Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the citizens of Jeanne-Le Ber who elected me to represent them in this House. I am very proud to be in Ottawa now and to work on their behalf in connection with this important bill.

We hear much talk from the government about the economy, about how important the economy is to this country and about working for the average Canadian.

I do not think the so-called strong, stable majority government, which, incidentally was supported by a minority of 40% of Canadians, is feeling particularly warm toward the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for it.

In fact, I would venture to say that even the 40% who did vote for them were not voting to have stripped away from them their established right to grow and build their own self-worth and value through the accepted and democratic process of collective bargaining.

It is quite frankly beyond me how the current government does not see the conflict of interest in this process of shutting down a well-organized and responsible expression of job action to only then introduce back-to-work legislation.

Let me break this down. The government owns Canada Post. The government is in negotiations with its employees, as Canada Post. The employees, after much negotiation, take job action that sees at least partial delivery through rotating strikes. The government, as Canada Post, locks out the workers. The government, as itself, tables back-to-work legislation. In addition to eroding the process of collective bargaining, it further intrudes in that process by imposing its own views on what these workers should be paid, totally disregarding the agreements already made.

Now, excusing the possibility that the government may at this time be suffering from an identity crisis, what with playing both sides of the fence, does this government truly not feel any responsibility to the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for them?

The government speaks about democracy, but then proceeds to deny the democratic process of contract negotiations, because it does not like how it goes. The government says that it is looking out for the greater interest of Canadians, but then attacks those Canadians it says it is protecting. In case it is unclear, postal workers are Canadians too.

Postal workers are also consumers. In this one-dimensional, myopic vision of the economy the current government practises, I suppose it makes sense to cut out the buying power of a significant number of Canadian consumers to satisfy some ideological belief in the absolute numbers. “We are focused on the economy”. That is a familiar mantra that all members of the Conservative government are well versed in.

I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems that there are many facets to economic growth, including standard of living and morale in the workplace, to name two.

I wonder what kind of Canada can be built when workers' rights are disrespected. In fact, history shows us what that disrespect can yield. It was that type of disrespect that sparked the beginning of the labour movement in the first place.

Is this lockout an inconvenience? Yes, it is, and please, let us remember that it is a lockout and not a strike. Then again, I can see why the government might be confused.

Dare I say that there are many Canadians who would accept some inconvenience to protect the rights that so many Canadians fought and died for. Here are some of the thoughts these Canadians are sharing.

I have been a postal worker for the past 21 years....most people don't know that we have to be casuals without paying pensionable benefits for approximately 6 years. With an average income of $49,000 a year, I will be able to retire in 2024 with a rate of $1,391 a month! Now, in 2024, that won't even pay for an apartment....why would I want to lose more from the new collective agreement? Chopra started this year and will be getting a pay of $650,000 a year with a major retirement off of my back!

When we put in our right to strike notice on May 31st, the corporation retaliated by cutting off all of our benefits including medical. I have a brother-in-law who has progressive MS and couldn't get his meds while he is in severe pain from the waist down. He is paralyzed.

We responded only then after they cut off our benefits within 3 hours of our notice to strike submission, with rotating strikes without intention of harming the mail flow. Only with the understanding that it would delay mail for one day in that city!

It is wrong what the [Prime Minister's] government is doing! They collaborated with the management of Canada Post and took away our right of collective bargaining.

I want to work and I did volunteer, as did many other workers across Canada, only because we do not want to affect Canadians in a harmful manner. I love serving the public, but not at the expense of our pensions! I don't want to be on some government assistance when I reach 65. There is no need with a Canadian Crown Corp that is making major profits off of the backs of us, the backbone of Canada Post.

This is a Halifax postal worker.

I was always taught that one should be careful of the seeds one sews. The seeds this government is sewing are seeds of discontent, mistrust, indifference, and absolute contempt. It is contempt for the workers in this country, workers who, when the need is there, are willing to work with management towards the greater good. We saw this at the beginning of the economic crisis over and over again.

What we do not see, however, is the CEOs and the upper echelon colleagues willing to practise what they are forceably trying to extract from the people who make them rich.

If this government is so interested in participating in the collective bargaining process and feels perfectly justified in imposing lower wages than were fairly negotiated, why not be of true help to Canadians by forcing those same CEOs to convert their pension plans, give up their bonuses, and reduce their salaries. I suppose that this is too socialist for this government.

Human beings by nature are social animals. We need to work together to survive. Although there may be a pecking order, there should always be respect. This is something this government seems to feel does not apply to it.

The economy of this country is, and always has been, its people. They drive the country, both as workers and as consumers. If this government truly wants to help Canadians, then treat workers and consumers, as they are one and the same, as they should be treated.

The government needs to take responsibility for its actions. The government needs to unlock the doors. The government needs to put the workers back to work, not by legislating them but by legislating the government to unlock the doors and the lockout.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate has lowered itself to simply reading e-mails and letters from constituents. I'd like to join in.

I have an e-mail. I am reading this to the member who just spoke. He and his NDP colleagues should realize the havoc they are creating in this country and in the economy of this country. This is just an example.

This is from one Lori:

I'm in the small business community. We can't pay our vendors and we might miss payroll for the first time in 18 years. Lots of our printing suppliers have now laid off their staff.

You have to do whatever it takes to end this useless NDP tactic and get a vote in. Have to get them back to work. Let an arbitrator decide....We have no alternatives here. We are being held hostage. We have thousands and thousands of dollars trapped in the sorting station with respect to cheques that were mailed before this strike. Please, please.

The point of reading this is that the people of this country are getting desperate. Why not stop the nonsense that is going on in this House? Allow the votes to take place.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I am sorry that the hon. member feels that this is a useless exercise. The fact is that while the government wishes to break this down to a simplistic “Deliver the mail”, this is about more than just mail delivery. This is an attack on workers' rights.

I am sure that the person who sent the e-mail would be quite distraught about the fact that he and members of his family might have their rights eroded through this.

If the member really wants work to resume and to have these cheques go out, it is in the government's hands. The government acknowledged this lockout. The government is responsible for this lockout. Thus, the government is the one that can end this lockout. If the government wants the mail to go out, end the lockout.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us how unfair and how unjust it is to lower the wages and how this needs to be removed from the current legislation?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty apparent. The negotiations have been dragging on for so long and they finally actually got to the amount of money they would be paid, the salaries, which is usually the largest and heaviest sticking point.

As a union leader myself, I have been involved in many negotiations. It is always the largest sticking point, but they managed to get to that.

Why does the government not respect that and move forward from there? Why does it have to bring back-to-work legislation that includes lowering their wages? Answer that question.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been here now 36 hours or better. My constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex usually do not have to be told the same thing 120 times. I have listened to the comments that keep coming. We hear the same thing over and over again. It has been said that this is about ordinary families that need to be able to make ends meet and that they do not have the opportunity to make a decent living.

Canadians now pay $3,000 less in tax than they did in 2006. They voted against it. They put forward proposals to raise the EI by 35%. They want to double the Canada Pension Plan, which will cost employers and employees, because they are the only ones who pay for it. They opposed a GIS increase. I think it was going to cost a little more than $200 a year, yet they opposed everything families stand for.

I wonder if the member could help explain why they voted against everything for these same families.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what that question has to do with the issue on the table.

We did not vote against those things because we do not believe in them. We voted against those things because they are not enough. The $1.36 a day, or whatever it is, is not enough to lift a grandmother out of poverty. It is not enough.

If the government really cared about seniors, it would give them the money they need to lift themselves into some sort of dignity. Please, do not twist words.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing a happy Quebec national holiday to all Quebeckers, and in particular to my constituents in the riding of Saint-Lambert. I am not with them today, but they understand that the current circumstances are keeping me in Ottawa and that I will be with them very soon.

They will also no doubt be aware that defending the rights of workers is the basic reason why we are here in this forum this afternoon. Bill C-6 is just one more example of the attitude of an authoritarian government that cares about nothing but its own decisions.

As we know, Canada Post workers are simply fighting, as you or I would, to protect their jobs and their wages. They simply do not want their basic rights to be sacrificed and abused. They are refusing to allow their families to suffer the consequences of the Conservatives’ unjust policy.

In this matter, the unions assumed their responsibilities perfectly. The postal workers’ approach demonstrated respect for the public by holding rotating strikes. Canada Post acted in bad faith by declaring a lockout. Canada Post decided to unjustly penalize people and businesses by depriving them of their daily mail service.

In any company, employees are entitled, through their union if there is one, to negotiate their working conditions with their employer and to arrive at a favourable outcome, which is not the case for Canada Post employees, on whom the government wishes to impose a contract that runs counter to their interests.

This is not normal, all the more so as it is not part of the government's role nor within its jurisdiction to interfere in labour relations between employers and employees, and thus take away the employees' right to negotiate a collective agreement.

The government’s interference in this matter does not give the two parties the opportunity to achieve a negotiated agreement that is in their mutual interest. This is all the more unacceptable given that the government is proposing an agreement in which the wages are lower than those Canada Post had offered.

This is a dangerous precedent for all workers in Canada, who could find unfair contracts, wage cuts and misunderstandings with their employer imposed upon them. No, the government absolutely must stop interfering in this matter, as it is doing, and to give a negotiated settlement a chance, because it is not yet too late.

This matter not only inconveniences individuals and businesses, but also and above all attacks the basic rights of all workers and all unions to negotiate a collective agreement with the employer.

Passing this unfair act would be a major step backward, because Canadians have fought for a long time, too long, for a fair and equitable working environment, and for acceptable wages and benefits.

The Conservative government cannot ignore this and impose a contract that runs counter to the interests of Canada Post employees.

Canada Post is a dynamic corporation that serves all Canadians. Citizens have always relied on this public corporation, which is one of the best postal services in the world. And these merits, it must be recognized, are due to the employees of Canada Post.

Our duty as the official opposition is to defend these workers, who operate this essential service for our citizens: our constituents need to get their mail every day, our senior citizens need to receive their pension cheques on time, small businesses must be able to send out their invoices on time. The Conservative government wants to do away with all of that. It wants to privatize this country’s postal services and ask citizens to pay more for it, even though Canada Post is doing its work well at a competitive price.

The government is now, for purely ideological reasons, against providing our fellow citizens with an essential public service. The reason is clear: to maximize corporate profits at the expense of workers. If there must be austerity measures, the government should look to the CEO of Canada Post and not the ordinary wage earners.

A collective agreement allows workers to enjoy benefits such as working in a safe environment, preparing for a well-deserved, dignified retirement, and having a sufficient wage to be able to support their families and pay their bills.

The purpose of government is to protect workers and their families, not to place them in a difficult position.

This legislation runs counter to the model of social progress that is championed by the NDP, and we cannot allow the Conservatives to do whatever they want because, after Canada Post, who will be next?

This power grab against workers by the Prime Minister and his Conservative government shows Canadians where they really stand.

The NDP cannot allow this to happen and we will fight to protect the rights that are fundamental and essential in a true democracy.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I sit in the House and listen to members opposite, I wonder if they are even reading the same bill that I am reading. It seems that they talk about everything else except what is in the bill.

It is important for Canadians to know what is in the bill. In particular, I would like to refer the member opposite to subclause 11(2) and ask her what it is she finds so objectionable in the guidance that this bill gives the arbitrator. It gives the arbitrator four principles on which to base a contract between these parties: first, that the terms and conditions should be consistent with those in comparable postal industries; second, that the terms provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure short- and long-term economic viability; third, that the terms maintain the health and safety of the workers; and, fourth, that the terms of the contract ensure the sustainability of the pension plan.

I would like to know which one of those four guiding principles that this bill sets out is the opposition so vehemently opposed to.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his question.

I would simply answer that it is not beneficial to wage earners to impose lower wages than they had negotiated at the outset.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech because she touched on some things that are extremely important: what this is, what this is not, and what this is about. This is not about a strike; it is about a lockout. This is about the government setting a precedent in what normally would be a fair collective bargaining process, where it imposes wages, not just any wages but wages that are lower than what was already on the table.

This is something that should seize us all. It is not just about Canada Post but about how we bargain in this country and how legislation goes forward. I would like to hear from my colleague about the implications of this bill if it passes the way it is without any amendment.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I would simply like to tell him that if this bill is passed, there will be very significant repercussions on wage conditions and on all the work done to date, and on everything to do with negotiating collective agreements. In a democratic and free country, such an impact is unacceptable.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened patiently yesterday and today. I have sat in this place for some period of time, and there has been a lot of misinformation with regard to the B.C. Health Services case. I am not going to get into the particulars, but I practised labour law for a period of time, and I would recommend that my friends read the judgment, especially in relation to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's comments, which sets out the particulars in relation to the right to strike, etc.

In this particular case, it is clear that there is a right to associate, to bargain collectively, and a freedom to strike, but there are consequences for that, just like there are consequences for what Canada Post and the union are doing. Clearly, those consequences can be dealt with in the future because we have the rule of law in Canada and people can actually be sued when they do things wrong.

The government clearly has power to do what it is doing. What I want to know from the member is what New Democrats are trying to accomplish. Really, they are wasting time. They are wasting the time of Canadians, especially the time of people who are waiting for the important things that Canada Post can deliver, like seniors' cheques and other things. I want to know what they are trying to accomplish by wasting so much time and money of Canadians, because clearly it is not going to be the result they want.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

At what point will this Conservative government—which caused the lockout—accept full responsibility for its actions?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all Quebeckers a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Today is a day of celebration.

I would also like to say that I am very proud to be working with such a good team from Quebec, and particularly with the new MPs.

I want to start on an issue that I think is important to understand, and that is how we got here. As people know, there were ongoing negotiations, there was job action, and then there was of course the lockout. We have to underline that point, because some would say that if we believe what we have heard today from the other side, there was no lockout. Let us be absolutely clear about what is happening. There was a lockout. There was an offer by Canada Post to go back to work to keep things going.

When we hear from others who suggest that somehow Canada Post workers were trying to undermine the economy or hurt others, it is just not the case. There was a choice made, and the government can make the choice; let us be clear about that. It has the power to do that. The choice it made was to have a lockout, and I think Canadians will hold it accountable for that.

But it is important to also understand that in this country we have fought collectively for fair bargaining. I have been on both sides of the table. I have been negotiating contracts on behalf of members. I have been on the other side of the table when I worked in the NGO sector, where we were negotiating contracts with employees. The guiding principle in negotiations is to make sure you have fair bargaining. Everyone gets that. For those who do not, I am thinking of that commercial where the guy presents one kid with a toy pony and brings the other kid a real one. That is not fair bargaining, for those who do not know what it is. It seems that the government wants to go down that path.

A younger worker will not get the same entitlements for their pension and the same wages as people who are more senior. That really flies in the face of fairness. I think that is pretty clear. That is the kind of issue we will have to confront. We're saying that if you are a young person or a new worker, you will not get the same benefits. That is kind of strange when you think about it. We are asking young people to give up the opportunity to have a decent wage so that they can actually settle in a community, stimulate an economy, and have something that we have all been able to benefit from.

I know the members have young kids. I do too. What do we say to our kids? We say, okay, in our economy we have decided that we will lay hands on certain people and say they will not get as much because there is just not enough. It is like that kid who gets the toy pony instead of the real one. Sorry, we cannot help you.

It does not make any sense. It flies in the face of fairness. In this contract that was imposed it is important to note that; it is important to note that we are talking about a two-tier system.

I want to turn to the legislation, because I know it was important for some of my colleagues across the way to read. It is actually on page 6. When I first looked at this legislation, there were a couple of things that grabbed my attention. One is the final offer selection. For people who do not know about that way of bargaining, it is a method in which both parties agree to--that is the first point--a process whereby they boil down the issues to a couple of issues, put in what appears to be the best offer, and provide it to an arbitrator that has been agreed upon. It is not an imposition. In this legislation, this is being imposed. It is taking a method of bargaining and torquing it such that it is undermining the whole relevancy of what was final offer selection.

It gets better, because on page 6--and it ignores the Canadian labour act in some ways--it says that wages will be imposed. Some people might think that it is not a big thing and that they have to put the wages in there because they could not agree. I think it is terrible and regressive.

Here is the kicker. They impose wages that are less than what was on the table from the employer. If I tell anyone in this country that an offer was put on the table by government, whose role is not to take sides--the role of the government is to be a fair arbiter, and I see other members nodding yes--but then in legislation on page 6 the government put in wages that are less than what the employer was offering, at the least it is confusing. What we have here is a method of bargaining that will change the way in which bargaining is done in this country.

We have to stand up against that. The one thing we have to stand up against is unfair bargaining, and we can do that in this place. Today we are here to make sure the bill is changed.

This is an offer to the government. We can change that, so why not change it? If we told everyday people that an agreement was being negotiated and a wage rate was put in front of the employees, and another party, who is supposed to be fair in arbitrating the dispute, imposes wages lower than what the employer was offering, most people would say that would not pass the smell test. It certainly does not pass the fairness test. It would be reasonable for the government to look at that. That should obviously be dealt with. That is one of the reasons why we are here today.

This is not about us as a party deciding we want to spend a day and night here. This is not our idea of a retreat. If we want a retreat, we will have a retreat. We can do that. This is about a principle, and it is about bargaining and about the direction this country is going.

If the government is going to put bargaining, like final offer selection where there has been no agreement, and put it into legislation, then we have to deal with that. If the legislation is going to impose wages on workers that are less than what is being offered by the employer, then we have to stand up to that.

As I mentioned before, bringing in closure and then bringing in legislation is a little untoward. When government members were in opposition, they fought very hard against closure. Mr. Manning was the leader of the opposition in 1998. He was very strong on this point. He believed that the whole issue of closure that was being rendered upon Parliament was fundamentally undemocratic. He fought hard against that. Preston and I do not agree on everything, trust me. But he had it right when he talked about what Parliament is about and when he said that closure should not be used to ram legislation through, that closure should ultimately never be used. To use it before legislation is brought in is new. That is something we have to deal with.

I think of the people who spoke against closure.

Brian Mulroney's government on closure was a pillar of virtue compared to what the Liberal government has done since it came to power. It continuously uses this hammer. It is not a matter of negotiation. It is just too bad: “It is my way or the highway”.

It is unfortunate the government has decided to go this way. It is a trend. It does not bode well for this institution that the government has decided this is the way to force through legislation, controversial or not. The government is just doing it.

Do members know who said that on November 22, 1999? It was one Preston Manning.

Mr. Strahl, who was in this place not too long ago, said in reference to the government of the day:

It uses closure and time allocation to choke off debate in the House. It stacks committees and committee hearings....How can such a government possibly be pretending to exercise democratic leadership in government when it behaves in that way?

I just say that for the record because it is important to know how closure is being used.

I ask the government to take a look at this legislation, take a look at this imposition, and ask themselves: Is this fair?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments.

Before I get to my question, I just want to point out that I personally have had a very positive relationship with Canada Post workers in my lifetime, whether it was with delivery to my constituency office where Dean delivers the mail with a smile every day, or to my home where Cathy has delivered mail for over 20 years. I have a very positive relationship and I respect the professionalism and the work they do.

However, over the last number of days we have had dozens, if not hundreds, of emails written to this place by our constituents and constituents of members across the way, pointing out the negative impact that this ongoing work stoppage is having on our economy. I just received another one from my riding. It says:

We currently have hundreds if not over a thousand shipments either stalled with Canada Post or are unable to ship.

A secondary issue is receiving payments, sending invoices and payments. These are problematic, but obviously not as crucial.

He goes on to ask us to move quickly to bring this work stoppage to a halt.

Small businesses are at risk. Seniors are at risk. Charitable groups who do such good work for us are at risk. How much longer will the New Democratic Party cause these groups to suffer?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that will be when we see we get some fairness. Simply put, every single small business operator I know, and my sister is one, works extremely hard. They are looking for the government to do a very simple thing: pick up the phone and call the person they appointed.

This is a point I have to make. The head of Canada Post was not hired by Canadians; he was appointed by the Prime Minister. Guess what happens when the government wants something to be done? It can do whatever it wants in terms of direction, and I think we heard this from the former Liberal minister, that it just picks up the phone and says what it wants to happen.

This government could, if it wanted to, end it right now. It could pick up the phone, call the head of Canada Post, and it would be done. It is that simple. That would help all the people who are concerned, whom the hon. member mentioned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for most of the last day and much of last night. I have heard from both sides and I hear one common element, which is the importance of getting the mail service back and the importance of ensuring that average Canadians, senior citizens and small businesses are not impacted. That should be our primary goal here.

To get through this, we can throw rocks at each other for days. I think the government understands that we are serious about fairness. However, we both have to look at the issue of compromise in order to put senior citizens and small businesses first.

I ask my hon. colleague, because of his experience, if he thinks that it would be fairly straightforward for the Prime Minister to take out the clause that forces wages down in the back to work legislation. Could he take that out, call on Canada Post to unlock the doors and send both parties to mediation and arbitration?

This could be settled immediately. I think it is incumbent upon us to show Canadians that in this 41st Parliament we could actually get something done for the good of the people of Canada.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are at that point. I think we need to ask the government what is reasonable, what is fair and how we ensure that we all do our jobs. Is the government going die on the hill on this particular contract?

Again, the main focus of my speech was around page 6 of the legislation, where it has the salary grid laid out. In fact, it is lower than what was on the table in negotiations.

I think we could see some form of agreement so that this House could do its job. We could get through the next number of hours, not by debating points back and forth, but perhaps by ensuring that we do get a resolution to this issue. We could ensure that Canadians get their mail and have postal workers back doing their job. We could ensure fairness so that all of us could go back to our constituents and say that we all did our jobs and be proud of that as parliamentarians.

That is what I think Canadians are looking for; that is what we should be doing; and that is what I think is a reasonable offer. It is something that should be done. We ask the government to take a look at this.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this today.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as my colleagues in the House know, especially my friend from Peterborough, I like to think the glass is half full. He knows that is true.

I just want to point out to everybody in the House that over the past 18 hours or so the government is no longer referring to this as a strike. It is now referring to it as a lockout. That is a very positive step forward, for that is exactly what it is.

Speaking of that, I had an email from someone who publishes a weekly paper in my riding. He asked why, if the government was going to lock people out, it did not give notice to people like him. That is a very good question. We have had that question in the House a number of times. Why all of a sudden did things get stuck at the post office? Things were not going anywhere. People were upset. It was a hardship for many, including this small business owner in the west end of my riding.

Why did the government not give notice, for example? That is in the spirit of compromise. That is in the spirit of saying that the government may have to do something, so we had better sit at the table and work things out.

Why did the government not do that? I do not know. I told the fellow who owns that weekly paper that I would ask that question today. Perhaps in the question period we will have a chance to do that.

The government's insistence on locking out Canada Post employees and sending them back to work is not just an attack on collective bargaining rights. It is also an attack on young workers and an attack on the retirement security of all Canadians.

I want to talk about what the bill says about imposing new hourly pay guidelines on the workers at Canada Post. It is significantly below Canada Post's last offer, which makes no sense at all. In fact, over the four years of this contract, $35 million will be taken out of the pockets of Canada Post workers and their families. That is important: it is workers and their families. That is $35 million that will not be taxed. That is $35 million that will not be spent in the local economy.

What this boils down to is fairness. That is what we are really talking about today and tomorrow. We talk about the younger workers coming into Canada Post and not getting the same deal, getting partial deals of what the older workers get.

We do not have a two-tier system of rent in this country. We do not have a two-tier system of mortgages. We do not have a two-tier system of going to the grocery store and buying groceries. We do not have a two-tier system of filling up our gas tanks. It is outrageous to say that young workers in our country should be paid less than their older counterparts. It is outrageous. They are doing the same work.

I want to say something about pensions, an important element of this, and about the pension changes that the government is trying to impose on workers at Canada Post. In the last legislative session, pensions and retirement security came to the fore in just about every discussion. Bill C-501, my bill, came to Parliament, was voted on a couple of times, and was passed those times. I know that there is a will on that side of this place to ensure that Canadians have the retirement security they need.

In fact, before the last election, the government was actually warming toward increasing CPP and making CPP better. Then the Minister of Finance said it would hurt the economy. He forgot that we were talking about phasing it in over seven years. We were not talking about some big shock.

The Minister of Finance has also suggested that increasing CPP is administratively difficult. The president and CEO of the CPP investment board, David Denison, has made it clear that there is no administrative impediment to enhancing CPP. In fact it is quite the contrary. He says private plans will cost significantly more for the same benefit.

In 2007 Canadian RRSP holders paid private fund managers $25 billion in fees, fees that we do not have with CPP. CPP is simply the lowest-cost option. If that were enhanced, the kinds of negotiations that go on at Canada Post on retirement security would be made easier and clearer and we could plan for the retirement security of those beginning work in their twenties.

A phased-in CPP is an increase from $960 a month to $1,868 a month over the next seven years. What would that mean to the average earner? For people who make $30,000 a year, every week over the next seven years they would pay $2.27 out of their salary to ensure their CPP doubled. It simply makes sense.

We have heard some stories from business owners and other people. Let me talk about Canadians who are hurting, and I am not going to put any blame here. I will read a couple of passages from emails I have received from northwestern Ontario.

This is from a postal worker and her husband. She says:

Our sick leave provisions are such that a fulltime employee earns 10 hours per month of sick leave credits. This sick leave accumulates until you retire. At that time, any sick leave you have not used is gone. WE ARE NOT PAID OUT!!!

That seems to be a misconception of many people. Their sick leave provisions in their contracts are protecting them in case of long-term disability. She goes on to say:

Well, last August, my husband...was diagnosed with cancer and shortly went off work on sick leave. Fortunately, he had almost a year of sick leave credits. As such, he has been able to still provide for us by receiving a regular pay check. His drug benefits were still active as well. This has been a great comfort for him as he has gone through months of treatments and surgery and made this situation much more tolerable. He could just concentrate on healing. He was hoping to be able to return to work by the end of the year and work a few more years. We still have a mortgage and bills like everyone else. We put three kids through University...

On June 2, 2011, CPC declared that our collective agreement was no longer in force. This resulted in [his] sick leave and benefits being cut off....

Lest people think, from this discussion, that it is small-business owners, seniors and others who are suffering because of this. Many people who work for Canada Post are also suffering. This means that Canadians right across the country are suffering.

Another person writes, “I am 62 years old, a single mother. Nine years ago, I became partially disabled, only working a half shift at Canada Post”. Her son is just coming to the end of university. She is already poor. She is asking why her employer proposes to make her poorer.

Here is one from a woman in my riding. She says, “I'm currently on sick leave after experiencing a heart attack. I also have numerous other related health issues”. All her benefits have been cut off. She continues to say, “After only two days without my insulin, my glucose levels have doubled and I'm experiencing difficulty breathing without my puffers and heart medications”, which she can no longer afford. That is what is happening.

We, on this side of the House, and I am sure many on the other side, believe in free speech, free association and free collective bargaining. This legislation hurts the values that our country stands for and is an attack on the rights of workers and their standard of living. The proper role is for the government to tell its own crown corporation to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate a collective agreement, but first it must unlock the doors.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite had many good points. However, the one point I would like to underline is what he clearly said about Canadians all across the country hurting, and that includes postal workers. I have had emails from postal workers in my riding and from across the country. They want to go back to work now. They want us to encourage members opposite to stop delaying this and to pass Bill C-6.

Would the member agree that the bill needs to be passed for the good of all Canadians in our country, and it needs to be passed swiftly?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, this is not a strike; it is a lockout. It could very easily be ended by simply taking the locks off the door and getting everybody back to work.

In fact, she will remember that CUPW said that it did not have a problem, that it would keep working with the existing collective agreement, while it continued to negotiate. That would have been fine, too. It does not have to be this way.

My final point is we have proposed amendments to this, which we think will help to solve the deadlock we are in right now. Perhaps if another member from the Conservative Party has an opportunity to ask me a question, I would like to know why the Conservatives have not accepted those.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where we are hearing from people in our ridings. I have certainly had emails and phone calls from constituents who are concerned. I had one from a postal worker who said, “Negotiate, do not legislate”. I can certainly understand his point of view.

I have calls and emails from people who are in business. They are suffering because they rely upon the postal service to bring them reimbursement or payments but they are not receiving. There is a real need to find a way to solve this.

My hon. colleague has talked about possible amendments. It seems to me we ought to be discussing what could bring us together here. We have a lot of back and forth, a lot of rhetoric on both sides about how each side is wrong. We are hearing two very divergent points of view. However, I am encouraged by the talk of amendments. Perhaps we ought to be focusing on what could bring us together.

Would my hon. colleague tell us some more about what his party has in mind as a way to resolve this impasse and move forward?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. We should be talking about coming together, not moving further apart. I think we have achieved that and are achieving that as time goes on.

It is heading into the weekend. We all know this will come to a resolution eventually.

One of the amendments is to ensure we do not have this inequality in the pay. We should take that clause out of the legislation. Canada Post had a last offer. We should go with that offer and move ahead.