Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2018

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Before we go to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I will let him know there are only 12 minutes remaining in the time provided for debate at second reading of the motion that is before the House. We will get him started, just the same, and I will interrupt him at that 12-minute mark.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity, like many members, to listen to the debate over the last 24 hours. At times it can be a very emotional debate and I recognize that. I come at it from a different perspective in that in 2011 when I was on the other side of the House, the Liberal Party had third party status.

What we saw under Stephen Harper was a different approach to Canada Post. It was an approach that my caucus colleagues and I believe did not recognize the true value and contributions made by Canada Post workers for generations in Canada. Whether it is door-to-door delivery or sorting the mail, Canada Post workers' sense of commitment to providing quality service has been there virtually from day one.

We were quite taken aback and disappointed with Stephen Harper when he initiated a number of changes. His back-to-work legislation was profoundly different and cannot be compared with what we are introducing today, or just his government's general lack of respect for the Crown corporation. Many individuals honestly believed that the Conservatives had a hidden agenda, one that wanted to see the demise or the privatization of Canada Post. There were many individuals who were of that opinion.

My colleagues and I were quite upset with the government of the day. We did make some commitments in the last election. I am happy to say that on virtually all fronts, we have acted on those commitments, even the ones related to Canada Post. When I look at what I have witnessed over the last 24 hours, I am somewhat discouraged by how some in the chamber have turned this into a political manipulation of our union movement.

I will compare my 30 years as a parliamentarian, having worked with New Democrat governments in the province of Manitoba, with that of any New Democrat. I do not need to be told about the importance of collective agreements, because I was there during minority governments. My colleague remembers quite well the issue of final offer selection and how the provincial Liberals tried to save that and the NDP in opposition sabotaged it. That is true. I was there when I witnessed other New Democrat regimes bring in back-to-work legislation.

However, if we listened to the debate over the last 24 hours, we would think that there is not a New Democrat member of the House who would ever support back-to-work legislation. That is just not true. That is the impression members are trying to those who provide our fantastic postal services. We need to reinforce how much we appreciate the day-in and day-out service that our letter carriers and mail sorters put in. On this side of the House we appreciate and value that work.¸

The amount of hypocrisy that I have witnessed from the New Democrat caucus is overwhelming. We have had many NDP premiers, and over a dozen times they have brought in back-to-work legislation. By the way, the New Democrats are the same party provincially and federally. It is only the NDP in opposition who try to give a false impression that they are the only party that cares about unions.

I can tell the House that this government understands and appreciates the importance of harmony within the workplace. That means we are behind our workers in Canada. If members look at the government initiatives we have implemented since virtually day one under this Prime Minister, they will see that these aimed at getting rid of the legislation the Conservatives brought in through the back door to harm our union movement. Some of the very first legislation that we saw introduced in the House was brought forward to deal with that.

When we talk about the working person here in Canada, it was this government that understood the importance of pensions. We negotiated agreements with all of the provinces and territories on the CPP, realizing how important retirement income is.

When we talk about this particular legislation, and I say this to all of our Canada Post workers, it is profoundly different from all of the Conservatives' legislation, and there is still the opportunity to see a sense of fairness at the table. I would tell the Canada Post workers whom I represent in Winnipeg North not to believe the New Democrats, who are trying to hoodwink members, because at the end of the day we believe in protecting our workers' rights. This legislation was designed to ensure a sense of equality and opportunity not only for Canada Post, but also for its workers in particular. We do not need to take a lesson from my New Democrat friend across the way.

I was here when the New Democrats played that little game of trickery during the vote. The member for Hamilton was in cabinet in an NDP government that not once, not twice, but three times voted to bring in legislation forcing teachers back to work. That was back-to-work legislation. He stood in his place and voted for it. He was not the only New Democrat currently on the benches here who did that. The member who sits right beside him also did so. However, in some sort of a principled stand, they then get up and say they are defending the unions. Excuse me for being somewhat skeptical of the actions I have witnessed over the last 24 hours by the party I had always thought was a bit more straightforward.

Maybe it is because I am from the province of Manitoba, but in Manitoba we recognize the important role that our unions have played in society. In 2019, we will mark the 100th anniversary of the 1919 union strike. The organizing committees and much of the organizing took place in my home constituency of Winnipeg North. I am very proud of that. For 30 years I have talked about the importance of the union movement. If we look at many of the positive social programs that we have today, they are in good part because of union activists. It was people within the union movement who said that it was not about political parties, but about the betterment of society.

I have had the opportunity to talk with letter carriers and mail sorters. I can say that no one wants to see a strike. We did not want to see this take place. The NDP are trying to give the false impression that we are biased toward Canada Post. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every member on this side of the House wanted to see a negotiated agreement between Canada Post and the union management representatives. It does not make me happy that we had to resort to bringing in this legislation.

I do not like the fact that my New Democrat friends tried to give the false impression that I am glad this legislation is being tabled. I am not glad, but I do recognize its importance.

The economy has changed, absolutely. Some people across the way might not recognize that. Thirty years ago e-commerce on the Internet was nowhere like it is today. Today, e-commerce generates hundreds if not thousands of jobs here in Canada, good, solid, middle-class jobs. Those are important jobs, as are the jobs in all the different industries in our country.

Think in terms of those seniors or individuals with disabilities who are very dependent on the mail. Imagine how important the Christmas season is for many companies to realize the profits that are so important to carry them over January and February.

To give the impression that our economy is not hurting at all, even from a rotating strike, is somewhat of an exaggeration. The government has to do its job and protect the economy and protect the interests of Canadians so they can receive valuable parcels, whether of contact lenses, Christmas presents, or cheques from insurance companies. All of these things are absolutely critical at this time of the year.

Sometimes governments have to make tough decisions, and that is really what this has been about. This was a tough, regrettable decision that had to be made to ensure that Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, as well as those in need, are served by what has been an incredible workforce in Canada, our letter carriers and postal workers.

I will conclude my remarks by paying tribute to what is a first-class Canada Post and those who work for it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 10:52 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #948

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole. I do now leave the chair of the House to go into committee of the whole.

(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Mr. Bruce Stanton in the chair)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to open the session of the committee of the whole on Bill C-89 by making a short statement regarding the proceedings.

Pursuant to an order made earlier this evening, not more than one hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the committee of the whole stage. Any division requested in the committee shall be deferred until the end of the committee's consideration of the bill. At the expiry of this period, any proceedings before the committee of the whole shall be interrupted and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

During the consideration of the bill during committee of the whole the general rules of debate are as follows. Members shall speak for not more than 20 minutes at a time and are not permitted to split their time without unanimous consent. While there is no formal period for questions and comments, members may use their time to either speak or ask questions and the responses will be counted in the time allotted to that member.

Finally, members may speak more than once and need not be in their seats to be recognized.

The committee will now proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). The study of clause 1 is postponed. I therefore will proceed with debate on Clause 2.

(On Clause 2)

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Chair, it is a secret to no one that Canada's postal service is a key element of our business and charitable sectors and indeed of our economy. When we have a major disruption in service, the impact on businesses and charities is direct and it is immediate.

I am going to go through the stories of some of the groups that have been affected.

As some members may know, charities count on the last months of the year for crucial fundraising drives, and December is the most important. As the former executive director of a homeless shelter, December was when we reached peak donation season. We counted on those donations to help us get through the end of that year.

Canada Post is essential to many other not-for-profit organizations that are doing essential fundraising work to provide the critical services to members in our communities all across the country.

As Scott Decksheimer, Canada Board chair of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, says:

Direct mail continues to be the leading way that most donors give to charity. We are concerned that donors who typically give in the fall might receive their donation requests too late – or their donations will be received too late by the charity to help people this year.

Organizations like the Salvation Army are feeling the hit as well. It has said that its direct mail donations are down by 40%. The Salvation Army's national director of marketing, John McAlister, outlined exactly what that meant. He said:

Many of our supporters choose to give each year between November and December and even those who give throughout the year boost their support during this time. We rely heavily on our mail program.

For an organization like the Salvation Army, the strain is especially difficult at this time of year. He said:

As we move into extreme cold weather across the country, we start to boost the number of services. We offer more out-of-the-cold beds, warm meals and supports for vulnerable people, including giving out free clothing.

Similarly, the Mustard Seed in Victoria has said that it normally receives 70% of its annual fundraising at this time of year. Its donations are down by 23% this month over this time last year. Janiene Boice, its director of development, says, “Our biggest concern is not getting the donations in time. It is nerve-wracking.”

Similar charitable initiatives, like citizen groups or not-for-profits, are feeling it.

Beverley Mitchell from Toronto wrote in to the Toronto Star, saying that her organization was having a hard time getting supplies to remote fly-in communities in northern Canada. She said:

I am personally involved in sending much-needed food to shelters and soup kitchens; warm clothing to the homeless, poor and elderly; school supplies and food to daycares and schools in both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Besides the time delays and uncertainty of delivery, there is an added expense of about $1,000 to upgrade our service level to Express Post in the hopes these parcels will receive faster service when the strike action rotates.

Weather is always a concern in the winter in getting parcels to the North in a timely manner but the strikes have made it an incredibly difficult and expensive challenge.

We need to comprehend the full extent of the disruption that the postal strike is causing to charities, not only in the short term but over the months and years to come.

As the former executive director for Shelter House in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Christmas was our busiest time. In fact, we saw donations skyrocket at Christmas. We relied on direct mail to communicate with donors to ask them to boost their donations. Many donations arrived every day that allowed us to continue to stock the shelves, feed the people who were relying on our services and ensure that we had the dollars necessary to operate in a safe and efficient way.

Let me also tell the House about a business that I feel illustrates the dire situation faced by thousands of enterprises in all sectors of our economy.

In Hamilton, Jaime Drayer handcrafts mugs, cards, prints and apparel. She says that the holidays are typically her busiest time, but her sales are down 43% this year. She is having to warn customers that she can no longer guarantee delivery by her holiday cutoff dates.

Ms. Drayer left her job in January because she was looking forward to this being her first holiday season in which she could dedicate herself to her craft and to her business full time. “It's extra-disappointing on a personal level,” she said. This is a typical family business that is struggling to make ends meet. This is a matter that is pressing and we need to solve it urgently.

In 2016, Canada Post and CUPW negotiated a two-year agreement without a labour disruption, and this agreement expired on January 31, 2018. Starting October 22, 2018, Canada Post workers had organized rotating strikes nationwide.

I cannot overemphasize that the Government of Canada is committed to and believes in free and collective bargaining, which is why, since the start of collective bargaining negotiations between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, we have been doing everything possible to help the parties come to an agreement.

Federal mediators have been assisting the parties throughout their negotiations, which began almost a year ago. When bargaining reached an impasse, we appointed a special mediator to help the process along and to iron out new differences with a new perspective. We also offered voluntary arbitration. Additionally, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement have reached out to the parties directly on numerous occasions. In fact, the parties have spoken to me frequently throughout the weeks passing, and a special mediator was brought in two more times to attempt to help the parties resolve their differences and reach an agreement that works for everyone.

These efforts demonstrate our firm belief that a negotiated agreement is always preferable. It is always the best solution. It is not to mention the number of other disputes that have been resolved in the last three years since we formed government without resorting to back-to-work legislation. However, despite these efforts, rotating strikes by CUPW have been disrupting Canada Post operations in more than 200 communities across the country for over a month now.

This legislation has a number of functions. First, it would restore postal services to Canadians and Canadian businesses. It would do so by ordering an immediate end to the work stoppages on the day following royal assent. Second, it would provide for the extension of collective agreements of CUPW urban post operations and CUPW rural and suburban mail carriers until new collective agreements are established. The period of the work stoppages are excluded from an extension of the collective agreement. Third, it would provide that I appoint a mediator-arbitrator proposed by the parties, or if the parties fail to propose the same person, I will seek the advice of the chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board before appointing a mediator-arbitrator. Fourth, it would provide for the mediator-arbitrator to resolve all outstanding issues through mediation, or if mediation fails on particular issues, arbitrate them through an arbitration model of his or her choice based on guiding principles that have been set out fairly.

I still encourage the parties to get a deal. At any point before the arbitration period concludes and the recommendations are made, the parties can enter into a voluntary agreement. Time is an important factor here. The longer this strike goes on, the more significant the damage it causes. The negative impacts of the strike continue to escalate and compound, particularly with the holiday season which increases volume significantly. We cannot afford to let this continue unaddressed.

Given the serious negative effects this strike is having on Canadians and Canadian businesses across the country, we need to resolve this situation now. That is why the government is taking this action.

I deeply regret that the parties in this strike have not been able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion through the normal negotiation process. This is not a measure that we introduce light-heartedly. Let us keep in mind in this House that back-to-work legislation is introduced as a last resort, after we have exhausted all possibilities respecting collective bargaining. I should add that the government will continue to support the parties and strongly encourage them to resume discussions in order to reach agreements as soon as possible.¸

Our preference clearly would have been a negotiated settlement. As a principle, once a strike or a lockout has begun, the Government of Canada usually stands aside. However, there are some exceptional situations where standing aside would be highly irresponsible. Work stoppages like this one are very costly to both sides, and the real losses incurred by the parties cannot offset any eventual gains.

As long as the two parties are the only ones to suffer, the Government of Canada has no justification for intervening, but when a strike is affecting hundreds of thousands or even millions of people, the government must intervene. When a strike is substantially damaging our economy, putting communities at risk, we have the duty to step in.

The Canada Labour Code gives the parties in a dispute the right to a strike or a lockout. This disruption is bringing unnecessary hardship to Canadians, so we cannot remain on the sidelines and let the situation deteriorate even more. We are taking the action that is required.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, now that I find myself seated on this side of the House, I feel a sudden compulsion to speak about the middle class and those working hard to join it. I would like to make the point that one of the building blocks for our middle class has been free collective bargaining. Things such as better wages, safer working conditions and paid time off have all come through free collective bargaining. Sometimes arbitration is used as a substitute, but when we talk about the new pioneering gains for middle-class people, they really can only come from free collective bargaining.

This is a goal that we should share on all sides of this House, and we should be very concerned when the government steps in to take away the ability for free collective bargaining, for a few reasons. One is that it sets a very negative precedent for other areas of the economy. Another is that it sets a negative precedent for Canada Post itself because if the employees and the management know that they should expect that the federal government is going to step in with back-to-work legislation, it really takes away any incentive or any impetus they have to try to negotiate an actual settlement. It actually gives them a bit of an incentive to wait around for the government to bring in this legislation.

The Minister of Labour actually recognizes that it is not desirable to have back-to-work legislation. She has described it as a last resort and has suggested that all available options were exhausted before bringing in back-to-work legislation. This seems a bit doubtful to me, given the fact that we do not even have a full-scale strike at Canada Post; we just have rotating strikes.

I would actually like to use some of my time to ask the Minister of Labour whether she attempted to negotiate an essential service protocol with the employees of Canada Post to ensure that they would continue to deliver the cheques to low-income people and to charities that she has spoken about and deems to be such an important service. Perhaps I could turn it over to the Minister of Labour to answer that question.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the member opposite realizes that we have a high degree of respect for organized labour and, in fact, such a degree of respect that the first piece of legislation we introduced and passed was Bill C-4, which restored the rights of organized labour to collectively bargain and organize. It repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, two very harmful pieces of legislation that the Conservatives had rammed through the House in an effort to diminish the ability of organized labour to grow its movement, to work, as the member pointed out, on ensuring that there is decent work for people all across the country.

We also ratified ILO Convention 98, which guarantees the right to organize and collectively bargain. We have introduced legislation that we worked on with unions which unions have been calling for, for decades. These are things like pay equity, federally regulated proactive pay equity, something that unions have been calling for, including the union involved in this dispute, flexible work arrangements, and protection of federally regulated workers from violence or harassment in the workplace. In this respect, I would refer to Bill C-65, which recently passed. We have introduced updates to the Canada Labour Code to modernize it and protect the most vulnerable in the workplace, again in partnership with organized labour. The list goes on in terms of the work we have done in partnership with unions, because we recognize the important role they play in establishing a standard that often protects the most vulnerable and people who are not unionized in this country.

I will also speak to the second part of the member's question. The member asked what we have done to ensure we could work with the parties to help them arrive at a collective agreement. From my perspective, we have done everything we can to support the parties to get there themselves. For example, over a year ago, both parties agreed to work with a mediator, so we appointed the federal mediation service early on in their talks to help them have productive talks and work through some of the substantial issues that both the union and the corporation were facing. The mediators worked with the parties for well over a year. When those talks broke down, they asked—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, the minister indicated to the House earlier today the criteria that would be presented to the arbitrator. One of the criteria the arbitrator is supposed to consider is the financial sustainability of Canada Post. The financial sustainability of Canada Post has often been questioned because the government has insisted that as a Crown corporation, it account for its pension plan on a solvency basis. This is a very unrealistic assumption that posits that Canada Post be wound up and have to pay out all of its pension benefits at once. Of course, this formula necessarily shows an unfunded liability and a problem with financial sustainability.

Some have proposed that it would make much more sense to treat Canada Post like the rest of the federal public service and account for its pension plan on a going concern basis. I would ask the labour minister whether she will be instructing the arbitrator to evaluate Canada Post's financial sustainability with a solvency valuation approach or with a going concern approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the minister, I will reiterate the format that we are following. We are in committee of the whole, where members have up to 20 minutes tp speak. In the course of that 20 minutes, they are able to pose questions to a minister, but the time is their own. It is not like a question and comment period. The minister gave her opening remarks, after which we went to the next speaker, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. It is his time now for up to 20 minutes. He can use his time as he wishes to pose questions to the minister. The same format will follow with the next speaker.

The hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member has asked me to talk about the guiding principles we are asking the arbitrator-mediator to consider as he or she works to help the parties, should we reach the point where the parties need that assistance.

The guiding principles the mediator-arbitrator needs to consider are, first, to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected. That is something I am sure the member opposite would agree is a critical consideration. Second is to ensure that employees receive equal pay for work of equal value. I do not want to assume this, but I think the member opposite would not have a challenge with that guiding principle. Third is to ensure the fair treatment of temporary or part-time employees and other employees in non-standard employment as compared to full-time and permanent employees. Fourth is to ensure the financial sustainability of the employer, and fifth is to create a culture of collaborative labour-management relations. Sixth is to have the employer provide high-quality service at a reasonable price to Canadians.

The member is asking about the financial sustainability of the employer. I do not think this is an unreasonable principle to consider, because in fact, the employment of the worker depends on the financial sustainability of the employer. The employer has constraints, just like any other employer. It has an operation to deliver, with a specific budget. It has limited resources to raise additional revenue, and it has to be prudent with its resources. The financial sustainability of the corporation, of course, has to be a consideration, because ultimately, this is about protecting those good-quality jobs.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, in this debate, the minister has spoken a great deal about the needs of lower-income people and smaller businesses that might depend on service from Canada Post. Something that would help those lower-income individuals and smaller businesses, but would also contribute to Canada Post's financial sustainability, would be for it to move into the area of postal banking. This would provide much-needed financial services to communities and smaller enterprises, which are often underserved by the big banks, while at the same time providing a new source of revenue for Canada Post and a new way of using its offices all across the country in so many communities.

I would like to give the minister a chance to explain whether in this search for financial sustainability, she or the arbitrator will give serious consideration to implementing postal banking.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is not the arbitrator's place to design the corporate model or the services the corporation will deliver. It is the arbitrator's place, though, to consider the financial sustainability of the employer. The corporation really is the appropriate place to have those conversations. From my perspective, the corporation has to be financially prudent. It has a large operation, and it has financial constraints.

Having said that, we also know that they have to take very seriously the other principles we have laid out for the arbitrator, including things like the health and safety of workers and the fair treatment of temporary and part-time employees. It is really the corporation's responsibility to chart its path in terms of the suite of services it offers and how it offers those services to Canadians.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, something the government promised during the past election campaign was to restore door-to-door mail delivery. Of course, keeping that promise would make a huge, positive difference for Canada Post and its employees. I would like to give the minister a chance to inform the House when the government is going to restore door-to-door mail delivery.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, our government committed to placing a moratorium on ending door-to-door delivery, and that is, in fact, what we did. Having said that, we are here to discuss the back-to-work legislation, the action we are taking to restore postal service to Canadians during this very difficult time.

From my perspective, it was referenced in my previous answer. It is at the discretion of the corporation at this point how it delivers its services and what its particular model of service is. Of course, we have given guidelines. The member knows that we have done a lot to actually transform Canada Post. We have given it quite a bit of latitude. Having said that, we believe that these principles are very balanced. We know that the arbitrator will use these principles and consider them carefully to make sure that we get to an agreement, should that be necessary should the parties not be able to come to that agreement on their own, in a balanced, fair way that considers the concerns of the union but also the constraints of the corporation.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, so far in this portion of the committee of the whole, I have asked the minister whether, in viewing back-to-work legislation as a last resort, she made an effort to negotiate an essential service protocol with the employees of Canada Post to ensure the delivery of cheques and other services that she does not want to see disrupted. We really have not heard a clear answer to that question, and I think we need one to be able to evaluate whether this actually is the last resort.

I also asked the minister, in terms of financial sustainability, how the Canada Post pension plan is going to be evaluated. That is a critically important question in terms of whether we believe management's storyline that there is a crisis and a need for concessions or whether we recognize that if Canada Post employees were treated the same as other federal public servants, there really would not be such a problem, and we could negotiate with them on a much more positive basis.

I asked the minister whether there would be consideration of postal banking as a way of improving the financial sustainability of Canada Post and of providing a needed service to Canadian communities, some of the same communities the government has tried to invoke in justifying this legislation. All we have really heard is that the arbitrator cannot determine Canada Post's corporate model. Fair enough, but surely the government can, and it would be nice to have an answer to that question as well.

Finally, the last thing I asked was when the government would keep its promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery. The minister mentioned the fact that the government has put a moratorium on the further removal of door-to-door mail delivery, which is a welcome development. However, it is not enough, and it is certainly not what was talked about during the election campaign.

It seems to me that a number of questions have come before the House this evening, and we have not really received complete answers to them. I think that really underscores why we should be having a great deal more time to debate and have deliberations on this type of legislation. The government has certainly made the case that its back-to-work legislation will not violate constitutional rights to free association and collective bargaining. However, one of the best ways to make sure that the legislation complies with the Constitution and other requirements is to actually have a full, proper amount of debate in this House.

I really appreciate the opportunity to participate in such a significant way in the committee of the whole, and I am glad we are having this deliberation. However, I feel that the deliberation we have had so far has really only underscored and exposed the need for a much more fulsome debate on this proposed legislation before we have to have a vote at third reading.

I appeal to other members of this House to reconsider the rushed timeline that has been adopted and to consider the possibility of having a few days, at least, of debate on something that might impinge on the fundamental workplace rights of tens of thousands of Canadians and that might do serious damage to a movement that is so important to the development of the middle class and those working hard to join it.