Mr. Speaker, I will first thank all the Speakers who have been doing their rotation in the chair. I think we are all aware, as there are only four Speakers who occupy the chair, that their time off from the chair is much less than those of us who are on different and various shifts. We very much appreciate the current Speaker and all the Speakers who have been involved in this debate. Although it has sometimes been a little bit hot in the House, I think, overall, there has been very good order and the Speakers have really assisted.
I also thank all of the other House of Commons workers, whether it is the clerks or the security. There are so many people involved who keep this place going so that we can actually be here to debate. I think all of us very much appreciate the long hours people are keeping so that this debate can happen and so that democracy is alive and well in the House of Commons. I do think, regardless of our political perspectives, we all agree on that point.
As we approach 39 or 40 hours, I do not know as it is still Thursday in the House, I want to make a point. The point, which was made in the debate but maybe not well enough, is that this so-called filibuster was created by the Conservative motion that allowed us to do this. That is the reality. I hear the hon. members saying “oh, no”. Maybe they are having second thoughts now about what they said in motion. The motion that they created for the debate on this bill has in effect allowed for ongoing debate because there is not a time closure and that point has been made. Maybe they thought members of the NDP would somehow just give up after a couple of hours and pack it in and that would be the end of it. I think the Conservatives are beginning to see that they have a very strong, tough and principled official opposition in the 41st Parliament. We are here to stand up for the rights of the people and we will do that job. Maybe there is a little bit of surprise over on the other side that this debate is now in its 39th hour. However, it was the government that created that optic and space to do that and we are certainly using the opportunity we have to speak loud and clear about why this back to work legislation is so offensive, not only to the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, but also to all workers and Canadians generally.
After listening to the debate now for many hours, I heard two themes, at least from this side of the House. One of those themes is the need to respect and uphold fair collective bargaining versus the proposition that we have before us which is a lockout and back to work legislation.
This issue of upholding a regime, a history, a reasonable environment of collective bargaining is very important in this country. Member after member on both sides have talked about the economy, small business and our local communities, and surely part of a stable economic environment is having healthy labour relations where two parties can sit down and negotiate. That the sensible way to do things. We have had many examples put forward in the House where, in other jurisdictions and in other countries, there is an emphasis and importance around collective bargaining that the stability is there. We have had examples where workers have representation on the board, where they are part of the governance structure.
It has been a very interesting debate from that point of view to examine the things that work and the things that do not work. The sorry state that we are in right now, where we are facing back to work legislation, is an example of the direction that we do not want to take in this country. Many of us have been raising questions as to what it will lead to. What are the implications of this legislation, not only for the employees at Canada Post but other workers in this country. I think that is a very important element of this debate.
The second theme that has emerged is the overall impact on Canadian society because of what Canada Post has done and what this back to work legislation would do.
Many of us have been raising important issues about the growing inequality in our society. In fact, some amazing information has come forward. For example, three decades ago the gap between an average worker's salary and a CEO's salary was maybe 85 times higher. Now it is up to over 250 times higher. The income gap is growing, whether it is due to the erosion of pensions, or downward pressure on wages, or wage restraint.
Again, those of us who are standing and fighting against the legislation can see what is taking place under the Conservative regime and we are deeply concerned about it. It not just for the members of CUPW, but for all working people and what this would mean in the future.
A very important Canadian value is that sense of equality and equal opportunity. It is the sense that if people go into a work environment, they will not get less wages because they come at a later date or they happen to be younger. We faced that in British Columbia when we had a two-wage minimum wage. People were outraged. Eventually the provincial government had to get rid of it because it was such a bad fiscal, social and economic policy.
These are some examples of terrible directions that have been taken. Some of that discussion has come out in this debate over the last 39 hours.
I want to draw attention to other situations that are taking place because we are discussing and debating federal labour relations.
I draw the attention of the members to another lockout that happened a couple of days ago. About 130 attendants who work for the Rocky Mountaineer Rail Tours were locked out. They are members of Teamsters Local 31 in British Columbia. This is a very popular rail company because of what it provides for tourists and residents who go from Vancouver into Banff. A couple of days ago it locked out .
Adele and her co-workers came by my office to make us aware of what had gone on. I want to let them know that we support them in their struggle and we know what they face. As members of the NDP, we want to show our support and will do everything we can to ensure that their employer does not mirror what Canada Post and the government are doing.
When the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, began this debate on Thursday night, he spoke about the implications and consequences of the legislation. He expressed his concern about what it would mean in other collective bargaining. We already see that another employer, under federal jurisdiction, has now locked out its employees and not allowed collective bargaining process to take place. We have to be very concerned about this.
I remember the huge campaign that took place on Parliament Hill to bring in anti-scab legislation. We almost got it through. I also remember going to the Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories north of Yellowknife to visit workers who were on the picket line and faced strike breakers. A lot of areas of federal law and labour relations need to be addressed.
What is happening with the postal workers and the back to work legislation serves to remind us that we need anti-scab legislation. We need to reinforce and uphold free collective bargaining, and this debate is about that.
I am very proud of our members who have participated in this debate. I only wish the Conservatives would. They will ask a few questions and have some comments, but we have been unable to question them. We can only guess what their answer or position might be. It is a great shame that they have not participated in this debate.
