Kellie Leitch

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

Madam Speaker, I do take issue with what the member had to say and I want to be very clear. The Minister of Labour and this government are acting in the public's interest on the Canadian economy and for Canadians to get mail delivery restored.

There were a couple of questions that have been raised with respect to Bill C-6. This member raised them and some others throughout the morning have raised them.

With respect to pensions, I encourage the member opposite to take a look at subsection 11(2)(a):

(a) that the solvency ratio of the pension plan must not decline as a direct result of the new collective agreement;

The fact is that this legislation includes guiding principles to provide direction to the arbitrator that the desire of the government is to see that no increase in the unfunded portion of Canada Post's pension plan moves forward. Our government's desire is to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not left with the bill for Canada Post's pension plan.

The second issue I raise, and I ask the members to take a look at, is the wage issue as it has been noted with respect to two-tier wages. Again, I would like the member opposite to explain to me exactly where those two-tier wages are. I do not actually recognize them in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, just with respect to the issue of essential services and what individual Canadians require, a lack of mail delivery in this country means that people who live in the far North or remote areas are not receiving prescriptions or eyeglasses, things that are essential for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take a bit of issue with the member's comment about this not being a serious and essential need for Canadians. This is a serious and essential need for Canadians. Canadians need their mail delivered and mail delivery must be restored.

Small businesses in this country make up 1.5 million of the 10.6 million people who are employed. Therefore, I would like to ask the member why he and the NDP will not stop their filibuster and allow mail delivery to be restored so those small businesses that rely so much on cheques coming through the mail to employ people do not have to start laying people off because they cannot meet their expenses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member opposite speaks of his desire to help the vulnerable. I spent a significant portion of my life volunteering and supporting vulnerable people. I prefer to call them children or youth or seniors, or by their actual names, which is probably the best way to refer to them.

If the member cares so much about vulnerable people, could he please answer two questions for the House? First, why will the member not allow the mail service delivery to continue so the charities that do so much work can receive the cheques they need to run their charities effectively? Second, why will he not allow mail delivery to be restored so the great donations that small businesses provide to allow charities to operate can be delivered?

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

Mr. Speaker, we would actually all get back to work if the opposition made the choice to simply stop this debate and vote with respect to the bill to make sure people get back to work immediately.

Our government was elected with a strong mandate to complete Canada's economic recovery. Recent polls state that 70% of Canadians support back to work legislation to end the work stoppage at Canada Post.

In my riding, Simcoe—Grey, Canadians want their postal service restored so they can get back to business, so their charities can flourish and they can make sure they are going to be profitable and provide jobs to people.

Can the member explain why the official opposition is not on the same side with the majority of Canadians?

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

Would the member like to see it? It's right here.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments but would like to state that this strike is essentially killing businesses. I would like to talk about one of the notes that I received from one of my constituents. I have it here. I actually received it today as a letter, not an e-mail.

My constituent stated: “I was enquiring to see if there was a need for constituent support for legislating the postal workers back to the job. As the comptroller of a rural business, we rely heavily on the mail system for our operations. The majority of our consumers are sole proprietors living in rural areas. To get invoices to and payments from them requires mail services. Electronic options are limited to the location and demographics of our customers. Without the mail delivery I'm struggling to keep everything balanced. We employ 13 people with well-paying skilled jobs without the option of union contracts, benefits or pension packages. It's frustrating to be held hostage by a powerful union fighting for wages and benefits that from the outside looking in seem already excessive.”

So my question for the member opposite is this. The official opposition has chosen a side in this dispute and it has been clear that it stands in solidarity with CUPW members. Can the member please explain to this House how he can justify his focus on just CUPW as opposed to the rest of the Canadian public, such as the rural folks in my riding of--

[June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will first address the orthopedics analogy that was used earlier by the member for Cape Breton—Canso.

I am a pediatric orthopedic surgeon and it is not as he depicted it. This is more like a patient being brought into the emergency department, fast-tracked to the trauma room and treated immediately. That is what we need to do. We are taking action to act for Canadians and Canadian businesses and to keep the economy moving in this fragile time.

I have a question for the member. There have been numerous instances in history, as the member commented on, when the member's party introduced and supported back to work legislation, including in 1997 when wage rates were imposed. Why is the member so decidedly against this particular back to work legislation? Does he not feel that Canadians deserve to continue to receive mail in a timely fashion?

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. This is about ensuring that all Canadians can receive essential services, like drugs and eyewear and services in the north, and so that businesses can still function and charities can still receive funds and donations.

What is the member's response to the CNIB and, in particular, to the little girl who is not receiving her eyeglasses through the mail and who therefore cannot learn or play? What would he say to that six-year-old child about not receiving her eyeglasses so she can go to school and play in the playground like she wants to?

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, these two parties have both been at the table with the help of a conciliation officer as well as a mediator for numerous months.

This is about making sure Canadians can get back to work. Our economy is fragile. We need to move forward so that small businesses, charities, and those individuals who need to receive their benefits, eyewear and drugs, in the far north, actually receive those things.

We need to get them back to work.