Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2018

An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Of course, as I already mentioned, we do not draw attention to the presence or absence of members.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to read into the record once again the guiding principles of this legislation. Again, we have taken a different tack with regard to arbitrators than the Conservatives did with their legislation in 2011. As a matter of fact, the first arbitrator they appointed had no labour experience and could not speak French. When the judge removed the arbitrator from that process, the Conservatives came forward with a second arbitrator who was a three-time failed Tory candidate. Those arbitrators were all appointed by the minister. The Conservatives were not really trying to get someone who would hold the trust of both parties.

In fact, the parties under our legislation will be able to submit the names of those they would be comfortable with and can agree upon. Moreover, it would be a mediator-arbitrator.

The guiding principle are as follows:

In rendering a decision or selecting a final offer under paragraph (1)(b), the mediator-arbitrator is to be guided by the need

(a) to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected;

That speaks to the member's concerns about that. Maybe I can continue to read them in my next answer.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member was preparing at the last second to make a speech today. He did not seem to be prepared to make a speech and may not have had the time or benefit of going back and seeing what he had said previously in the House about these things, but I did have a little time to look at a few things. Going back to March 13, 2012, he said the following about our minister at the time:

As I think she may be somewhat of a pioneer here, my question to the minister is this. Would she know if this is the first time that legislation to limit the debate on back to work legislation preceded that back to work legislation? Is she aware if this is the first time this has ever happened? She may be a pioneer.

On June 18, 2013, he called the use of closure “abuse of the democratic process in this House.” It is something he said repeatedly in the House during those years in opposition.

Does he think what is happening today is “an abuse of the democratic process in this House”?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, having sat in the House with the member for quite some time now, I always get a chuckle out of Conservatives when they start to bring up the use of closure by this government. We are only pikers when we look back at how the Conservatives used that particular standing order.

If the member wants to read quotes, he will know that during the debates on the 2011 back-to-work legislation, I did bring up my concerns about the guiding principles. The guiding principles that were identified by the arbitrator appointed by the minister were so heavily tilted to Canada Post. The guiding principles were aimed at providing the necessary degree of flexibility, as they said, to ensure the short and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of the Canada Post Corporation. They were all sort of tilted toward that. Members will remember that the government actually put into legislation a wage that was less than what Canada Post had agreed upon.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the Liberals and the Conservatives may find this amusing, the New Democrats do not. That is a curious use of word by the member.

Only a Liberal would argue that the language in the back-to-work legislation is progressive in some way. That is what we have been hearing today. I cannot understand why Canada Post would bargain fairly at the table right now when it knows that in seven hours the Liberals will give it the gift for which it has asked.

The Liberals keep acting as though something miraculous is going to happen at a table that they have consistently poisoned. Nothing will happen at that table, because Canada Post knows it is going to pick up the red phone, get the hotline to the Liberals and people are going to be ordered back to work.

It is not just that they will go back to work. They are forcing workers to go back to a workplace where women are not paid equally, which is ironic because the member said how important that was to him, that women were paid equally. They are not at Canada Post, and the Liberals are going to force them back. Rural workers are not paid for all the hours they work. They work overtime every day for which they are not paid. That is a clear violation of labour rights, yet the Liberal member is quite comfortable with that.

This is the busiest time of year. The Liberals are forcing Canada Post workers back to work in dangerous working conditions. Why?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to finish sharing the guiding principles.

As my colleagues know, I talked first about health and safety, and I shared that with my friend. It would be one of the guiding principles of the mediator or arbitrator that would have to be abided by to ensure the health and safety of employees would be protected. The second guiding principle is to ensure the employees receive equal pay for work of equal value.

Those are the guiding principles for the mediator and that is what will be front and centre as we try to get this deal done.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the International Labour Organization and the Supreme Court of Canada have reminded us that the right to negotiate working conditions is a fundamental right of workers. The right to strike is also an inherent right of collective bargaining.

According to the Supreme Court, these are constitutional rights because there is nothing like a negotiated agreement. Seeking mediation to reach an agreement takes away leverage. This goes against the fundamental rights of workers.

How can the parliamentary secretary justify the fact that a government that calls itself progressive can violate in this manner the rights of workers even before they have gone on strike?

As everyone knows, a rotating strike is not a strike. The government did not even let them get that far. Has it no shame?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced ILO Convention 98. We are the government that ratified that convention, something that has been advocated for 40 years. We signed that convention. We absolutely believe the best way to get to a deal is for both sides to sit down and hammer out a deal.

Obviously, after a year of negotiation and five weeks of rotating strikes, it is imperative that a government helps Canadians, and we are doing that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, forced back-to-work legislation is an insult, but adopting forced back-to-work legislation on a closure motion is adding insult to injury.

In my speech, I will touch on four things about the Liberal government. The government claims to be feminist, pro-middle class, progressive and in favour of worker health and safety.

I will start with the government's claim that it is feminist. Systemic discrimination is a form of discrimination that is embedded in a system, in an established order arising from practices voluntary or otherwise that result in wage gaps between jobs traditionally held by men and those traditionally held by women.

In this particular case, the Canada Post case, there is systemic discrimination in relation to practices that I expect are involuntary. Letter carriers, whether they work in rural or suburban areas, do not have the same working conditions as their colleagues in urban areas.

If we scratch below the surface, we see that this is an important issue because it is a matter of systemic discrimination. Two-thirds of mail carriers working in rural and suburban areas are women and they earn approximately 25% less than their counterparts who work in urban areas, 70% of whom are men.

Just three weeks ago, the government introduced a pay equity bill that requires employers and unionized employees to work together to develop a plan to achieve pay equity, a bill that implements a proactive regime to guarantee equal pay for equal or equivalent work. Now, three weeks later, at the very first opportunity, the government is proving that its bill is pretty much worthless—just good intentions and nothing more. Three weeks later, at the very first opportunity, the government is passing special legislation so that it does not have to pay women mail carriers properly. It is muzzling the women who are fighting to obtain the salary conditions that the government claims to want to give them. It is muzzling elected members of the House so that it can take away women mail carriers' bargaining rights even more quickly. Three weeks later, the government is muzzling labour organizations as they try to assert their most basic right, that of having a properly negotiated collective agreement.

When the topic of workers' rights comes up, the Liberal government's fake feminism becomes quite evident. This is the same government that thinks it is acceptable for pregnant women to be ineligible for preventive withdrawal without penalty when their and their unborn baby's health is at risk. This is the same government that has refused to listen to me for three years when I saw that a new mother who loses her job at the end of her parental leave is not eligible for a penny from employment insurance.

Indeed, this is the same government that has shown us today that it thinks it is acceptable for women to be paid less than men for equal work and for women to have to take on a heavy workload that is harmful to their physical and psychological health.

Feminism is more than just a word. Feminism requires action, and I am sad to say that this government's action proves that we have a long way to go before our rights will ever be equal to those of men in Ottawa.

My second point has to do with the middle class. Just this week, the government presented an economic statement with, yet again, the term “middle class” in its title. Despite this government's claims, it is not a government for women, nor is is a government for the middle class.

The middle class is made up of ordinary people. Do the Liberals know who these ordinary people are? Would they be able to define the middle class, outside of their empty slogans?

One thing is certain: middle-class Canadians are highly courted by the Liberal Party. This was the case during the last federal election campaign, and I cannot even count the number of times that this government, all members included, has used this term since the 2015 election. This term comes up in every single budget, economic statement, speech, and almost every answer to opposition questions.

The Liberal members speak with trembling voices to defend the middle class, as though it were an endangered species. Yes, the middle class has become a target for political marketing, and that has been going on for decades, but I would say the Liberals have perfected the formula. Now it is all about the middle class and those working hard to join it. How many times have we heard that? It is nice, is it not? Who does not like apple pie?

What the Liberals are forgetting, after having recited these meaningless phrases so many times in the House, is that the middle class was built on great union victories, primarily in the public service. The middle class did not magically appear, and it was not the federal government that created it.

The middle class was built bit by bit, by workers who had the courage to stand up and assert their rights so they could live in dignity.

The middle class was built one gain at a time, gains that were hard won from the government and the most powerful players in the world.

The middle class was never handed anything. It fought hard, made demands and got what it needed.

The middle class is made up of teachers, nurses, bus drivers, public servants, middle managers in the public sector and, yes, postal workers. Today they are resorting to rotating strikes to assert their status as members of the middle class, and the government is taking away their right to put pressure on their employer to improve their situation.

The middle class is made up of ordinary people who work hard and serve our society. They are also people who want to live with dignity; people who want to see their family from time to time; people who want to work in environments where they feel good and safe; people for whom working conditions and the human qualities of their team are just as important as money; people who want work schedules that allow them to look ahead a bit and plan their personal life; because, indeed, these are people who have a life outside the office; people who think that men and women should earn equal pay for equal work; and yes, people who think that their work deserves adequate pay.

What does the government mean by middle class? It seems that the government has no understanding of the value of collective rights. It seems that when the Liberals talk about the middle class, they are talking about certain individuals only. When we take a closer look at the Liberals' language on the middle class, it looks a lot like a systematic attempt to curry votes rather than a statement in support of our families, our friends, our neighbours, our colleagues, people who surround us in real life, a life that the Prime Minister seems to have no notion of.

My third point has to do with health and safety. I knew a man who, unlike the Prime Minister, knew and loved everyday people. I knew a man who inspired me greatly. He was a man of his word. We had good conversations and that man always stood up for those whose work could make them sick or injured.

About health and safety he said that it was at the workplace that it was clear that contempt for men and women was far from over and that it is impossible to say that we are for the people while also accepting that they get hurt at work.

This man was Michel Chartrand, quoted by Fernand Foisy in the book Les dires d'un homme de parole.

Occupational health and safety is also a purpose of these negotiations. Why are there health and safety measures? The workplace injury rate in the postal sector is one of the highest of all sectors under federal jurisdiction. The number of accidents has increased by 43% in the past two years. It seems to me that the demands are justified in the circumstances.

The rate of disabling injuries is 5.4 times higher than in the rest of the federal sector. It is totally unacceptable, and the union's demands are not exorbitant. It is asking for 80% of the salary to be paid in the event of a workplace accident because no one chooses to have an accident at work. It is also calling for improvements to the short-term disability insurance program, including the appeal process. It is asking for an unlimited carry-over of personal leave days and for salary protection increased from 70% to 75%. Again, it is a matter of dignity.

It is also asking that mail carriers obtain a time value for the combination of manually sorted mail and sequentially sorted mail in the sorting bin. Again, the idea is to avoid an overload. It is requested that a provision on domestic violence be included in the collective agreement. This is a plus for families and for women in particular.

I want to read a quote from the Government of Canada website:

No one knows a workplace better than the people who work in it, so Part II of the Canada Labour Code gives the workplace parties—the employees and employers—a strong role in identifying and resolving health and safety concerns.

The provisions of the Code are designed to strengthen employers' and employees' self-reliance in dealing with occupational health and safety issues [and not through special legislation] and thereby making workplaces safer.

I could not even make this stuff up. Much like with pay equity, on paper, the government seems to recognize the role of a union. However, when a union wants to exercise its rights, the government infringes on these rights, forces special legislation down their throats and prevents elected officials from debating this legislation.

Contrary to Canada Post management, the union never stopped advocating negotiating to reach a new work agreement. The president of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec stated, and I quote:

Obviously, Canada Post dug in its heels and negotiated in bad faith while simply waiting for the government to introduce special legislation that would force mail carriers back to work. That is appalling but not surprising, since that is the kind of strategy we have come to expect from Canada Post. During the last collective bargaining process in 2011, management did the same thing. Some housecleaning is in order at Canada Post.

He concluded by saying, and I quote:

That is all the more appalling given that the right to strike has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. This special legislation violates a right that is recognized and protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. The health and safety of Canadians was never in any way threatened by the union's legitimate decision to use pressure tactics to help wind up the bargaining process. By introducing this special legislation, the [Liberal] government is complicit in Canada Post's bargaining strategy, which is not to negotiate.

The government chose a side, and it did not side with women, the middle class, employee safety, progressivism, or respect for labour organizations. It chose Canada Post's side.

I will address one last point. The government claims to be progressive. Management's government is not a progressive government. The government calls itself progressive. The Prime Minister boasts about that a lot. Every time he signs a trade agreement, he insists on calling it a progressive agreement. He says that because, in his mind, these agreements guarantee workers' freedom of association and their right to collective bargaining. These are fundamental rights recognized by the UN in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They are recognized by the International Labour Organization in its fundamental conventions and by the Canadian Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted by English Canada, which the Prime Minister is extremely proud of, defines them as fundamental rights in section 2(d).

When the Prime Minister talks about his progressive trade agreements, he says that being progressive means defending the right to collective bargaining. That is what being progressive means. The right to negotiate and the right to strike are linked. The right to strike is inherent in the right to negotiate because without the threat of a strike, there is no power to negotiate. I am not the one saying this. It comes from the International Labour Organization of which Canada is a member. The Supreme Court said this in 2015. Therefore, today's special legislation is not progressive.

Since the beginning of this debate, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis has repeated that having an arbitrator is a good thing, it is fair, he or she will consider both sides and will make compromises. In a hockey game, the referee is not there to listen to both sides and make compromises. An arbitrator is someone who has the authority to impose his or her decisions. In this case, the arbitrator will impose working conditions. That is the role of an arbitrator. It is the opposite of negotiating. It is the opposite of what the Prime Minister considers to be progressive.

Special legislation is referred to as back-to-work legislation, not negotiation legislation. Generally, it puts an end to work stoppage. In this case, there was no work stoppage, and that is the worst part. As the fiercely Liberal Denis Coderre said in the debate on the Harper government's back-to-work legislation, “A rotating strike is not a strike, it is a pressure tactic used to force a negotiated settlement.” That was a true Liberal who said that.

Through this bill, the government is taking away the employees' right to use pressure tactics. It is taking away the employer's incentive to negotiate. It is attacking the right to collective bargaining, a fundamental right if ever there was one.

When I hear the Conservatives and the Liberals speak disrespectfully about the right to strike, I get the impression that they think workers like to strike. They do not. It is not some game that we can take away from them whenever we feel like it. It is a right. As François Mitterrand said in his book The Wheat and the Chaff, “Strike action is not enjoyable for anyone, and it primarily affects those who have no other means to defend their right to live.”

These only means are what this special legislation is taking away from postal workers, and it is the exact opposite of progressivism.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by emphasizing something I said yesterday when I was addressing the motion, and that is just how much we value and appreciate the fine work that all Canada Post workers put in day in and day out. They provide a fantastic service. It is one of the reasons we have been very proactive in dealing with many of the Canada Post issues that came into being during the Stephen Harper era.

Having said that, there is at times a need for our government to make decisions, and we are not unique in that. We have said this, and we heard it on numerous occasions today already; political parties of all stripes, a number of NDP premiers and governments, Liberals and Conservatives have brought in back-to-work legislation.

Montreal is a fantastic, beautiful city. It is a city I am very proud of. I am sure there are lots of e-commerce businesses that are very much dependent on Canada Post. I am sure there are many individuals in rural Quebec who are looking forward to receiving very important items. My question for the member from the Bloc Party is: could she give an indication as to whether or not she believes that at some point we need to see Canada Post delivering those very important, essential, vital services, whether rural for consumers, or for our businesses that are already feeling the impact to the degree—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question gives me an opportunity to expand on some of the points I made in my speech.

Right now, there is no crisis. Businesses are not in crisis, and neither is anyone else. We have proven that repeatedly in many of the speeches given in the House since the start of this debate.

When does the government think it would be appropriate for postal workers to go on strike, be it rotating or general?

In my former life, I was a teacher. When we went on strike to put pressure on our employer, we did not do it in July or August or over the Christmas holidays. If workers do not put their foot down, the employer will not negotiate. With this bill, the government is about to cut workers off at the knees so they cannot force the employer to negotiate.

Of course postal workers are going to go on strike over the holidays, just as teachers are going to do it during the school year, not in July or August. When people want more power, they employ effective tactics.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely congratulate my colleague from Repentigny on her excellent speech. We in the Bloc Québécois have always sided with workers, and that will not change.

This is our first term in the House, and this is the first time special legislation is being introduced. Special legislation that infringes on workers' fundamental rights, on the right to free bargaining and the right to strike, is terribly shameful. This is all being done under a gag order that muzzles the members. They could have done more to support the workers.

I want to ask my colleague whether she thinks the real boss here is also the legislator, and whether she would agree that there is a blatant conflict of interest given that the legislator is also the business owner in this negotiation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague for his question. Yes, for workers in the public service, that is always the problem. Whether we are talking about teachers, nurses, support staff in hospitals or postal workers, the employer is also the legislator. We are always stuck in that position, because the legislator has no problem blocking demands by using special legislation. We see that all the time.

I am tempted to say that there is no longer any bargaining, because every time someone tries to bargain and use pressure to improve their working conditions, the legislator introduces special legislation. So, yes, there certainly is a conflict of interest.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Before going on to the next question, I want to remind members of the Standing Order that requires us not to cross between the person who is speaking and the Chair. This is really a matter of respect for the person who is speaking.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny.

The Liberals are allowing us to have a few hours of debate before they bulldoze this through and trample the democratic rights of the House. They are saying that their approach is gentler than that of the Conservative Party.

I was here in 2011, and the Conservatives allowed us to debate the issue for several days. I remember how Jack Layton, in his last speeches in the House, criticized the lack of democracy and the bill. However, at least the Conservatives gave us the time we needed to debate such an important issue. The Liberals are giving us just a few hours for debate at all stages.

Does the member for Repentigny see a difference between the way the Conservatives trampled on democracy and the way the Liberals are doing it?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

I completely agree with what he said. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary spoke at length about Harper's Conservative government. At that time, I was the president of my union, and we kept very close track of all of the legislation that the government was passing. Quite frankly, it was despicable. It seemed as though the Conservative government wanted to do away with unions completely, to get rid of them once and for all. However, when it passed special legislation to force mail carriers back to work, it allowed time for debate. The biggest problem I have with the Liberal government on the postal worker issue is that they imposed a gag order. The fact that the Liberals introduced this special legislation was already a slap in the face, but then they went ahead and imposed a gag order to limit debate, push the legislation through and take away workers' rights even faster. That is absolutely appalling.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I posed an earlier question, the member talked about her profession as a teacher. Education is a provincial responsibility, so let me give a specific example.

New Democratic governments at the provincial level have brought in back-to-work legislation for teachers. The reason they did this, not once but on numerous occasions, was they felt it was in the best interests at the time. They were not saying they had lost confidence or as a political party they did not believe in the collective bargaining process. Rather, they recognized how important it was for the broader community as a whole.

We recognize as a government, as do other governments, at times we need to do this. It does not make any one of us on this side of the House happy that we have to do this. We do not want this.

Would the member not acknowledge that all recognized political parties inside the chamber, in one form or another, federal or provincial, have had to do this because it was for the good of the nation or the good of the province?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

Other parties do it, but as we heard earlier, public service employees never have a real right to bargain. The problem is that, at both the provincial and federal levels, special legislation is introduced every time.

Governments have that power, and they use it. Public sector employees have not made much headway. Every time they make a demand, they get shot down or the government forces special legislation down their throats. This is unacceptable in a democracy. This right is recognized by the Charter, by the UN, by the International Labour Organization and by everyone.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak after my colleague from Repentigny. She gave a very clear, rigorous and thorough speech. She made her point. Even though there may be disagreements, she spoke eloquently to support her position, without any vitriol or bitterness. Perhaps that is why she was voted the most collegial member in a Maclean's poll recently.

I have been sitting in on the debate pretty much all day. I listened to the member for Vancouver East, who has also taken a position that is different from that of the government. I was rather touched by her description of the place her postal worker occupies in her life and the life of her family. She mentioned how she would even send letters to her children, so they could receive mail. The letter carrier would bring it to the House. This is a wonderful memory for her.

Canada Post letter carriers and those who work at the counters at postal outlets are a significant part of our lives. When we think about it, letter carriers have visited our homes five days a week for as long as we can remember. In fact, I remember, as a young child, when postal workers would deliver mail six days a week. There was a Saturday morning mail delivery. That was not because postal workers were hard done by. Everybody worked five and a half days a week. I remember my father would work a five-day week and go to work Saturday morning. He would be back home at noon and do whatever chores he had to do around the house.

Unions have improved our lives by pushing for shorter work weeks and fighting for important social programs, better pensions and safer workplaces. The House of Commons administration goes to the max to provide a very safe workplace. That is a product of the work unions have done since they started becoming a fixture of our economy back in the 1920s and 1930s. They are very important.

No one is suggesting postal workers do not work hard. We know they do. We have a cold climate.

Two postal workers visit the building in which my riding office is located. One does the morning shift. He empties the mailboxes in front of the building at 8:30 a.m. and does it while the motor is running. He does not waste any time. He is very friendly. If I happen to be going into the building at the same time, he greets me with a smile. However, he does not have too much time to talk because he has to empty the mailboxes, put the bags in the truck and go on to the next set of mailboxes further down the street.

When my riding office has to send something priority post to the Ottawa office, there is a postal worker who comes to the office to pick up post packages. Again, he does not have much time to waste. At times, when I hear the door open and hear the gentleman's voice, I walk out of my office, ask my assistant where he is and I am told he has left already because he has no time to waste. He takes the priority post parcels and he is out of there. He is working hard.

All the letter carriers who I have known seem to really enjoy their work. They do it with a smile and they do it with an obvious sense of pride. I think they do it with an attitude of pride for a couple of important reasons.

The first is that they like to provide the service. It is a service industry in many ways and it attracts people who want to provide good service and help others. Also, when people work for Canada Post, somehow they feel they are working for the country, which they are. They are working for a Crown corporation, which was a government department at one point, so they are working for Canada. That is how important Canada Post is to our country, and it always has been.

Usually, a Crown corporation serves a purpose that goes beyond any kind of corporate entity. It usually has an important function. We usually create Crown corporations because the service or products they provide are very important for the country, for its economy and for holding the country together.

Therefore, right off the bat, Canada Post is different. It is not GM. It is not Fiat Chrysler. It is not Ford. None of these companies totally dominate the market. When one of these companies goes on strike, consumers have a choice. They can buy a car from a competing manufacturer. That actually influences the bargaining process. The workers at GM can flex their muscle, but if they flex it too much, the company will lose customers and they will not be better off because of that. That is all part of the interplay. That is all part of what the hon. members on the other side called “rapport de force”, which is normal and healthy.

However, when we are dealing with Canada Post, we are not just dealing with another corporation. We are dealing with an entity that has enormous influence on the economic well-being the country. That is the difference. The challenge is, and has always been, in the public and para-public sector.

I remember when I was younger, the police in Montreal went on strike. It was not a pretty day. Labour relations in the para-public and public sector evolved. In fact, different dispositions were created such that essential services had to be maintained. It is a very different labour relations climate. However, that is how it is with labour relations. As it is with every other aspect of society and the economy, we evolve and we adapt.

The point is that Canada Post has a major impact on the country. Therefore, how do we handle labour negotiations when we deal with Crown corporations that are in many ways essential services? Someone said before, and I think it was my colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, that 70% of online purchases went through Canada Post. That represents an incredible amount of market power. We cannot ignore that.

We have a corporation that plays an important part in the functioning of the country. We have a powerful corporation, because it has large revenues and the management is powerful. We also a powerful union. Members on the other side are saying that the union should be able to flex its muscle as much as it wants to. There is nothing wrong with that motivation. However, at what point do we say that in the interests of Canadians we need to get the two parties to the bargaining table to work out a solution so those who are not part of a union have a voice? They may not have a strong voice because they are a mom and pop shop, or they are entrepreneurs and may not even be incorporated or registered.

Their voice is our voice. Their voice is from those who have been elected to the House of Commons to form the government. They are speaking out in this particular labour conflict. They are telling us the effects.

Where we seem to have a difference of opinion is with members on that side, the NDP, where the prevailing opinion is that there is no problem and that the Canada Post rotating strike is not causing grief to small businesses and their families. We know that many families are supported by small businesses. Even though the prevailing opinion on the other side is that there is no problem, the Retail Council of Canada and various groups that represent small businesses are saying there is a problem and they are feeling the pressure.

Yes, there are alternatives. There is, for example, Federal Express. However, we know that these courier companies do not service the north. What happens when Canada Post is not around to service the north? Do we just drop the north and not worry about it? There are people who are telling us that this is going beyond being a major inconvenience and that it is undermining their economic interests.

There is an issue as to how we manage labour relations in these kinds of situations. There are different approaches.

When I was in university, I remember taking a labour relations course with Professor Carla Lipsig-Mummé, who is very well-respected in the labour movement. I am sure many of the members on the other side know Carla Lipsig-Mumme. She was an excellent professor because she allowed debate from all sides of the political spectrum. Her mission was to stimulate debate.

She was part of the labour movement and was proud to be, and she challenged us. I learned a lot from her. Many of the ideas I had evolved because of her teaching methods. As a matter of fact, she was on the Hill recently, I believe, to talk about work in the 21st century.

We have this challenge as to how to manage labour relations in a Crown corporation which can have a great impact on the economy. I think we found a positive, constructive solution through this legislation, because we talk about naming a mediator or an arbitrator. That person will be neutral. I do not understand why the NDP has this idea that the arbitrator will be a friend of business and that the arbitrator will not care about labour. Just in case the arbitrator had different ideas, what the arbitrator has to consider when mediating and doing arbitration is spelled out in the law. The arbitrator has to take account of principles like equal pay for equal work and ensuring that the health and safety of employees is protected.

Here we have a process that may not be ideal from labour's point of view, because labour obviously wants to flex its muscle as much as possible, and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It is like when businesses are motivated by profit. These are not dirty words. Every party has its own motivations, but at some point it is the role of government to try to broker a fair solution in the best interests of the country and of those who do not necessarily have an organized voice. That is essentially what the government is doing.

I see there is a lot of consternation on the other side. I did not mean to be this provocative. It is quite interesting that the member for Repentigny, who made the most eloquent defence of labour rights, is not heckling right now. I think that is to her credit.

There are some very good guiding principles. We are not imposing work conditions like the previous Conservative government did. I was in the House when we had the debate on that legislation. The Conservative government at the time was trying to put an end to a labour dispute and I understand that, but I think it went a little too far. It was trying to make some kind of point, some kind of anti-labour point, which is clearly not in the DNA of the Liberal Party or the Liberal government regardless of what is coming from the other side.

This an attempt to find a fair solution. The labour movement has contributed greatly to improving working conditions. What Carla Lipsig-Mummé taught me was that unions have not only improved labour conditions for people who work in unions, but also for the entire society by the programs that they have fought for.

Is my time up, Mr. Speaker?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. Apparently I may be the cause of some uproar, but a minute or so ago I was putting up five fingers to indicate five minutes. It is now three and a half.

The hon. member understands that he has time left in his speech, but I think he is finished.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members are making some insensitive jokes about the issue that we are facing here tonight. One thing my friend said that I want to take umbrage with—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member across the way is imputing motives of this side of the House. The government—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. This sounds like debate to me and, of course, we are supposed to have debate, but not on the point of order.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.