Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank you and your colleagues. I know that it is not easy to be here to preside over the debates. Sometimes you have to make rulings that are quite the opposite of what the hon. members want.
Thank you very much. You do extraordinary work and I just wanted to acknowledge that.
Before I continue, a thought came into my head as we were listening to the debates. I represent rural communities, as do many members here, and one of the problems we have is trying to attract young people to stay and work and raise their families in our communities because often we do not have good paying jobs.
I have looked at a contract with Canada Post where it says that people starting work would get less money than those with whom they are working side by side. My concern is that it would discourage people from trying to stay in rural communities. They would then try, for other reasons, to go to large urban centres.
The underlying theme that we sometimes forget when we talk about small business and trying to keep people in our communities is that people who make money stay and support small businesses in our communities. This is something I have discussed on a number of occasions with representatives of the chambers of commerce in my area.
I want to put things into context. We are here today to defend the rights of Canadian workers. We know that on June 3, postal workers started a rotating strike. They were then locked out, as we have already gone over.
As we know, the union has been responsible. It offered to end the strike if Canada Post agreed to uphold the former contract during the negotiations. However, Canada Post refused. Then there was this lockout and support from this government through the introduction of this bill. That is the context.
We are wondering why this government wants to impose a labour contract on the employees. One might say it is not the government's role to do so and that an effort should be made to find solutions by negotiating the conditions of the contract.
Some people have already made the link between what is happening here in Canada and the anti-labour movement in the United States known as the Tea Party. The most draconian example comes out of the State of Wisconsin, a state I am familiar with. Governor Scott Walker abolished the bargaining rights of more than 175,000 public sector employees. The same goes for the right to job security, gender equality and so on.
What is their motive? Clearly this is an issue of maximizing profits for companies on the backs of workers. That is the issue in the bill before us. The employer claims it cannot meet the demands of the employees.
I always try to underscore certain things when I rise to speak. Canada Post earned revenues to the tune of $281 million last year. The funny thing is that I learned from people I talked to at Canada Post that some of those profits apparently go to the federal government. Instead of using this revenue to improve activities, performance and efficiency and to arrive at a fair agreement, some of the money goes to the federal government.
Personally, I think this is akin to stealing money from the workers and from Canada Post. It is like the $50 billion stolen from the employment insurance fund. Today, less than 40% of the unemployed are eligible to receive employment insurance benefits.
We can put this into another context. I have been showing a film in my riding called Poor No More, with Mary Moore from CBC. Many of you have seen it. It outlines what has been happening in our country and in some other countries. Interestingly I shared the film with the executive director at the chamber of commerce in my riding, and at the next meeting--I think it is my turn to buy lunch--I would like to discuss it with her.
We have poverty in this country. We have an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. We have an agenda that is driven by the Council of Chief Executives.
In the film they point out that 150 of the biggest corporations in Canada are driving the agenda. For those who have not seen the film, there is a worker at the LCBO in Ontario, a casual worker, who has been there for 11 years. She has no benefits and no pension, and when she was suffering she had to take her cancer treatments on her lunch breaks.
I talked about the labour climate when I asked a question to my colleague for Welland yesterday. From his experience as a union leader, I asked who sets the tone. Why do we sometimes have labour disputes that end quickly where there is good morale in the workplace, and other times they drag on and deteriorate, as they have done in Canada Post?
It is because of the direction provided by who is in charge. As a school teacher, I saw it. I worked in schools where there was good morale, and I worked in schools with bad morale, and that depended on the direction of the principal of the school.
We have a deterioration of labour relations between our unionized workers of both unions in Canada Post and the management. My understanding from talking to the workers is that under the former CEO, and continuing under the present one, there are more grievances, decisions being made without consultation, and bizarre decisions.
I would ask you to picture this: I live in the community of Castlegar, which is 600 kilometres from Vancouver. If I mail a letter to my neighbour on Friday, that letter goes to Vancouver for sorting, which is 1,200 kilometres away, and it comes back so my neighbour next door can get the letter. That is because of this so-called efficiency.
Anyway, I will move on. In the film we have a comparison with other countries. We have a worker who works part-time for the liquor control board in Sweden. He is part-time and he has full benefits and free health care. Citizens get free seniors care and free child care. If a couple has a child, they get over 400 days of paternity and maternity leave. That is what we have seen. Sweden used to have strikes. There are no strikes. Everything is done through collective agreements. Why is that? It is because there is a partnership. There is a partnership between corporations, government and unions. Unions, by law, are mandated to sit on the board of directors.
We have been told that our country is somehow leading this economic recovery. Well, among the countries that are leading the economic recovery, one of them is Australia, which ironically seems to have a labour government today. But it is also Sweden. Sweden, the country that many have criticized for being socialist and having high taxes, is leading the economic recovery. Why is it doing that? It is because over 70% of its labour force is unionized. They have no strikes. People work together to come to solutions so they can have and build a just society.
Why can we not do that? What is wrong with us? Why do labour relations deteriorate? Why do we have to have these strikes? Why do we have to have this draconian legislation put in by governments such as this? This is the time we can do something for our country and bring back the kind of relationship we should have between labour and government and corporations. I think it is the responsibility of all of us here to do that today.
