David Christopherson

[Senate Reform Act, September 30th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, my first comment for the minister would be this. Just because the government says that it will have reform, that does not make it good reform. We saw that with former Ontario Premier Mike Harris when he said that he would change the education system. The problem is that he made it worse. That is how we see this bill. It is reform, but it is bad reform. It takes us in the wrong direction.

My question is very straightforward. One of the key fundamental components of democracy is accountability. Given that no senator, under this law, is allowed to run for re-election, given the promises they make to get elected, how on earth are they ever held accountable for whether they kept those promises for the actions and the votes they did in office if the law prohibits them from being accountable? Where is the accountability?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like unanimous consent to move the following motion, “That the provisions of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, respecting drug treatment court programs, and consisting of clause 43(2), do compose Bill C-10B; that the remaining provisions in Bill C-10 do compose Bill C-10A; that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; that Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B be reprinted; and that Bill C-10B be deemed to have been read the first time and be printed, deemed read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment and deemed read the third time and passed”.

The purpose of this would be to ensure that we could delay sentencing where someone is in a drug treatment program and it would remove the mandatory minimum if the person successfully completed the program.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague included in his remarks something that is important to us as the official opposition that, in addition to opposing, we also be proposing. One of the items the member referred to in terms of proposals as an alternative to what the government has put forward is the issue of restorative justice. This is a cornerstone of an alternate direction to deal with matters such as we have before us now.

I wonder if the member would be good enough to explain to members in the House and anyone who is watching at home the important meaning of restorative justice as an alternative approach to the sledgehammer we have seen from the government.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I hope we get an opportunity to do this a little more fuller in terms of responses. But in 30 seconds, the first thing I would say is that the people of Hamilton Centre decided in the follow-up election that I should be returned to Queen's Park twice more after that and four times here.

I would also take a look at what he and Mike Harris did when they came in after 1995. We are still picking up the pieces of what is left of Ontario after he and his wrecking crew got through.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

It really is strange that the board of directors and the management of Canada Post, who deal with the finances of the corporation every day, should conclude that, as tough as things are, they have room to offer a certain amount of money in negotiations for wages and yet the government comes along and says, “No, no, Canada Post cannot afford that. We say, from over here, that Canada Post cannot afford to honour the commitment of wages that they already made in free and fair negotiations.” But there sure seems to be lots of money to make sure the CEO gets his $661,000 a year.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his attention and for the question.

I will admit to him that during my time at Queen's Park I had a couple of colleagues who were threatening to file complaints under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I think they try to avoid that here by moving me around so that I am not screaming in anybody's ear for any prolonged period of time.

I do my best to keep it down, but you know what? When you do most of your speaking in a union hall, some things just never leave you. I will do my best to try to keep my tone down. I always fail, but I do try.

I accept the question as being a fair and serious one, and I will respond in the same light. My answer to the question is that the first choice always in bargaining in a free democracy is the arrival of a conclusion that both sides accept that they freely entered into. When people are ordered and forced back to work, the first option is removed. That is why we are here. We want to give that first option of reaching a free and fair collective agreement at every opportunity, and we will stay here until that objective is reached.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out to me by one of the hon. ministers, looking at the calendar, that it is actually still June 23. That is part of the magnificence of being here, that not only is it June 23, it is also June 25.

The fact remains that we are here because we want to do what the government has not done, and that is to give the union and the management an opportunity to negotiate a fair agreement in their own way and in their own time.

We know the government, of course, is playing a game, and it is evident if you take a look at the chronology we have been through. There was a rotating strike action, meant to put pressure, not to shut down Canada Post but to put negotiating pressure on management, which is done all the time with transnational corporations or entities. It is a ramp-up, and ideally it is meant to prevent a lockout and a strike. It is a tactic that is part of negotiations, and it is not an attempt to stop the work of Canada Post.

During that time the union offered to management the following deal. They would end the rotating strikes and be at work everywhere, all the time, in return for management acknowledging that the workers would work under the current collective agreement and that it would act as if it had full effect and force of law. That is pretty reasonable. It is not as if they threatened to do something or said they would do one thing if the company did not do another thing. They began their rather modest tactics.

We all know that did not last very long, a couple of weeks. During that time management told the union that some pressure was being put on them and it was causing a little problem here and here, and they asked the union to stop doing that. The union said they were quite prepared to stop doing that, but all they asked was that the company honour the current collective agreement while they continued to negotiate.

Just as a little aside, you would wonder why they would not accept that, because it does sound reasonable. It would have been one more very positive step, actually. It would have been a good show of cooperation. They could have agreed on a period of time and taken two or three weeks and had it as part of negotiations. If it did not work, they would be back where they were, but if it did work, they would succeed in the ultimate goal, which is to reach a peaceful, agreeable collective agreement.

One wonders why management would say no. One idea, which sounds strange and bizarre--you would not think this would really happen--is that it is possible that maybe they had some inkling, a bit of an idea. They got out the Ouija board, checked around, phoned some of the psychics to try to get a sense of what might be going on, on the government side. Going to the psychics might be a really good start.

They managed to figure it out: “Well, it sounds like there might be legislation that is going to order them back to work, so why would we do something that would negate the government stepping in? We'll just stay where we are, let the rotating strikes continue, and, sh, sh, we know the government is going to quietly introduce legislation that will solve our labour relations problems and we do not have to sit down and bargain any more.”

I do not know if that happened, but it sure makes sense. It makes a lot of sense. That is one of the answers, when we have so many questions here without answers.

I hear somebody muttering from somewhere in the ether about conspiracy theories. Maybe, but we are open to whatever other conspiracy theory any hon. member can come up with. Looking at what is going on in reality makes no damn sense, so something has to be going on.

Then the government introduced incredibly heavy-handed, unfair, mean-spirited legislation.

Then they used the argument that this could not go on, so they locked them out, and they watched the government bring in legislation that forces them back and forces management to pay less money than it agreed to in the negotiations.

Then to justify what it is doing, the government says it had to do that because they were not at work, and if they are not at work the mail cannot move, and if the mail cannot move it is going to cause economic hardship. That is how it justifies its legislation, which in reality makes no sense at all. Had they followed what was offered the first time, which was to negotiate under the current collective agreement, we would not be here. If they had not locked them out, we would not be here.

All roads do seem to point to the cabinet room of Canada. That seems to be where we are.

It is mind-boggling that it is happening. I want to emphasize that the wage increase that was negotiated fairly at the bargaining table is being reduced by the legislation that is supposed to help the economy. I do not know how putting more money in the hands of Canadians who spend that money is supposed to be harming the economy, but that is the bizarre reality that is here.

It is quite appropriate, actually, that as I speak it is Saturday and as I look at the table it is Thursday. That makes about as much sense as the negotiating procedures that have been followed by Canada Post and supported by the Government of Canada.

I will not get to my last point now. I will pick up on it in a few days, because we will be here for a while.

I want to weigh in behind a lot of my colleagues who are referring to the fact that they see this as a piece of the generational issue that we ought to be talking about. I know there are some in the Twitterverse who are ridiculing them. That is unfortunate because we have a serious problem. Of course, it is the young people who see it, because the problem will not really manifest itself for another 10, 20, 30, 40 years, right around the time they will be in the prime of their lives and right about the time our children or grandchildren will be in the prime of their lives.

Given where I am in life, I want to thank them for taking the lead in making sure that this House acknowledges and addresses the issue of the growing gap that exists today, how much wider that gap is going to be, and the harm that is being inflicted on our younger generation when our role here collectively is to make this a better place for everybody. That is why we are here, and we will stay here until we achieve that fairness.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is to reiterate, as we all do, why we are here. We are here because the government seems to be working hand in hand with the board and management at Canada Post. I suggest that an historical review of what has gone on would show that there was probably a lot more co-operation than is seen now and that would probably be appreciated by most Canadians.

Again, the reason we are here at 5:45 in the morning is not because anybody particularly likes speaking in the House of Commons at this time on a Saturday morning, but because we want to ensure, given the government is not—

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the two words that jumped out at me was “public interest”. I was a former critic for the post office, so I am familiar with the closures, cutbacks and implications for communities.

I will say this as sincerely as I can within this context. One of the things that would make a huge difference would be if Canada Post did a lot more outreach and consultation with communities. I know it does some and has some formula, but the union does not feel it has been given an opportunity to have a say. The union will not make the decision, management will, but it would like to have some input. The workers are the experts. They are the ones out there doing the job every day. Communities are affected.

The reason we hear it as a complaint in anger is because it is always after the fact. People go to their local post office and suddenly it is closed or there is a notice that it will close. Their cousins who work at the local post offices have been cut back in hours and laid off and there is not as much service. Everybody wants to know what happened, what is going on, especially when they see the corporation is still making $281 million a year.

Therefore, there should be a little more consultation and an understanding that Canada Post is a public interest as much as it is a tool to carry out business. There is a huge public interest here and there needs to be more consultation with the people for whom this corporation exists.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the tone of the question, too.

The evidence is there. The leader of our party committed that we were prepared to do work. It is not a secret that there have been discussion going on in the background. People of goodwill are trying to find a way through this. However, in the absence of that solution, we, on these benches, have two choices. We can either fold and collapse and give up and let this go through, or we can do what we are doing, which is standing up and fighting.

There is still hope that there will be an agreement either between the government and the opposition in some way that we could resolve where we are right now, or even better, if we could get an agreement from the management of Canada Post and the union representing the workers because there would be no need for this debate in either of those two cases.

With the greatest respect, in the absence of either of those two negotiated settlements, even in a democracy sometimes one has to stand up and fight to defend what is right.