Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said because there may have been an interpretation problem. I was acknowledging that the federal government provided assistance to the automotive industry in the form of $10 billion in loan guarantees. That said, it is unacceptable to say that the government helped the forestry industry, which is larger than the automotive sector in terms of percentage of GDP, when it received only $170 million to help it out of the crisis. I simply wanted to correct what my colleague opposite had said.
I also want to say that I am proud to represent the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Like many of my colleagues, I want to express my regrets that I am not there with my constituents today to celebrate Quebec's national holiday.
I would like to say to the various members who have made speeches, and particularly the members on the government side, that my goal is to represent all of my constituents, both the postal workers and those who use postal services.
My colleagues know that this is my first term as an MP. Some of them have been here longer, but it seems that my colleagues are having some trouble properly responding to the correspondence they are receiving from their constituents. So I would like to help them out. If they have a pencil and a sheet of paper, they can take some notes.
To the people who are writing to them to say that they are having difficulty, that their small business will not survive if service does not resume or that they are waiting for services, various goods, medications and so on, they can say that there is currently a conflict at Canada Post and that the employees responded to that conflict with a rotating strike in light of what they felt were unacceptable offers from Canada Post. That rotating strike allowed Canadians to receive their mail, their parcels, and so on.
The Minister of Labour said that she would not step in to put an end to the rotating strike since service was not being interrupted, but that if service was interrupted, she would seriously consider the possibility of passing special legislation. So Canada Post locked out the employees.
Given that the government has a weak majority that it obtained through less than 40% of voters and less than 20% of voters in Quebec, it has the power to impose a special bill that interferes with the principle of collective bargaining. But, as government MPs, my colleagues support this process. The government had several options actually. It could have passed a special bill to renew the collective agreement, which would have been acceptable to the union and the employees, and which would have let Canadians receive their mail. Unfortunately, the government decided not to take that route.
The government could have passed a special bill that would have ended the lockout without affecting the union's right to rotating strikes and the right to strike, which would have made mail delivery possible. Unfortunately, the government decided not to take that route.
So the government decided to impose special legislation that forces employees to return to work under unfavourable conditions.
The government says it is surprised that the employees do not approve of the conditions that are contrary to their interests, even though that government decision is delaying mail delivery.
This is what my colleagues could say to their constituents to explain the current situation.
In my opinion, this government—my colleagues do not have to write this in their letter—is definitely the most polarizing government I have seen in the history of Canada. Right now, it is dividing the country into good guys and bad guys, as it has done for the past five years, and as we know it will continue to do. Right now, the bad guys are the unionized workers whom it has decided to treat as second-class citizens.
What is happening here now is by no means an isolated event. We are not staying here until who knows when in order to deal with an isolated incident at Canada Post. A message is being sent to Canadian employers for the coming years and especially for the next fours years, under this government. It is basically telling CEOs and board of directors chairs that they can negotiate in bad faith and drag their feet for seven, eight or nine months and impose a lockout.
Then the government will simply legislate and impose strict conditions on employees, conditions that favour employers. We just saw this with Air Canada. That is what the government was about to do. Now the same thing is happening with Canada Post. What will be next? Via Rail, Bell, Bombardier or any other company this government considers too important to our economy to be allowed to negotiate freely and to determine its own future.
In other words, the message being sent out right now to employers in this country is that if they manufacture a crisis, the government will bail them out. That is exactly what is happening here.
I would like to take the rest of my time to discuss two specific reasons that, to me, explain why there is currently a labour dispute. The employer is imposing two clauses that are absolutely unacceptable to the union, the entire union movement, and to people in the lower middle class. With clauses like that, we can understand why people resort to using pressure tactics such as rotating strikes.
One of the clauses is called an “orphan clause”. The most inequitable and unfair measure that there could ever be in the world of labour relations is an “orphan clause”. I am not sure if there is a way to translate that expression. Essentially, with an orphan clause, young employees joining the workforce who do the same work as employees already on the job will earn a lower salary than their colleagues. How can a union that represents all its members tell some members they are worth less than others who are doing the same work? Does anyone really think the union can accept that? Can someone not explain to Canada Post, which is a crown corporation—and therefore controlled by the government—this basic principle of labour relations, namely that members cannot receive different salaries for the same work?
The other clause has to do with pensions. As some hon. members have already talked about this, I will not talk about it at length. Employees, who know they will have income security when they retire at age 60 or 65, are being asked to go from a defined benefit package, where they know what benefit amount to expect, to a defined contribution plan, where they can hope there is no economic crisis when they are set to retire. Otherwise, they might end up having to work another five, six or seven years.
Again, the principle is unacceptable and we can understand the union's position. We are asking Canada Post to be more conciliatory. We are asking the federal government not to send workers back to work under unfavourable conditions and to consider other options such as ending the lockout.
