as elected members of Parliament not to just argue endlessly, but to solve it.

I think we would all agree with those statements.

Where do I see red herrings? A couple of them really relate to the larger cultural problem of this place, which is an addiction to partisanship, but I will leave it aside. However, I cannot vote for this legislation as drafted.

I am uncomfortable with some of the accusations. Some of the members of the official opposition make a good point and then take it one step too far. I find myself thinking it was too partisan, it was a cheap shot. On the other hand, in defending the position of the government legislation, some government members have gone too far. If we could tone that down, it would help. I do not mean to sound like I am preaching or lecturing, and I hope members will forgive me.

On the other hand, in defending the position of the government legislation, I think some government members have gone too far. If we could tone that down, it would help. I do not mean to sound like I am preaching or lecturing and I hope members will forgive me.

Something that is a problem and a bit of a red herring is that the issue before us is what do we do as members of Parliament to ensure that the mail starts moving, that there is a fair collective agreement bargaining process that works for all parties. That is our job. It is not really relevant to discuss the fact that other workers do not have such a good deal.

I can say that until May 2 I never had a pension plan, medical benefits or paid vacation time. I have never had any of those things nor have other people in my family, but that is not relevant to what we have in front of us. What we have in front of us are legal entitlements of CUPW negotiated under Canadian law that must be respected. It is not to insult other workers that we respect unionized rights. It is not to divide one set of workers against another.

We have a responsibility to uphold Canadian law and Canadian law says CUPW has a legitimate collective agreement that has been negotiated under Canadian law, which is valid for a very important public service delivery of our postal system. Workers do a fantastic job and one of the reasons they do a fantastic job is that they are in a good union that negotiates well. That is the issue before us.

There are other questions. Does the 2007 Supreme Court decision in the B.C. hospital workers case have any bearing here? I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence said it does not, but I think there are questions.

I will now come to the difference between us. One group of people in the House believes the best way to get the mail moving is to push through Bill C-6, come hell or high water. One group of people in the House thinks the best way to get the mail moving again is to fight as hard as possible against Bill C-6 in the hope that somehow, while we are in this place in our suspended animation of June 23, there will be some progress somewhere else that solves the problem.

But it is in members' hands to solve the problem now. I made this point earlier today and I will ask my friends in the government to consider it. The fastest way to get the mail moving, which I know is their number one objective, is to change Bill C-6 through amendments that allow all of us in this place to agree that we have respected collective bargaining rights, the labour laws of Canada and Canadian workers, and we have acted quickly in the interests of all people, whether they are small business people or families waiting for cheques.

We should not allow ourselves to be so enamoured by our own rhetoric that we forget that the fastest way to get the mail moving is to amend Bill C-6 so that we can all agree, get the mail moving and go home at some point this weekend.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her comments and congratulate her on her election to the House.

It is important for us to put this whole debate into perspective. The Government of Canada is not taking sides in this dispute. This is a dispute between two parties: the corporation and CUPW. Both parties, unfortunately, have not come to a resolution upon expiry of a collective bargaining agreement.

The government attempted, through mediation, to get the two parties together despite that. There was a series of rotating strikes initiated by CUPW and then on the other side management decided to lock out the union.

What a responsible government would do in a monopoly situation where there are no alternatives for millions of Canadians is to legislate workers back to work to ensure the continuation of this essential service for so many Canadians. When the Liberals were in government, they did the same thing.

What a responsible opposition would do is not filibuster this legislation. In fact, it would allow this to pass. The problem here is that the official opposition is taking a side in this issue and that shows that the official opposition is not ready for prime time.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:15 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, in response to my friend the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, I wish we could put aside whether or not the NDP is ready for prime time or anything. That is not the issue. I do not think it is quite as clear that the government has not taken sides.

As I mentioned earlier in the House today, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations in reviewing Bill C-6 has come to the conclusion that it would violate key elements of the Supreme Court decision and it would set back collective bargaining across Canada. Why would they think that?

There is nothing wrong with back-to-work legislation. Nobody would deny that it is an appropriate thing for government to do. The reason that this piece of legislation is offensive to some principles of labour law is because it is overly prescriptive, it ties the hands of an arbitrator, it puts in place in section 15 a schedule of payment to the workers that is less than what was on the table when negotiations broke down, and it further has a rather bizarre section that suggests that the arbitrator must be guided by the need to find terms and conditions of--

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:20 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. We must move on to other questions.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:20 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Madam Speaker, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills made an intervention that was a pathetic attempt at political spin. He is generally a little more fact-based in his approach.

The government is clearly taking the corporation's side. Rather than dealing with the lock-out, which was caused by the government's actions in allowing management to do this, we have legislation before us that does not address the issue.

Would the member not agree with members who have been speaking over the last few hours that the most prudent and responsible approach that the government could take would be to take the locks off and then allow collective bargaining to run its course? The government should just take the locks off and get the mail workers back to doing what they want to do, which is serving Canada and making the mail--

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:20 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I do agree with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster on one thing but not on another.

I quite reject the notion that the adjective “pathetic” could ever be applied to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. It does not apply all.

I do entirely agree that the prudent thing for the government to do would be to get hold of Canada Post and tell it to take the locks off the doors so collective bargaining could begin in a free and appropriate approach.

It was legal for management to lock the workers out. It was legal for the union to apply revolving strikes. The less that we inject ourselves as parliamentarians, and worse as political parties, into a management-labour dispute by taking sides, the better this debate will go over the next several eons.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:20 a.m.

NDP

Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, during a bargaining process, it is preferable for the two parties to find common ground and reach a consensus. Alas, since the negotiations began, it has been my strong sense that Canada Post Corporation never intended to negotiate in good faith.

Withdrawing from the bargaining process and locking out employees is disrespectful to workers. A lockout is not a strike. A strike is protest action on the part of workers, whereas a lockout is the temporary closure of the Canada Post Corporation. It is a management decision.

The Canada Post Corporation opted to wait for the government to intervene and introduce special legislation. This approach robs workers of the right to strike because it leaves them constantly fearing this kind of legislation and, unfortunately, sends a negative message not only to the employees of Canada Post, but to all workers in this country.

Forcing workers to go back to work right now will leave them disgruntled and unhappy. This kind of forced settlement will be a bitter pill for workers to swallow and will leave them with a bad taste in their mouths. Not to mention the poisoned atmosphere that it will create between management and workers for the months to come. We are not talking about years here.

Let us not forget that several thousand workers have been affected by this lockout. When will the government finally understand that Canada Post employees are first and foremost people with families, obligations and responsibilities?

This legislation will strip the union of power when its primary role is to advocate for the interests of wage earners. The union’s second duty is to ensure that information is passed on to wage earners by acting as a liaison between Canada Post Corporation and its employees.

Canada Post Corporation is pretending to be caught off guard by this situation. That makes no sense. It is Canada Post Corporation that precipitated the situation and declared a lockout.

This government’s stance rides roughshod over democracy. What about legislation based on common sense? Workers are being locked out, and worse still, the government gets involved and wants to introduce legislation to force employees back to work. Now we are really seeing the true colours of this Conservative government.

Canada’s courts have recognized the right of workers to negotiate their employment contracts. Canadian courts have also recognized the right of workers to collectively organize with their fellow workers to have their rights and their employment contracts upheld.

The government’s approach is, without a doubt, bizarre. This procedure is going to set a precedent that no worker wants. And who will pay for it at the end of the day? The workers, as usual.

Instead of showing our workers some consideration and respect, the government is abusing its power and riding roughshod over the rights of workers. It is unfair and it is not right.

I do not understand. The Conservatives have a majority government. They won the support they needed. And yet, did they have the guts to tell Canadians how they intended to govern the country? Did they say that they would back the big guys instead of helping workers? Did they say that they would force their legislation through without regard for its impact on the lives of workers? Did they say that they would deny workers an opportunity to negotiate according to the rules of proper collective bargaining? Did they say that they would introduce legislation to deny workers the right to be heard, and that they would chip away at their pension plans? Will they continue to foist draconian measures on Canadian workers who only want their right to negotiate better working conditions to be respected?

Out of respect for workers and their families, I believe that the government should withdraw from these negotiations and refrain from using special legislation to get their way, especially when it means siding with the employer.

The Conservatives’ approach is all too familiar: it is easy for them to look out for their friends at the expense of Canadian workers. These are the very same workers that helped make Canada Post the postal service that it is today, a service from which we benefit day in and day out. These workers have paid into their pension plans and are entitled, like anybody living in Canada, to receive a pension at the agreed-upon time, so they may enjoy their retirement in dignity.

One would expect a little bit of consideration on the part of management, but also from government. Why not leave it up to the two parties to negotiate in an honest fashion, and open up the communication channels? Currently, the employees are not allowed in the distribution centre and have no access to the mail, so they cannot deliver it. The doors are closed. That is what a lockout means. Canada Post has to unlock the doors so that workers can continue with the rotating delivery, just like when the bargaining process began.

Now, the government is going after the workers at Canada Post, and they will be the next victims of the extreme decisions of the government. Nobody is interested in a wage reduction or having their retirement age raised by five years. This special legislation will give all Canadian workers cause for worry, and they will wonder if they might be the next scapegoats of this Conservative government.

This special legislation will create divisions between two generations of workers, it will be the source of pay and social inequities, and it will weaken labour relations and create a damaging work environment.

The message this government is sending to workers is clear: it will not hesitate to side with employers, even if workers stand to lose a great deal. In all situations, employers will be valued over the workers. Workers will not have any opportunity to negotiate fairly because, if they insist too much on having their rights and their contract enforced, the government will not support them. Quite the opposite, it will step in and legislate them back to work. Can you believe this is happening in this day and age?

These workers paid their union dues for years. The union is trying its best to stand up for them, but what came as a surprise to the workers is that the government, through special legislation, is trying to prevent their union from doing its job properly by not respecting its right to negotiate the members’ working conditions freely. I am afraid this kind of approach will drive apart different generations of workers and also drive apart management and employees.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:30 a.m.

Saint Boniface Manitoba

Conservative

Shelly Glover ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would also like to rise above partisanship in this discussion.

I would really like to know something. Since we are concerned about work stoppages and their impact on the economy, what is the point of this stalling by the NDP? So far, all I see is that we are spending taxpayer money to pay people here, like the pages, support staff and cafeteria workers. It is a waste of time. We should pass a bill to put an end to this dispute. Mail must be delivered and Canada Post must get back to work. What is the NDP's goal by stalling this bill? I would appreciate an answer that does not stray from the point.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:30 a.m.

NDP

Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, I get the impression that the government wants to blame the situation on the NDP members and on Canada Post workers. What we want is to defend these workers and to recognize that a worker who has the right to belong to a union also has the right to bargain a collective agreement.

I would like to remind the House that Canada Post employees decided to start a rotating strike. Employees in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver took turns going on strike. This slowed down postal services, but mail was still being delivered. I do not think that we should take the blame for this situation.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:30 a.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, my comment is for the members opposite. All day they have shown us their little phones, saying that they have received comments, letters and words from people in their ridings who are protesting the fact that mail service has been interrupted and explained all their problems.

I went to read the newspapers. TVA—and everyone knows that TVA is not very socialist—said that 62,000 letters, including benefit cheques and every other kind of cheque, were being held up and were not being delivered because of the lock out. It was not because of the rotating strike, but because of the lock out. So the government should take responsibility for it.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:35 a.m.

NDP

Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, the government did not require Canada Post to return to the bargaining table and respect the collective agreement of its employees. The government probably does not want to interfere in the affairs of a Crown corporation. But it did not hesitate to table a bill that affects thousands of workers.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:35 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, just very briefly, I have here an email from Victoria, your own riding. It is from a woman who is disabled and dealing with two cancers and a broken arm. She is saying that she is fine with picking up her cheques and she says how much she supports the postal workers. She says that what's more important is that workers are respected and that there are well-paying jobs out there and people paying taxes that help to support people like her. She says, “Just because we are on disability does not mean we are desperately waiting for our cheques”.

I wonder if the member would comment on how important well-paid jobs are to our local economies and for supporting people in our country.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:35 a.m.

NDP

Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, we need to respect the workers, workers in our communities, workers who work outside, no matter what the weather is like, whether the day is hot, windy or bitterly cold.

Earlier I failed to mention the young employees of the Canada Post Corporation. This new generation deserves the same benefits as those our parents and their parents fought so hard for.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:35 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Madam Speaker, since we do not have the same concept of time in the House right now, I would like to follow up on what I was saying this morning. I was telling the story of a teacher who, although not in the same situation as the one Canada Post workers are currently in, said she was scared of the precedent this would set and the domino effect it will have.

In fact, I have read the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia. I will read an excerpt that I find to be quite relevant:

The history of collective bargaining in Canada reveals that long before the present statutory labour regimes were put in place, collective bargaining was recognized as a fundamental aspect of Canadian society, emerging as the most significant collective activity through which freedom of association is expressed in the labour context.

The relevance of this quotation is obvious, but I will elaborate. It is what is at issue here. Canada Post workers have not had the opportunity to exercise what is a fundamental right in our society and in our Canadian history. This ties in with the story I was telling earlier. If we cannot even have this right, what rights will be taken away next? What will be the next situation in which things do not work out and the government decides to use special legislation to resolve the problem?

I would like to give an example of recent collective action in my community. It did not involve unions. I want to make that clear so as not to scare the members opposite too much. It was during the flooding in Montérégie. Two weekends in a row, people from the entire community came to the help of strangers. They did that together, collectively, simply because these are things that could not be done alone. A collective effort was needed. That is why we have unions and workers' groups. They want to have things they are not capable of getting alone. They are not going to get what they want by going to their boss one by one. They have to express their wishes collectively.

The hon. members opposite have asked us a number of times why New Democrat members continue to express their disapproval with the current situation and with this bill. It is simple. Just like workers who come together to make their views known, we too are making ours known. We are doing so on behalf of those in our ridings, whether they be workers or small business people. That is why we are here. This is not a waste of taxpayers' money, this is our job. We are paid a salary to be here or in our ridings when something is happening. Something very important is happening now. These will be very relevant questions over the next four years. If we cannot handle situations like this and answer questions like this now, where will we be in four years? I have no idea, and I don't even want to know. Perhaps I would be better off staying in my riding, rather than being here all night, because I might prefer not to know about any of this. But we are here, and we are now trying to establish what we want to do as representatives of our communities.

Here is another passage from the Supreme Court of Canada decision:

Recognizing that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and Freedoms].

What is at stake here are individual rights.

We hear a lot of bogeyman stories from the hon. members on the opposite side of the House. They are saying that the NDP members have a leash around their necks and the union leaders are pulling on that leash. But that is not the case. We can see in the Supreme Court decision that this is about the autonomy of the people who came together to make a democratic decision and exercise their freedom of association in order to use this tool collectively. As we have seen over the past few evenings and nights in the House, we now take these things for granted. I may be young, but I know that it is important not to take these things for granted because people have fought for them. Why should we start taking them for granted now and thereby prevent workers from continuing the work that has been started?

Let me go back a little. I was talking about the flooding in my constituency, which has been a great concern to me since the beginning of my mandate. When I first spoke in the House, I had the opportunity to ask the minister whether the army was going to help the victims with the cleanup. But the army did not come to help the victims and that is not its fault because it follows orders. It does a great job under the circumstances. I am bringing this up and I think it is relevant because the government clearly said that the private sector should be allowed to deal with the situation, that things should take care of themselves and that the market should do the same. Why are they not approaching the current situation in the same way? Why does the government not let the union and management work things out between themselves?

I spent the election campaign hearing that the NDP was a party that was going to interfere in everything and that it was not going to let people sort out issues for themselves. Ironically, the government that claims not to act in that way is doing just that, at the expense of our workers, their rights and their pensions.

Once again, I am speaking as a young person. I do not want to come up with a definition of what a young person is, because, in our hearts, we all either are young or see ourselves as young. When young people consider the environment, for example, it is easy to see the consequences because they can be seen. We can see what is happening with the environment. When we consider our pensions and the financial future of the country, we do not see the consequences. That is what scares us: we do not know what is going to happen and we do not understand all the issues. The fact that we cannot see the consequences results in some of those involved thinking that everything will happen without anyone asking questions about the consequences. It is therefore up to us to point out the consequences so that future generations know that the issues are important.

In our current situation, I have a duty to speak as the voice of the young. And I am not alone. Once again, we are not a nasty union, we are a parliamentary caucus. Just like workers and their unions, we work as a team and for a common purpose. We use our freedom of association to work together in the name of the people, the workers, as the Supreme Court decision described. We will stay here for the night and for as many days as it takes, right up to the end of next week, up to the royal couple's visit. We will stay for as many days as it takes. We missed Quebec's national holiday and we will miss Canada Day if we have to. We have freedom of association and it allows us to be here fighting for people and making our views known on their behalf. We are not nasty trade unionists, we are not bogeymen, we are people who were elected in our ridings to do this job. Our constituents are proud of us and we have nothing to be ashamed of. This is also why we are opposed to this bill.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:45 a.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Citizenship

Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate the hon. member on his election and his speech. Clearly this is a new member who has a good deal of passion. I congratulate him.

That being said, I have received many email messages from my constituents who are in favour of Bill C-6, including some Canada Post workers. I would like to quote a few sentences from those workers’ emails.

I will not use their names because I do not want these CUPW members to be harassed by union bosses. However, a postal clerk from my constituency said she feels that legislation is the only hope to keep their jobs. She said their union has not allowed them to vote on any revised offers that Canada Post Corporation has made and that most of them think the revised final offer is fair. She said they wanted to vote, but the union would not allow them to vote. She said they are part of a democratic society and the workers should have some rights but that this is not happening. She said the union has not tried to negotiate a better offer based on the corporation's offer; it is trying to change it entirely. She went on to say that government intervention is the only hope for getting them back to work.

Would the member please comment on the remarks of my constituent who is a CUPW member?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:45 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his congratulations. I am very pleased to hear him acknowledge my passion for these matters. At the present time, passion is indeed what is needed.

To answer his question, I will say that it is quite simple. As the New Democratic members have said since the start of this debate, a union functions democratically. Not all the members will necessarily be in agreement all the time, just as not all the people of Canada voted for the present government. Yet we make do all the same. What is more, we express our opinions all the same.

I am very happy that his constituent—I do not recall whether it was a man or a woman, and it is not important—expressed his or her opinion to the hon. member. The fact remains that, in a democracy, one cannot always get what one wants. However one must deal with the situation and work within the system, which is what we are doing at the present time.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:50 a.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. We keep hearing from the governing party that it had to intervene because negotiations had gone on and on. Well, I have heard from one of my constituents, Dale, who was a postal worker, and his comments are that Canada Post uses this tactic all the time. They stall. They take months and months until the union is in a position where it has to have a strike mandate in order to even start negotiations. He goes on to say that he knows this tactic is used constantly. The whole point is to intimidate people so they can roll back benefits, vacations, sick leave and take away pensions.

Does the member believe the Conservatives are using the legislation to support this unacceptable conduct?

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:50 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Madam Speaker, I make no claim to fully understand the intentions behind the bill, but I know that in the present situation the workers are indeed trying to defend their pensions, their wages and their needs. For them, it is very important to be able to have access to these tools.

When we look at the Supreme Court’s decision, we can clearly see that it underscores that workers must have the right to organize and the ability to work with the tools at their disposal. The bill now being studied will prevent postal workers from doing this. That is why the NDP is opposed to it.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:50 a.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Madam Speaker, I find the decorum in the House at this moment is preferable to what it was earlier this evening, and I hope we can continue in this way for the rest of this debate. We owe it to Canadians to show one another respect and to show them we are serious about getting to the root of this problem that is affecting a wide range of, if not all, Canadians in this country.

For me, Canada is the greatest democracy in the world. I think we are a model for democracies, both established and western industrialized nations, but also emerging democracies. I think the way we perform in this House, the way we respect one another and debate back and forth, is a message that we send not just to Canadians but around the world.

I am new to this House, but sometimes I am quite disappointed in what I see here. I hope we can return to positive debate and to being respectful of one another.

In terms of this issue, from my perspective we are facing a regular policy problem. It is a large problem, a national problem, but it is still just an issue of public policy, so it is perhaps best to approach it this way.

To solve any public policy problem we have to understand the root of its causes. We have to come to grips with the problem we are facing, especially when it is government. We have to say we have taken a critical look at it and we understand what the problem is, and we have to explore a number of options and pick the one which is going to best solve it.

I have been sitting in this House for hour upon hour, and I have heard eloquent speeches and good questions on both sides of the House. The facts seem to be that we have a crown corporation that is critical to the well-being of Canada and that has locked out its employees. That does seem to be the problem at hand. The problem for the government is how we address this.

I will admit that the other side has made some good points. It has said that the lockout may have been prompted by an ongoing labour dispute, that it may have been prompted by what has been described as a series of relatively harmless rotating strikes. But now we have a lockout. It is important to keep this in chronological order. We have a dispute. We have rotating strikes. Now we have a lockout. That is the problem for the government to address.

Members can dispute my position because I am a member of the NDP and the opposition. However, I do not think the evidence and the other sources backing up this claim can be disputed.

The CBC, a national broadcaster of international reputation in radio and television, calls it a lockout. CTV calls it a lockout. Every article that has been written about this in the Globe and Mail calls this situation a lockout. Global TV calls it a lockout, and my favourite morning reading, National Post, also calls it a lockout.

If members do not believe our national media, they can look at the international media. When we are checking our stock options in the morning, we might look at Bloomberg. It says it is a lockout. Probably one of the most irrefutable sources in the world for quality news, the New York Times--

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:55 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please.

On a point of order, the hon. Minister of State.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:55 a.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague, but I wonder if you could clarify this. About 12 hours ago the member was giving a speech, and I was in the House. I believe it is almost exactly the same speech.

I wonder if the Chair would confirm whether members are allowed to give the same speech over again. I know they want to filibuster, and I am okay with that, but I need some clarification.

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 25th, 2:55 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I thank the hon. member for his comments. Without the blues I am not in a position to determine if that was the case. I am sure the hon. member will consider your comments.

On the same point of order, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.