Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I meant to say “Prime Minister”.

She asked: “If companies can't get supplies or can't ship product, they will go out of business. Air travel is, for most, a luxury. Postal service is a necessity.”

This is an everyday Canadian. I am calling upon the member opposite to stop holding Canada hostage and let our postal service resume by allowing the legislation to go forward.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to emphasize as I begin my point of order that points of order do not come off the five-minute question and comment period, so I would like to have the clock stopped at all times.

I would like to ask the hon. member to withdraw her comments that we are holding Canadians hostage. I think this is beneath the tone of debate that we should have in this House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has risen on a second point of order. Maybe I will take this opportunity to clarify for all members in the House a couple of issues: one has to do with points order; the second has to do with the clock and whether it continues or stops when a point of order has been raised. This second issue has come up a couple of times in the last half hour.

I would like to remind all hon. members that at any point during proceedings, with the exception of question period, members have the right to stand and raise points of order. This is an important right that all members have, and I think we would all agree that the Speaker needs to respect that right and immediately go to that person.

As all hon. members will know, there are times when a point of order is obviously legitimate, when an issue is raised that clearly needs to be addressed. As an example of a legitimate point of order, I will not use the one just raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I will use the one raised a couple of minutes ago regarding the use of a member's name in the House. It has been my experience that the use of another member's name is usually inadvertent and not deliberate. Nevertheless, this needs to be addressed. Therefore, that point of order is dealt with by the Chair.

It is also often the case that members will rise using the process of a point of order to stop debate for something that the Chair determines is not a legitimate point of order. In this case, I appreciate that the member for Timmins—James Bay has recently provided us with an example of this type of point of order in his second intervention. The Chair is also required to deal with whether something is debate rather than a procedural issue or a point of order.

This brings us to the second point, which is the question of the clock and whether, when a point of order is raised, the clock continues or not. I would point out to all hon. members that it is the Chair who decides how long speeches are and that the clock is a guideline to the Chair. But at the end of the day it is actually the person in the chair who determines when it is the end of someone's speech and whether something can be added or not.

The general practice is that, if the point of order raised is legitimate, made quickly, and pertains to the business before the House, the clock does not stop and the time continues. If, however, in the view of the Chair, the point of order is being raised in an attempt to slow things down, to take away from the presentation, or to deprive another member of the opportunity to raise a point of order, the Chair has the right to add that time.

For example, when a member is making a 10-minute speech and a member from another party raises a point of order and carries on at length on what does not seem to be a legitimate point of order, the member is not punished and time is added to the member's speech. Conversely, if a member of the same party as the person making the presentation uses the same approach, often the clock is not stopped. I am sure all hon. members will agree that the Chair has an incentive not to encourage mischief but to respect the right of members to use the point of order process when it is appropriate. Members, however, must not abuse this process in an attempt to reduce or increase the speaking time of a colleague.

This is the process that is used. In the last 15 minutes, there have been examples of all these situations. Please let me assure everyone that all chair occupants do their best to do this job fairly. The Chair is charged with making sure that the rights of all hon. members are respected, and that those who have an allotted amount of time to make a presentation are not punished by having their time reduced by the actions of others, particularly when it is determined that this is the entire purpose of the point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel I should put it on the record that I have incredible respect for your judgment. You have given us a very judicious and wise response. Certainly members of our caucus will take note of that and ensure that any of the points of order we raise will be in the interest of debate and will not be any sort of mischief.

I do respect the Chair and what is happening in this House is an important debate. I want to apologize if I was too enthusiastic earlier.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair respects that intervention from the hon. member and thanks him for having made several examples clear to this House of what we can and cannot do.

I also note the clock has been stopped in this case. I am going to ask that it be started again. We will continue with questions and comments.

It has been pointed out that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard did not have an opportunity to respond to the question posed by the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

She reminded me of something I forgot to mention in my speech, that is, that decent working conditions lead employees to stay where they are because they are content. It is not necessarily only in the public sector where this happens. This also happens in private companies that provide their employees with good working conditions and I find this encouraging.

Canada Post workers simply want to see this continue. They want good working conditions that do not deteriorate. When people have that, they tend to stay put. Other kinds of businesses have higher turnover rates because of instability or because the working conditions are not very good. As my colleague mentioned, this is quite common and I think it is very important to have good working conditions in order to ensure continuity.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I received an email last night from a constituent in Guelph. His name is George. He is a CUPW member. He delivers the mail and he is anxious to get back to delivering the mail.

George suggested that the post office simply unlock the doors and let everybody get back to work. They would continue to work. They would continue to negotiate in good faith and would go through the normal mediation and arbitration process. He figures that within 24 hours people would have their mail again.

I'm wondering what the member would say to that suggestion, as opposed to the draconian measures that are found in the bill put forward by the government.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

That is what we have been defending all along. At present, we have a government that wants to impose its own conditions on a legitimate bargaining process.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, anytime I have spoken in the House over the past seven years, I have usually been able to say that I am pleased to take part in the debate on a particular bill. Today, however, June 24, my pleasure is considerably lessened because I am quite sad that I cannot be in my constituency right now.

In less than an hour from now, I was supposed to take part in an activity, a mass, with some people and then, as in the past, I would have continued celebrating with my constituents until the wee hours of the morning. Basically, I usually celebrate Quebec's nation holiday as a Quebecker, and not just as a member of Parliament. We are always members of Parliament, even when we go grocery shopping.

It saddens me to be here, especially since my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour tried to seek unanimous consent to interrupt the debate today and resume it again later.

The issue here is not playing the government's game by passing the bill and returning to our ridings to be on vacation for three months, as the media likes to say. Every MP is going to take some vacation, but they will continue to work during the summer period, to receive constituents in their office and take part in all the summer festivities in their riding. In any event, we are here for one reason. We were elected to work, to legislate. There is a bill before us and it is our responsibility to address the matter.

The government's Bill C-6 is an affront to democracy. Everyone has the right to fair and equitable working conditions. The summary of the bill is quite clear as to the government's intention to use a sledgehammer to impose conditions on the postal workers. The summary of the bill states:

This enactment provides for the resumption and continuation of postal services and imposes a final offer selection process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties.

On reading the bill we see that an arbitrator, no matter how competent—it will not be his fault if he has to rule on the working conditions—will have no choice but to side with the conditions imposed by the employer. As far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of taking sides. I have always said we must side with the negotiation process, the possibility for both parties to reach an agreement. The government has not seen it that way from the very start.

I just got a reaction from the Conservative members when I said that Ronald Reagan had acted no differently in the 1980s by straight out dismissing air traffic controllers who had used pressure tactics to get fair working conditions. I even heard someone yell that it worked at least. Perhaps it worked, perhaps it is a right-wing way to impose rules, to be in control of a situation. But when it comes to a social environment, I do not think that this is the right attitude for a responsible government to take. The postal workers will go back to work and, if the conditions set out in the bill are imposed on them until the end of that collective agreement, so until 2015, the environment in the postal offices will be terrible.

At the post office in Victoriaville, during the conflict when the rotating strikes had begun, scabs arrived. The police had to step in because a scuffle broke out. Fortunately, nothing too serious happened.

The same thing happened in Sherbrooke, and some people tried to do the job of the postal workers. There are rules that need to be followed in those cases. That does not mean that all work is prohibited, but the work of postal workers must not be done by scabs.

We must also understand that there were negotiations during this conflict. We were told that the Canada Post Corporation was not too inclined to negotiate because the sword of Damocles, in the form of a special bill, was being held over the heads of employees. All we had to do was wait. When the rotating strikes began, there was some inconvenience to Canadians.

However, there was no major disruption since the unions had decided against a general strike. Rotating strikes were a way of getting their point across by inconveniencing certain categories of people in a particular sector for a specific period, with a different sector being affected a day or so later. This meant that those affected by the initial round of rotating strikes were no longer inconvenienced. Despite this, the employer reacted immediately by locking out workers, causing great inconvenience.

So, when I hear the government say that this is hurting the economy, it is important to consider what exactly occurred. The threat of special legislation caused Canada Post to lock out workers because it knew that the legislation would force employees to agree to conditions that were undoubtedly unacceptable to them. The buck therefore stops with the government. The threat of special legislation was looming and precipitated the lockout by Canada Post. Of course, all the employer had to do was wait for the infamous special legislation, for conditions to be set by an arbitrator, and then simply wash its hands of the matter, with no need to negotiate.

It was the government’s responsibility to ensure that a proper mediation process was in place and certainly not to specify in the special legislation that it would be left up to an arbitrator to choose between the two offers. It was like pouring salt on a wound when the decision was made to include in the special legislation lower wages than previously offered by Canada Post. And then there were the “orphan clauses”. In short, the government went to great lengths to ensure that Canada Post would have the upper hand in the “bargaining process”.

The Conservative government is largely responsible for the economic consequences it has spoken of today. Considering the government’s approach and its legislation, Bill C-6, it is no surprise to read of “Conservative arrogance”, the title of a Le Soleil editorial. Allow me to quote Brigitte Breton, the author of this article:

By introducing Bill C-6, the Conservatives have demonstrated that the public interest is by no means the only thing motivating them. The opportunity to show people who is in charge in Ottawa is too good to miss. That much was made abundantly clear by the inclusion in the bill of inferior wage conditions to those offered by Canada Post.

That summarizes what I have just said. We saw the same thing with Air Canada, when the government immediately said that it would introduce special legislation. They had not even started to use specific pressure tactics, there were no particular hardships, and right away, the government wanted to put a stop to it. It said that people would return to work, regardless of how, regardless of the work climate that would ensue. I think this is important, because all of that has an affect on the service being provided to the public.

I believe that workers at Air Canada, as well as Canada Post, like all workers in the public sector or semi-public sector, whether they are unionized or non-unionized, always want to work as hard as they can to provide the best possible service. However, when they return to work, their tails between their legs, because someone has imposed working conditions that go against what we have always stood for, conditions that the employer had subjected them to and that jeopardized their pension plans, this means that, whether we want it or not, services to the public could be affected because there will be a poor work climate. Obviously, I am once again directly blaming the government for this.

To sum up, the Bloc Québécois will obviously continue to oppose this bill, which is nothing more than the Conservative government trying to impose its own views.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. We worked together for quite some time on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and I always appreciate his comments. I know he works very hard on behalf of farmers, not only in Quebec, but across Canada, including on the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to thank him.

One thing that is not being talked about here, which I would like to point out again, is that Canada Post made $281 million in profits in 2009 and it must give part of its profits to the government.

Would it not make more sense to allow Canada Post to keep its profits so it can resolve these issues and improve things for its employees, while still earning profits? Is that not robbery? Is the government not stealing that money from the Canada Post workers?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and I would like to return his compliments. I really enjoyed working with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food these past few years. I have always said that this member is unlike any other member, because he has always been able to set all partisanship aside. Thus, I consider him a friend and I would have liked to continue working with him on that committee, but as a member of a party that is not recognized in this House, I can only sit at the table and have no right to speak. Perhaps those rules need to be changed, but that is not the subject of the current debate.

I agree with him completely, especially considering the statistics he mentioned. The same year, 2009, Canada Post Corporation took in over $7 billion in revenues. That is a lot of money. I agree completely with his suggestion. As for wage cuts, every Canada Post employee will lose $875 because of the provisions of this bill.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his speech.

What message is the government sending to young people with this special legislation? We know from the provisions of the bill that the salary for new employees will be much lower.

What message is the government sending to all young people who are looking for a good, stable job and who want to start a family?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.

It is a very bad message that is being sent. It is a message that tells young new workers that we consider them to be second-class employees. They are coming into a situation where a collective agreement has been negotiated—or imposed, if the special legislation is being applied—and we are saying that they have the same job, the same workload and the same skills, but that they are at a lower class. That is the message.

We should not be surprised when it comes to the Conservative government. We have always said we needed to fear this and we have always feared that this government would gain a majority. Since Parliament resumed on May 2, we have been faced with work conflicts that were not even conflicts yet, but conflicts in their early stages, with Air Canada and Canada Post. But you are now seeing the imposition of special legislation, it is the gag order, it is censorship, it is a blow, when we could have favoured mediation, real negotiation. This is what we do and what we should be doing in a fair democratic society.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in the debate this morning. It is an important debate for a number of different reasons, not only with regard to a crown corporation but also with regard to where we move as a country and the type of atmosphere in our country.

There is no doubt we are seeing a more hostile atmosphere with regard to workers. That atmosphere has been transitioning a number of different jurisdictions in North America and it is no longer outside of our border. That is rather unfortunate because it counters what Canadians expect and want.

Canada Post is a successful crown corporation. It has also been successful in creating a dynamic country. Canada stretches from the most remote areas to populace areas along the border, where 80% of Canadians live. Through Canada Post, small, rural areas receive tremendous service that connects them to bigger areas. People like that environment. They like the coast to coast to coast connection. They like the diversity.

Canada Post is part of our infrastructure, just like our railroad system. It goes back to the founding of our country. Communication is important in our country's vast geographical area. It sometimes defies the logic of history with regard to conflict, growing communities and so forth. Our communities have been able to grow in a very healthy environment for the most part. We have had our bad moments, but we have also had our strengths. Canada Post has been a part of that.

Communication is the art of moving forward. As a result of what the government has done, there is no communication right now. Canada Post has locked its workers out of their jobs and the government has given their employer a mandate to push them down. The government has denied the workers that element of communication, and that is sad.

No matter what comes out of this situation over the next few hours or days, the fact is people will have to go back to work. Most Canadians want to go to work every day, but not enough of them have the opportunity to go to a job they like. The men and women who work in my local post office and serve my community like to go to work. It is not always pleasant. There are always issues, but these people want to be part of a system that Canadians respect.

Our system has been tremendously successful. Canada Post pays its millions of dollars in profits back to the government. At the same time, it has some of the lowest rates and the best service. There are problems here and there, but there is accountability. Private systems around the world have higher costs, less service and less accountability.

Canadian taxpayers own this crown corporation. They have a vested interest in it, and I am not talking about the trucks or the physical structures. I am talking about the people, our fellow Canadian citizens, who deliver the mail and look out for their community when they go door to door every day.

I cannot tell the House the number of times I have heard from citizens about a post office worker who has noted something in the community. Our postal workers are the eyes and ears of our communities. They go beyond their job. They help out people in trouble, because they feel it is their duty. They take pride in the uniform they wear.

One of the things that is really important to acknowledge in this debate and one that I find tremendously offensive is the whole notion of two-tier wages. The two-tier wages being proposed reduce the wages for new employees by 18%. It is really equal work for less pay.

There used to be times when that was acceptable. Employers were allowed to discriminate based on the colour of one's skin or because the individual was a female or of ethnicity. We stopped that in our country because it was unfair. It does not matter what one looks like or who that person is. If he or she does the same work, then that individual should be entitled to the same wages, benefits and everything else. That is a founding principle of social justice that needs to be looked at here. An 18% reduction in wages is a slap in the face, not only to the new workers who will be hired by Canada Post but also to what we are trying to do.

As a young father, I want my kids to go to post-secondary school. I want them to graduate. I want them to find a job. Why would I want them to get 18% less at Canada Post or another crown corporation just because they are young and new? Canada Post wants to take advantage of that. It will have a higher turnover rate. That is what happens in these environments. They have higher turnover rates and less pensions to pay out in the future.

We are asking for that. The government is setting up a system and leading it through the public sector to tell the private sector that two-tier waging is okay. What is very important about this is we will pay for it anyway. Those new people will to wait another five years to get a pension. Even if they put up with the two-tier wages, even if they stay there, they will have to wait an additional five years for a pension.

What will happen when they exit Canada Post? They will rely more upon the public sector again, the taxpayers. Instead of having a planned system in place that we can afford and manage and that allows employees to contribute back to the Canadian economy, employees will be shortchanged. They will have less benefits. They will have less money. I see it on the streets every day. I have canvassed so many times over the last number of years during so many different elections. Every time I go out, I get more worried because I see people struggling to provide education for their kids. They are borrowing more. At the same time, they cannot provide food or pay their bills the way they used to. They do not feel they are moving forward.

We see so many community organizations that are growing. They are having to pick up the slack.

The two-tier wage issue is interesting. When the Conservatives came back to power, they did not have any MPs or senators on a two-tier wage plan. They did not ask them to wait another five years for their pensions. They did not take an 18% pay cut because they believed in it. They are not leading by example.

The minister and the government are saying to a crown corporation that it is okay to lock people out of their jobs, that it is okay to put the rest of Canada on hold. Those workers have invested value in the place they work. The government is going to set the example that it is possible to have a two-tier system with less pensions.

Why do the Conservatives not do this for themselves? It is in their legislation. They are supporting a Canada Post contract with wage differences. Why do they not lead by example then, if that is what they believe in?

I believe in equal pay for equal service. I believe it is time to stop burdening our youth. Students across Canada owe around $16 billion right now for federal loans alone.

This is the benefit that we will get out of this. The taxpayers will save a little of money out of this. We will send some new people to work with less money. They have higher debt. The average debt load per person is around $20,000 after two years of post-secondary education. On top of that, they pay interest at a premium above the borrowing rate. Those students are trying to enter the economy. They are coming out later in life. They are going to have their children later in life. They are going to have less pensionable years.

In this situation the government is helping legislate a system that is unsustainable. It is unsustainable as it is, but it is also a poor example. We do not want to tell businesses and other employers that reducing wages is a solution. The government did this for the auto sector. With regard to the recent recession, it was the mismanagement and the greed which caused the collapse in the U.S. and in Canada, with the stockholders and the different money-laundering, yet they never paid for any of it. In fact, they got bonuses. As a solution, they cut the salaries and pensions of auto workers, but that was not the problem. The problem was mismanagement, bad spending and lack of accountability.

I have seen the face of Canada Post and the deception. It tried to close the postal office in Sandwich Towne. The actual document was leaked to me. Canada Post's business case included money for a full-time manager for the area from Windsor to London. It put the entire salary in there to build the case that it was not sustainable. Because we had the information leaked to us, we were able to prove that and stop it from closing down the postal office. It wanted to close it down for ideology reasons.

This is about the ideology to reduce wages and pensions because, for whatever reason, it has come to be seen as a legacy cost. Wages and pensions are not a cost. They are a net benefit to this community. They are a net benefit to our country and that is what we should work for. We can afford them because we have the money.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's characterization of this matter as an ideological debate. When there is a right-wing party and a left-wing party in a chamber such as this, the result is ideological debate and the consequence is stalemate.

Clearly the government is trying to jam the union. If workers' rights are to be suspended, an alternative must be put in place. That is manifestly fair.

Clearly the NDP has said this process is not manifestly fair. It is the same with our party, but now we have an ideological slanging match between hard right and hard left.

What is interesting to me, and I would be interested in the hon. member's comments, is the near indifference of Canadians to this ideological slanging match. During the course of this debate I have received precisely one email in my office, and no visits whatsoever. That person was particularly unsympathetic to both sides.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to this ideological slanging match.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to respond to ideology.

We are calling for proper process. The Conservatives' ideology is what is doing this. We are calling for the proper process to go through arbitration. We are calling for the law that has been normal practice to unfold here. That is what we are calling for.

If the issue is about indifference, that is the difference between the hon. member and me. I remember the days when the member would call for larger corporate tax cuts. Now the policy in his party has changed. It is quite different. There is a phone book of Hansards in which the hon. member's party called for large corporate tax reductions.

At some point in time when it comes to my party and where I stand, sometimes it may feel as though there is indifference there, but values of social justice drive us. We know the truth with regard to what is going to happen here. We are going to stand with those who sometimes do not have somebody by their side.

That is how we got health care in this country. That is how we got pensions. That is how we have a difference between our parties. It is because we will care for and stand with those who sometimes are alone.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that my colleague sees all the social groups as complementary. The opposite is the government, which sees all social groups as a potential way to manipulate and turn them one against the other.

I would like to hear my colleague talk a little more about how this bill is again pushing that way of seeing society by the government.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is very germane to what is happening here in terms of the Canada we are potentially moving towards.

The government is quite clear. By using this example, the government is setting the table for the private sector to use these divisive tactics in its negotiations.

Living on the doorstep of the United States, I have witnessed what has been taking place there with their overall ideology for a number of years. We have seen this happen in the United States, and it is not working. They are not becoming more productive. They are not becoming more effective.

That is why I stand here today to appeal to Canadians who are watching this debate. The workers are locked out. They are good workers. They want to work for a crown corporation that returns a benefit to them and their families. All they are asking for is the simple benefits they have enjoyed in the past and their right to be able to raise their families with dignity and integrity.

What is happening is an attempt to use the lockout to divide Canadian public opinion. People are taking the position that the workers are on strike. They are not; they are locked out. They want to go to work. They are fighting for the best service they can deliver for people in this country. That is what it is about.

If my neighbour or the person bringing my letters to the box every day is young or new, why should that person be paid 20% less? Why should that person have a smaller pension than anyone else? They are doing the same job.

It is only right. It is as simple as thinking of social justice.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by pointing out that it is now — not technically — but actually June 24, which is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I would like to congratulate all my constituents on this Quebec national holiday. Unfortunately, I cannot be with them today. I would very much liked to have been able to be there. Our leader attempted to negotiate an arrangement with the Prime Minister that would have allowed Quebec MPs to return to their ridings to celebrate such an important holiday with their constituents. Unfortunately, the response from the Prime Minister was a firm no. We can see the true face of the Conservatives today. There is a total lack of respect for Quebec and its people. I will now move on to something else.

The NDP is here to defend the rights of workers. On June 3, letter carriers and all Canada Post employees began rotating strikes to put a little pressure on management. This rotating strike was perfectly legal and allowed the mail to reach its destination within a very reasonable time period.

They are fighting for better and safer working conditions. Not many people know it, but I am a chiropractor. Not long ago, I had a patient, a woman letter carrier. I cannot go into details, but as the months went by, I was truly able to see that the work of letter carriers is very demanding physically, particularly once I saw how her return to work went. It showed me just how demanding her job was.

These people wanted to work. In any event, my patient truly wanted to return to work to earn her pay, to be sure, but also to help her community, even though her working environment was unsafe. Winter means ice and icy patches, and they have to do their job even when there are snowstorms. In the summer, when the heat can be oppressive, they have to carry all their mail over their shoulder. This creates a great deal of musculoskeletal pain — that’s just a bit of chiropractor jargon. In short, these people work very hard. They deserve to be treated with dignity, particularly when they ask to have included in their collective agreement a safer working environment.

These workers also want, through their labour action, to say no to the cuts that management is trying to force upon them. These attacks affect 48,000 workers and their families. That represents many people in Canada. They make the economy run, whether in Canada, Quebec, or Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. That is why the NDP is going to stand up as long as it takes to defend the rights of workers and families.

Their union opted for highly responsible rotating strikes. This showed respect for the people who wanted to receive their mail. They received it in a timely manner. It also showed respect for their workers, to enable them to put a little pressure on the government.

On the other hand, Canada Post decided to lock them out. That is why we are here today. As a result of this lockout, the mail has definitely stopped reaching people’s mailboxes. That was a smart move by Canada Post. We have seen over the past few days and will continue to see over the coming days just how this decision has placed Canada and its people in a very complex situation.

The union also proposed to Canada Post that it end the lockout to allow people to continue working and negotiating at the same time. However, for some strange reason, Canada Post refused. The crown corporation has really shot itself in the foot. The Canada Post team has decided to keep up a hard line approach, not unlike the one the Conservative government is trying to impose on the postal workers.

It is important to remember one thing: the media often talks about a postal strike, but this is not a strike; it is a lockout. The main problem lies with the employer, Canada Post. The employees have the right to negotiate their collective agreement in good faith with their employer. It is a right that has been earned over time. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer provided a very interesting history of the union movement in Canada.

However, this is not a negotiation in good faith. The government is trying to impose a contract on the workers, but it is not the government's role to do so. The bill clearly sides with the employer. It is irresponsible of the government to act in this way. We even see that the bill encroaches on the Canada Post employees' freedom to negotiate. As a result, the two parties in this situation cannot honestly negotiate with one another. What is more, the government is proposing lower salaries than the ones Canada Post was offering a few days ago during the negotiations. What is happening right now truly makes no sense.

In fact, I wonder why the government insisted on offering so little to the workers, even less than Canada Post management wanted to offer their employees. Personally, I think this is a conflict of interest. Just consider where Canada Post's profits end up. This is a corporation that generates millions of dollars every year. Who owns Canada Post? The Government of Canada does. At the end of the day, cutting payroll expenses at Canada Post will boost profits. Where will the profits go? They will go into the government's coffers. What will the government do with this surplus money? During the election campaign, there was talk of investing $35 billion in purchasing fighter jets and there was talk of megaprisons. I do not think it is ethical to cut employees' salaries and benefits to invest more in the Conservative government's ideological program. That is my view as an NDP MP.

What message is the government sending with its approach? It is implying that, if a contract is unfair, it is not a big deal; if employees do not agree with their employer, it is not a big deal—the government will take action, it will impose a framework that will put them at a disadvantage and it will cut everyone's wages. Recently, with the orphan clause, it has been said that there would be a second generation of employees, often young people, who will not have the same benefits as employees with more experience.

I think it is a bit hypocritical of the Conservative government whose ideal is to reduce the size of the government; now that it is in power, it is meddling a lot in the labour relations between employees and their employer.

Since I do not have much time left, I will briefly point out that Canadians have fought over many years and decades to be where they are today, to have decent salaries and benefits. Not all Canadians are privileged to have these benefits. We should not be lowering our standards in Canada. Our society is going through economic recovery. In our society, everyone should be elevated, not cut back and brought down to minimum wage. Like the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, I do not want to see the postal service privatized and I do not want to have to go to Walmart to get my mail.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague, another chiropractor, to the House. Perhaps we could work on straightening this thing out by aligning both parties so we can come to some resolution.

In the big picture of things, this is what the government is trying to do. We have looked at the disagreement between the two parties and we have seen two parties that cannot come to an agreement. We have seen rotating strikes, which has cost Canadians over $100 million. There has been a lockout. Obviously these two sides cannot come to together.

What would the member do with the rest of the workers in Canada? The calls I am getting in my office are from seniors and people on disability who require their cheques, and small businesses that are relying on cheques going back and forth consistently in order to pay their bills. Small business is now responsible for the employment of most Canadians.

We are trying to end this now as quickly as possible, get everybody back to work and have a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, the NDP want to keep us here. I should be in Oshawa today for 11 o'clock. We are celebrating Saint Jean Baptiste Day too. I find it very disrespectful.

We need to work together and help continue this recovery. What would the member say to those--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the Conservative member, who is also of the same profession as I am. We in the NDP also want workers to get back to work as quickly as possible. The workers and their union are calling for an end to the lockout, and rightly so, so they can resume work and start delivering the mail again every day, and so they can negotiate their collective agreement at their own pace.

My colleague wants the postal workers to return to work and so do we. The NDP does not believe however that a collective agreement should be imposed that penalizes them and that is not as generous as what Canada Post had already offered.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his remarks today.

I would also like to wish a wonderful Fête nationale to all my colleagues from Quebec who are present. Like them, I would have liked to be in my riding today to celebrate with those dear to me.

I would like to ask a question about the “orphan clause” in the bill. One of the concerns raised by constituents in my vast riding relates to young people and the message we should be sending them. My fellow citizens of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are very proud to see so many young people and women in our party. I would like to ask my colleague’s opinion as to the message the government is sending in this regard.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the NDP for his question.

As a young person of the age of 25, I am fortunate to be in a job where I am my own boss. At least I was before I became a full-time MP. Many young people have difficulty finding work as we are coming out of an economic recession.

Young people who are looking for work would love to find a job with decent wages and good working conditions so they can start a family and stay in their home region, whether that is Abitibi or Lac-Saint-Jean.

Yet with the focus on cutting wages and benefits, there will be a generation of young people with little job security or who do not make enough money to make a proper start in life. This is not the right message that the Conservatives are sending.

[For continuation of proceedings see part C]

[Continuation of proceedings from part B]

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have preferred to make my first speech in the House under more positive circumstances, but the government chose otherwise.

As the saying goes, it helps to sleep on it. But in my case, sleeping on it has raised some questions. I was anxious to return to the House to share my concerns. I must admit that after the election, I was worried about our country's progressive values. I was worried that we take a step backwards with the social gains that Canadian society worked brilliantly at great cost to earn over the course of our history.

I never thought that the Conservative government could threaten the structures of Canada's economic success themselves. I must admit that I was surprised about that. I see that this is the reality today, and I wonder why and what the government's goal is.

The public must understand that the Conservative government is trying to create a precedent. The Conservative government never hid its intentions. The Minister of Labour recently reiterated that the government's priority was to support economic growth, and that it would intervene in any labour dispute that could jeopardize that.

Any labour dispute? What does that mean? It is now very clear that the government will jump in indiscriminately. It is one thing to support development, to support businesses that create jobs, but it is an entirely different thing to systematically attack workers.

The New Democratic Party is in an interesting position, since we must remind the Conservative government of some fundamental principles of our economy. Simple principles. In our economy, the workers are also consumers. They are customers who use their incomes to keep the economy rolling.

One concept is fundamental to our economy: offer better wages to employees and they will buy more cars; offer better wages to employees and they will buy houses, consumer goods and services. But if you lower wages and cut employee benefits, you are attacking the very foundation of the modern economy.

The Conservative government is proposing a single formula: support economic development by reducing the purchasing power of workers. The government is adding insult to injury by simultaneously suggesting that Canadians reduce their debt levels. Workers who have supported Canada's economic growth for years, by going into debt of over 140% of their income, are now forced to accept that the government is making their debt level even worse by decreasing their disposable income. In what economic dream world is the government living?

The Conservative government is getting all worked up about the economic impact of the delays in mail delivery. It is condemning the temporary pressure tactics used by the workers, who are trying to preserve their purchasing power. And what does it do to resolve this temporary problem? It permanently reduces the income available to workers to support economic growth. What are we to take from this lack of logic? Do we just accept the excuse that the government continues to repeat, that its intervention is necessary to ensure economic development?

The answer is no. Instead, we need to unmask this government, which claims to be a champion of the economy but is flouting economic principles for ideological reasons. The Conservative government is interfering in the market economy and in the bargaining process between workers and their employer. Let the government suffer the consequences of its own lack of rigour.

If the NDP has to remind the government, citizens and especially the Minister of Labour that the Canadian economy is based on principles that have made us member of the G20 and an economic success worldwide, they can count on us. We will not allow the Conservatives to attack our economic prosperity. We will not allow the Conservatives to reduce the purchasing power of Canadians and further increase their level of debt. But above all, if the government insists on systematically interfering in negotiations between workers and employers, the NDP will systematically stand up to protect the Canadian economy and the principles that have made it so strong.

Now let us talk about the sense of urgency we see in the government. Not only has it rushed into this matter, not only has it gotten involved in a process that is none of its business, but it is also trying to force the adoption of a bill that will create a precedent that the government intends to systematically repeat, according to the very words of the Minister of Labour.

What is the urgency the government is referring to? Let us be clear. It was never the intention of Canada Post employees to undermine Canada's economic stability. This accusation on the part of the Conservative government, this bugaboo that it has been unleashing on the House for several days now, is not convincing anyone. Canada Post workers are much more sensitive to the importance of the service they provide than the Conservatives are letting on. The government is forgetting that Canada Post's clients are the neighbours, family members, colleagues and friends of the crown corporations's employees. Accusing them of taking Canadians hostage is absurd.

Under an agreement reached before the dispute, Canada Post workers had already committed to delivering government cheques, such as welfare, old age security and family support payments. According to the union, nearly 9,000 members would have helped sort and deliver over 2 million cheques a month. But the lockout changed everything. That excessive measure is what interrupted mail service to Canadians. The scolding emails only started coming in after the lockout was imposed, the same emails that the government is now citing to justify its bill. I hope the government will keep those emails as a reminder of the harmful effects of its precipitous action. We will also send them all the emails from citizens who are disappointed by this government's actions.

Lastly, I would like to send greetings to all of my friends and constituents in the riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert who were expecting me today for our national holiday celebrations. Since moving to Quebec, I have come to enjoy this beautiful celebration. The national holiday has allowed me not only to celebrate the history of my new home province, but also to develop a sense of belonging. How I would have liked to be among my constituents to thank them for the incredible welcome they have extended to me. I would have liked to show my profound gratitude for the honour they have bestowed upon me by voting for change in Ottawa. I will simply have to put it off to another time.

In the meantime, I am here to do the job entrusted to me. I will remain here to represent the interests of the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. And, if need be, I will stay here with my colleagues until Canada Day.