2011-06-24

[Interjection]
Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not want to interrupt the member, but I do think we need to respect the conventions of the House. 
In Marleau and Montpetit, on page 516, it clearly states that members should not read from a written prepared speech. Even in O'Brien and Bosc, on pages 607 and 608 it says that when points of order are raised about the issue the chair typically rules that members should use notes rather than written prepared speeches.
I think that in the interest of encouraging real debate in the House, with the real cut and thrust of debate, that we encourage members to use notes rather than written prepared speeches.
[Interjection]
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting when someone goes to the rule books, whether it is Marleau and Montpetit, Beauchesne's or the House Standing Orders, and recites something that says that a person should not read from a prepared text. 
One thing that always has to be taken into consideration is the tradition of the chamber. From my perspective, I would love to see a debate where there are no prepared speeches, where members stand up and say what they really think and maybe put a little more passion in what they are thinking. I am all for that. I would not have a problem with that, and I would encourage it.
In terms of traditions, from what I have witnessed over the last number of months, 90% of speeches seem to be of a prepared nature. We have found that there is even greater latitude provided for newer members, who are afforded the opportunity to read their speeches virtually verbatim. 
I would encourage members to tell us what they really think and push the speeches to the side; in my opinion, it quite often leads to a more interesting debate. 
 I would suggest that in fact there is no point of order and that we should allow questions and answers.
[Interjection]
Mr. Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on this point of order. While I appreciate the sentiment of the member's point, I would suggest, as the Speaker did earlier, that we certainly have to pay attention to the conventions of the House. I would also suggest that if the Speaker were to rule in favour of that point of order it would put ministers in a real pickle when it came to responding to questions from members on this side of the House.
[Interjection]
Mr. John Weston: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to differ from my colleague, but what he might be missing is the fascinating juxtaposition of history and philosophy that was in that speech. We are talking about freedom of association, and how can we discuss freedom of association without using notes on history?
 Maybe other members in the House were wondering why he was using notes, but it made me think that perhaps it was because the NDP has a history of union involvement. The history is so closely intertwined that—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. I have heard from each party on this point of order. If the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has something to add, I will entertain a brief comment.
[Interjection]
Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I was sitting behind the member for Beaches—East York. It was a wonderful and masterful speech, and it was worth reading from notes.
I should mention, though, that earlier today in question period the Minister of Industry read the same prepared notes, not once, not twice, not three times, but five times. Surely if that does not contravene the regulations of the House, it contravenes all decent humanity to have the same prepared text read five times in response to questions from this side.
[Interjection]
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, for what it is worth, I can appreciate, particularly with new members, that sometimes there is a need to read from a prepared speech. After all, this may be the first opportunity that many new members have had to speak in this assembly.
I would suggest that one way we could perhaps accommodate both sides of this discussion is that when members are speaking in this debate, which is a very important debate, that they be encouraged to read from prepared speeches written by their own hands rather than from CUPW.
[Interjection]
Mr. Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, if it pleases the House, I will apologize for the way I gave my speech. The finer distinctions between notes and a prepared speech have eluded me. However, I do understand the distinction between a lockout and a strike, I am pleased to say.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair is pleased that we were able to reach a resolution in this case.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry.
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am a little nervous about standing up after that. Thank goodness I did not write down my question.
There has been a lot of reference to emails received from constituents. I received a text from a constituent about 20 minutes ago, and that text said, “Hey, Daddy, are you still in the House of Commons?”.
This constituent is rather close to me, and I know she is watching right now, so I will say, yes, I am. I expect to be here for a long time because it is really important that we pass this piece of legislation.
There has been a lot of talk today from the NDP about threats to pensions. I would argue that the biggest threat to pensions in this country is the NDP platform. The NDP talks a lot about banks and oil companies, for example, and about other corporations wanting to raise their taxes by some 20% to 25%. That led to me want to do a bit of research. 
I wondered who the owners of these corporations are, and I went to the Canada Post pension website. I noticed that the top five holdings by the Canada Post pension are the Toronto Dominion Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural Resources. In fact, 15 of the top 25 holdings in the Canada Post pension are banks and oil companies. That is very interesting. That is $1.5 billion right there.
With the NDP platform promise to raise taxes by 20% to 25% on these pensions, how can the hon. member justify that to the pensioners?
[Interjection]
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of an NDP platform that called for the raising of taxes on pensions. I ran for many months to succeed in the election on May 2, and I am happy to report that I did succeed and that issue never arose. I was unaware that the issue is in fact a part of our platform.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House all day, engaged in this debate, and obviously this could go on for many hours. How much new light is being shed? I think there is very little light being shed.
 The NDP leader said in his comments that he would be proceeding with amendments. 
My question to my colleague is that we want to put people back to work, so why do we not go right to the amendments?
[Interjection]
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I am in the embarrassing position of having been shown to not understand House procedures very well. However, I do understand from previous discussions that now is not the appropriate time to have amendments to this legislation. That time is forthcoming, and we will look forward to hearing the amendments when that time arises.
Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the NDP's speeches tonight, and a couple of times I heard the term “right to strike” being used. In Canada there is no right to strike.
 In fact the Supreme Court ruled, in 2007, in a decision that was partly written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, that the fundamental charter right of freedom of association does not guarantee a right to strike but rather it guarantees a limited right to collective bargaining. That is a right of process rather than a substantive right to an actual outcome in terms of benefits and pay and the like.
I am wondering if the member would be able to clarify his party's record on that issue.
[Interjection]
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I completely understand the question and what record the member is referring to. He has made an observation on legal comments by a chief justice, and I am not in a position to take issue with his arguments.
 We most certainly do respect the fact that freedom of association is constitutionally enshrined in this country, and we do believe that the freedom of collective bargaining flows from that enshrined right.
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was a labour lawyer for 16 years and I also read a lot of cases from the Supreme Court of Canada. I would beg to differ with that last comment, that freedom of association does include the right to free collective bargaining.
As a matter of fact, one should read the Supreme Court of Canada case in the HEU decision, where the Government of British Columbia, a Liberal government made up of Conservatives, actually interfered in the collective bargaining process, interfered in a contract and ripped up negotiated settlements. It interfered, much like this government is interfering in the collective bargaining process, by trying to write a collective agreement for the parties and directly interfering in the free collective bargaining process. I would dare say that violates the Supreme Court of Canada dicta that I have read.
I wonder if my friend could comment on that.
[Interjection]
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the question that the member opposite had asked previously is really more a question of relevance. 
In my speech, read from notes as it may have been, I did remind the members opposite that we are in fact here dealing with a lockout and not a strike, raising the relevance in fact of the question.
In response to my colleague who is requesting a comment on this from me, I most certainly do believe that from freedom of association and the Constitution enshrinement of that freedom flows the right to free collective bargaining. Part and parcel of free collective bargaining is the right for workers to withhold their labour, which is in fact the right to strike.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member for Beaches—East York to the House of Commons. I think he did a pretty good job.
The issue this evening is Bill C-6. The fact is that after eight months of negotiation the two parties were not able to come to an agreement. There was a strike that went into a lockout. Canada Post is not providing the services that Canadians want, demand or need. The economic recovery is fragile.
Will the opposition party pass Bill C-6 in a timely manner so that Canadians can get the mail they expect when they expect it?
[Interjection]
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite refer to the issue of eight months of efforts to resolve the collective agreement. If the member had listened to my speech, he would have heard that it is no surprise to me that the parties were unable to resolve that dispute in light of what has happened here. The very point of my speech was to suggest that under the labour relations regime, free collective bargaining depends on predictability and the predictability of the parties having to solve this dispute among themselves through the labour relations regime.
The intervention of the government into this collective bargaining dispute and previous interventions of governments into labour disputes have removed the predictability of collective bargaining and made it very easy for employers to sit back and wait for governments to act in the fashion that they have done with Bill C-6 before us tonight.
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage in debate on this bill and the motion to take some time to consider more fully the implications of this bill. I think six months could be time well spent.
I think, had the government thought a little more about the implications of this action, it would not have gone down the road in such a headstrong fashion to trample on the rights of these workers.
I have heard a few themes throughout the day from members opposite. One of them is about big bad unions. They have talked about unions as if they are the devil incarnate. They have talked about them as if they were just plain bad.
I cannot comprehend this because I am sure there are a lot of women and men in their communities, in their constituencies, who through a democratic vote have decided to participate in a union, who have entered into a workplace where a union has been in place. Those constituents have realized a decent working wage, health benefits and perhaps a pension plan, if they are fortunate to be part of the 30% of Canadian workers who are lucky enough to participate in pensions. In other words, they are people who are benefiting from the rights and opportunities of bargaining collectively, of working together, of coming together to have some control within their workplace over wages, benefits and working conditions.
I do not see why any member of this House would want to argue against that. It is as though because people are in a group somehow that is negative as opposed to its being positive to be individuals. How could that be? That simply does not make any sense.
If members took the time to actually look into what kind of an organization a trade union is, they would actually recognize what I know having been a union member, that a union is one of the more democratic organizations in our society. The leadership is elected, not unlike political parties. Decisions and proper process of how that organization runs are set out in bylaws for all people to see. It inevitably has a constitution, which controls how that organization runs. The finances of the organization are completely public. The decision making within the organization is completely public. It has regular general meetings so that all members of the union can participate in the day-to-day activities of that organization.
 Because I have been involved in unions for many years, I know for sure that if one member is not happy with how that organization is being run, he or she comes to a meeting, the second Wednesday of every month or whatever it is that the particular union membership decides is going to be its regular meeting time, and the member has an opportunity to stand on the floor to raise those concerns. That is the way unions operate. When it comes to how the unions spend the dues, how they decide to prepare for bargaining, that is all decided by union members.
It is not unlike some other organizations, like political parties, where not everyone who is a member wants to participate in the day-to-day activities, and sometimes members are not happy with how things happen and they grumble and gripe about the decisions that are made but they are not prepared to take a couple of hours on the Wednesday night to go out and participate in those decisions. That happens. However, the important point is that decisions are made by a majority, just as they are in our elections, and the rest of the members of the group or of the constituency live with those results.
I will not speak for any other party in this chamber but, just like our party, the union does not represent just the people who vote for it or the people who participate in it. The union represents all members because its mandate is to be responsible for and to act responsibly on behalf of all the members of the union, to bargain better wages, better working conditions, and to act constructively on behalf of all members whether they participate or not.
I can understand to some extent, given the way the government has acted, that it may not understand that. What I tend to hear is that the government seems to think that if a particular jurisdiction does not have a Conservative member, then that jurisdiction is not going to get the goodies. If people do not have a government member elected in their particular province, then they are not going to see the kind of spoils of the electoral competition that others would. I would say that is completely wrong and our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has said on many occasions that our responsibility here is to look after the interests of all Canadians, and that is exactly what the NDP caucus has been doing.
 That is exactly the role that is played by unions in our society in Canada. It has been for 150 years. Unions have played an important role throughout this country in ensuring we have good social policy. That includes things like our pension, the Canada pension plan; employment insurance; the labour laws that ensure there is a standard work week and that people are not having to work seven days a week, that we do not have child labour, that we have some basic human rights in the workplace, that we have general health and safety, that people are protected and that they have the right to refuse. All of those basic protections that exist in all workplaces have largely resulted from the work by unions, and they have been doing that for 150 years in this country.
Again, I say to members opposite that I urge them not to think so negatively about unions and to recognize that, in fact, they consist of men and women and families who are out there working hard, trying to make their workplace better, trying to ensure they can provide for their families and working every day, tirelessly, to build their communities and make the lives of all Canadians better.
I must say further how concerned I am with a couple of other things that have been repeated by the government. There is this idea that the negotiations have gone on for eight months and that suddenly that is too long. I have been involved in public sector negotiations that have gone on for a couple of years, undoubtedly as a result of problems with both the employer and the union; that have gone on because of circumstances within a given jurisdiction. However, the parties keep negotiating. They keep working away. The parties continue to work to solve problems. Just because it has gone on for a certain period of time and the parties are beginning to apply some pressure to each other does not mean it is time to shut it all down, that we decide time is up and we are going to end this by stepping in. It is also setting a standard that is inappropriate. It is not up to the government to be setting that standard. It is for the parties to decide. 
In this instance, we know, if we have been paying any attention at all to the debate and to the interventions by the NDP caucus, the official opposition, that what transpired here is that the parties were having trouble coming to agreement on a number of issues and that the union instigated one of the tools in its toolbox, and it has a number of them. One of the union's tools, the ultimate weapon, is the right to strike. It did not use that, for whatever reason. I think it was largely because the union itself recognized that it was the ultimate weapon and it did not want to shut down postal services in this country completely because it understood that they were at the early stages in negotiations and the parties were still far apart. Therefore, there needed to be some efforts to bring the parties closer together, so the union began to employ tactics that were more subtle and it engaged in slowly rotating strikes.
We have heard from a number of our constituents. We have heard it here. It is in the record. Members opposite have been reading from their toys about communications they have had from their constituents where the constituents said they did not have a problem with the rotating strikes, the strike action that was happening. They did not have a problem with that, but they did have a problem when the crown corporation decided it was going to padlock the doors. 
That is when postal services completely ended. That is when the bills and the cheques stopped moving for the small businesses that everybody on the government side seems to talk about. That is when they were shut down, not when the union was employing its tactics. Postal services were shut down when management stepped in and put big padlocks on every single Canada Post workplace in this country. That is when things shut down. We have heard that again and again, so we understand that is what happened. 
One would think that the appropriate response to that shutdown would have been to take the padlocks off, open the doors and let the workers go back in and deliver the mail. Would that not have been the solution? Would that not have been the best way to do that?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. I would remind all hon. members that when people have the floor they have the floor. Some commentary takes place in this place, but it would appear we are going to be here for a long time so I would ask the co-operation of all members to respect their colleagues.
The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I did not hear anything coming from the gentleman. I do not mind a little noise. I appreciate that because it is important.
 Canadians have told us that the decorum of the House important. I know members of the official opposition are paying close attention to what Canadians said in order to conduct ourselves in that manner.
Let me get back to what I was saying. If Canada Post is causing the problem by having locked all the doors, then we would think someone in the government, the Prime Minister or the minister responsible, would pick up the phone and would tell to the head of the crown corporation, who earns about $650,000 a year, to take the locks off the doors, that we want to get the mail running, that our businesses, our communities, our charities and other organizations are dependent on the mail service.
However, that is not what the government does. I just do not understand. I am from Nova Scotia. We do things in a much more simple way there. We just get it done.
Maybe I am not paying attention. Maybe the government has other motives. I do not know. It is not like me to impugn the motives of the government, but one has to wonder. If the easy solution is to take the locks off, which is pretty simple, then why has the government come in with this big honking sledgehammer, bringing it down on the backs of working people?
Why is the government doing that? Why would we not think that this is just the first group, the first salvo? The government has come forward with legislation which imposes a collective agreement and a wage rate, which is less than the wage negotiated by the parties. It has set conditions for the arbitrator, for the final offer selection, which will have real implications on the solutions that will be found to deal with the issues of the pension.
I read the bill, and I am quite concerned about the parameters that it puts on the kind of solution that could be found for the pension.
 Again, the government is setting the parameters and conditions. It is telling the arbitrator, whoever that person might be, how he or she will go about finding the settlement.
Why is the government doing that? I do not know. Whose rights are next? Which organization or which group of people, which group of Canadians is the government going to point its finger at next, deciding it is its turn? That is my concern. That is the concern of working people across the country. It is not only working people, but representatives of other groups that the government does not necessarily support.
Some members opposite and in the corner have asked why the NDP members are talking so much. They want to go home. They have things they want to do this weekend. They want to play some golf. The members of this caucus are going to speak up on behalf of working people. That is why we are doing it.
Two days ago the member for London—Fanshawe brought in the resolution about raising seniors out of poverty. Who stood up in the House and argued for that? It was the NDP. 
In the campaign, who talked about affordability issues? Who talked about strengthening and expanding the health care system in our country? Who is trying to reduce the costs of drugs for seniors? It is this opposition party. 
That is why we are doing this. We are doing this to speak up on behalf of people who are under attack by the Conservative government. 
Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, which is probably a good thing, but the hon. member opposite indicated that there was a right to strike. Just for the record, I do not believe that is correct. I believe there is a right to bargain and bargain in good faith. 
Why are all members of the House here? There seems to be a simple answer. Recent polls indicate that 70% of Canadians support back to work legislation to end this costly, disruptive, crippling work stoppage that is presently going on. 
Could the hon. member opposite explain to all members and to all Canadians why his party is not on the same wavelength and in agreement with the Canadians who want Canada Post to get back to work and who want this work stoppage to end? Why do we have all this rhetoric about all the wonderful things the NDP has done? Let us get the right thing done and get people back to work. 
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to this place, and as I carry out my responsibilities in the House, before I stand to speak about an issue, I do not check to see what the latest pole indicates. I do not check the wind to find out what is going on. 
I look into my heart and I ask myself if there are people under attack, or people who do not have a voice or people who are vulnerable. Those are the ones for whom I will speak up. 
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's statement and I especially appreciated his comments about the democratic principles on which unions are founded. I think this is an extremely important point worth making.
We do not talk enough about the fact that abuse is heaped on unions for truly debatable reasons.The inner workings of a union are completely disregarded.
I would like my colleague to tell us how a union lives up to its democratic principles and how it operates in the same way that companies do when they hold shareholder meetings. They talk about defending a company's right to conduct business, whereas we are defending union rights.
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I spent many years as a part of unions, working for them and studying them. It amazes me the process that those organizations go through, oftentimes to the peril of the leadership, but they do these things because they are democratic. People have the opportunity to participate in decisions all the way along.
I appreciate having this opportunity, but the Canadian unions such as the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which represents the workers at Canada Post, are involved in solidarity efforts with its sisters and brothers in the southern hemisphere for workers' rights and human rights for those who live nowhere near Ottawa or Canada. They and their members believe in the principle of solidarity of human rights and protecting working people around the globe. 
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite, a fellow Nova Scotian. I grew up in a community not unlike his. There were a lot of coal miners and unions and they did a lot of good work.
NDP members have wrapped their arms around working people. I have heard numerous references throughout the debate this evening to working people. I have a very simple question for my colleague from Nova Scotia, who has a fine bit of that maritime lilt and lots of great rhetoric and fiery emotion and passion tonight.
I assure him that there is no ownership in working people in any party in the country. A lot of working people are being affected by this strike, which he will be the first to admit. Small businesses, seniors, individuals count on the mail every day for their very livelihoods and those of their families, to receive EI cheques, something very fundamental to a lot of people in Atlantic Canada.
I very sincerely ask the member opposite this. What does he say to those working people and how long should this dispute have gone on? As a former union member, he has probably been involved in similar situations where these long, protracted disputes cause tremendous hardship on all sides. Eight months is a very long time. We are hearing that a lot of union members themselves are anxious to get back on the job.
How long and what about the working people suffering as a result of the strike?
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, the minister lives in an important part of the province of Nova Scotia that has a long and proud history, not only of work but of labour relations, trade and so on.
We are not claiming to be the only ones who represent working people. All we are saying is that members should open their ears, talk to their constituents, working people who vote for them such as union members. I know the people who vote for the member opposite. They are union members as well. They have some rights and interests and they are being harmed. 
The minister knows I come from a proud small business background in the valley, the Conservative valley, I might add. Therefore, I am very sensitive to the desires and concerns of the small business community. That is why I saying the government should take the padlocks off those doors and let the postal service resume. Get those guys back to work. That is all it has to do. The government locked the doors. Get them back to work.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what are the workers in Nova Scotia saying about the Conservative government and the Minister of National Defence, who also said he represents the workers? In the bill the government wants to give less of an increase in wages in the collective agreement than what the crown corporation was ready to give. The government says that it does not get involved in crown corporations, but in the bill it presented to the House it government would give less than what the crown corporation offered.
 What do you think is wrong with the government and why does it hate the workers so much?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to the hon. member, I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments, questions and answers to the Chair.
The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer why the member feels the government hates workers, although its actions seem to suggest that.
I received a couple of texts from workers in my community. One said that he appreciated the rights of the workers, but asked about the small businesses. I told him what happened and that the NDP was asking the government to take the locks off. He replied and said, “Good for you and good for the NDP caucus for standing up on behalf of working people and small businesses”.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate following the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He is a very eloquent speaker.
My voice may be a bit hoarse at 1:00 a.m., and although our voices may be a bit hoarse and our throats a bit irritated, our voices will not be still in the House of Commons in standing up for the working people of this country.
I have a different background than that of the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He spoke very proudly about his labour and union involvement. I have never been a member of a labour union although I was active as a manual worker. I worked in factories, but always non-union. I went back to school and became an administrator. I have negotiated collective agreements, but I have always done that from the side of management. I have been an operator of businesses and have won two Business Excellence Awards in 2003 and 2004. I understand from the business point of view the essential nature of having free collective bargaining and allowing unions, the workers and management to work together to resolve those issues. 
However, this is not a case of free and fair collective bargaining. In fact, this is the opposite case. This is why members of the NDP caucus are standing up in the House of Commons at 1:00 in the morning saying that this is wrong. The government should be taking the locks off where the workers have been locked out, get the mail system working and let the union and management negotiate that collective agreement that so many Canadians want to see.
I would like to pay tribute to the diversity of the new official opposition NDP caucus. We have people in the House with various backgrounds: small business, management, nurses, doctors, lawyers and trades. We have a diversity in this caucus that has never been seen before in the House of Commons. That allows us to bring a depth and breadth of experience to bear in this debate in the House of Commons.
I must say that the lack of experience on the government side on the issue of collective bargaining shows through in the debate we have had thus far this evening. At my count, and I certainly have not been here for every moment of the debate, but at least two dozen Conservative members of Parliament, including members of cabinet, referred to the situation at Canada Post as a strike when it is a lockout. It is obvious from their lack of experience that they do not comprehend the difference between a lockout and a strike.
A strike is when workers refuse to do the work. A lockout is when management locks the doors. What has happened here is that management has locked the doors. The leader of the NDP and members of the NDP caucus are asking that the locks be taken off and get the mail moving. That is why we are here tonight.
I do not mean that in an unkind way, but this shows the lack of experience and diversity in the Conservative caucus. It has one or two members with any sort of labour background. However, and this is very important, we are talking about one-third of households in Canada where there is a breadwinner from organized labour, workers who have come together collectively to organize in the workplace. 
That is an essential component of any democracy. If we do not have the ability to collectively bargain and join a labour union, then we are not in a democracy. That is a fundamental democratic principle that so many Canadians hold dear. One of the essential elements in collective bargaining is the balance, the equilibrium between management and labour. To come to that common agreement we need honest and sincere negotiations. 
That has not happened in this case. Despite the government's speaking notes and unlike the diversity of opinions we have heard from the NDP caucus this evening, members of Parliament coming to this place to debate this issue from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, we have heard the same comments from Conservative members of Parliament, comments that are factually wrong in calling a strike a lockout when there is a fundamental difference between the two, but also saying that this has been some kind of eight month protracted negotiation.
We know that is false. We know that the workers at Canada Post have sincerely tried to come to an agreement, have tried to negotiate and what we have seen is bad faith from Canada Post. There is no other way to put it.
The workers have a 94% mandate and, despite the occasional email we have heard Conservative MPs read tonight, it is quite obvious with a 94% mandate that Canada Post workers are very solid on this issue of negotiating with management. Despite all of that, management simply refused to negotiate in good faith with the workers and then it systematically shut down the mail system. First, it shut down operations for two days a week, denying mail service to Canadians. The response from the people who work at Canada Post, the letter carriers who deliver our mail, the person who walks up the 30 steps to my house on the top of the hill on Glover Avenue and then walks down, the response of the letter carriers and the mail sorters was that essential services would be continued and that seniors' cheques would continue to be delivered. Management then played its hand by shutting down the entire system.
There should have been a mature informed response, but given the fact that there is no diversity on the Conservative side and the government does not understand that there is that balance in Canadian democracy, what we saw instead, as my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said, is basically a sledgehammer, a piece of enforced legislation that rips up any sort of collective bargaining process and imposes on the workers at Canada Post the government's direction in this regard.
What does the government do? The first thing the government did was to impose a wage reduction. Any increase has to be evaluated against the current inflation rate. This is something that makes me and other colleagues in the NDP caucus apoplectic. There is an ignorance on the Conservative side of the House about the difference between the inflation rate and a real increase. If there is a 2% increase and the inflation rate is 3%, any member on the NDP side of the House would say that is a net reduction of 1%. The Conservatives are saying that is some kind of wage increase when indeed it is actually a wage reduction in real terms.
This is imposed by the government on the 50,000 letter carriers and mail sorters across the country, people who are hard-pressed to make ends meets. The government is going to make mandatory an imposed reduction in salary, year after year, after year. That is the first difficulty that I have with this government imposed interference in collective bargaining. This is highly inappropriate and if the Conservative caucus had the diversity of the NDP caucus, the government would have thought twice before wading into this matter in such an irresponsible way.
Second, there is the issue of pensions. As we know, the enforced differential that the Conservative government is bringing in also has profound impacts on pensions. On this side of the House, the NDP fought for pensions. Our predecessors, perhaps in another corner of the House when we had a smaller CCF caucus, originated the idea that was radical at the time and denounced by Conservatives and Liberals, that working people should actually have the right to a pension and that they should actually at the end of their working lives be able to somehow profit from those lives of working and have pensions paid to them.
It was the NDP that fought for that. We were denounced. We were vilified by Conservatives and Liberals but we persevered, working with working people from across this country and pensions are accepted now as something to the benefit of Canadian citizens.
We fought for public medicare. We fought for employment insurance. Each one of those fights had the same rhetoric from the other side and we won each one of those fights because there is nothing more dedicated than a New Democratic Party member of Parliament. We will not stop. Our voices will not be silenced until we succeed in building the kind of society that all Canadians want to see.
The pension element of this Conservative sledgehammer on the letter carriers and on the mail sorters at Canada Post means that for many of the younger people joining Canada Post, they cannot hope to retire at 65. They may be retiring much, much later and they will be retiring at a much smaller pension.
At a time when hundreds of thousands of seniors in this country are living below the poverty line, for the government to impose a forced poverty on those young people joining Canada Post is highly irresponsible. There is no other way to put it.
The third element is what the Conservative government wants to do to younger people. We know that Tory times are tough times, particularly for younger Canadians. Perhaps one reason why there are now two dozen members of our caucus who are younger Canadians is because younger Canadians are finding their voice, that the kinds of policies that are driving down wages, that are driving down opportunities, that are eliminating pensions later on, that are creating the highest level of student debt in our history, particularly in my province of British Columbia, that all of those policies work against young people. 
This proposal being enforced, this sledgehammer, by the government makes sure that those younger Canadians or new Canadians who join the postal service will permanently work at lower wages and can never hope to have the kind of retirement security that all of us want to see.
Those are three reasons why we oppose this legislation. It is inappropriate, irresponsible and had the government been well informed, had the government the diversity of our caucus, the government would not have done that.
There may be another reason behind it. My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour asked the question that perhaps this is ideologically driven.
Mr. Joe Comartin:  I'm shocked.
Peter Julian:  The member for Windsor—Tecumseh says he is shocked.
We all remember the events leading up to May 2. We all remember the orange surge in many parts of this country. Perhaps it was just a reaction by the Conservative Prime Minister, but at the time he said we should not worry, that he would be moderate in his actions if elected prime minister. This is a very immoderate action. This is an action that profoundly hurts 50,000 families across the country, working people, people who have worked for the postal service, have served their country and are being treated, in my opinion, in a most disrespectful way.
One could say that this is another example of what increasingly seems to be a very radical agenda by the government, to wade into the collective bargaining process, as it tried to do with Air Canada, to bring in elements that are highly inappropriate, to penalize working people for the actions of what can only be described as poor management practices at Canada Post. We believe there could be a very strong, ideological component to what the government is trying to do tonight and it is highly inappropriate.
I would like to address the broader issue that my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour also addressed, which is, who is next? The precedent this sets is simply one that we cannot accept. The idea that younger Canadians must be paid a much lower wage rate, that pensions must become even lower for those who are entering the workforce in the coming years, the idea that somehow, year after year, public servants--that is the best way to describe them--who work for Canada Post, who deliver our mail every day, who sort our mail every day, should be subject to what is a net 1% reduction in salary each and every year of this imposed sledgehammer agreement, those are things that we fundamentally disagree with, because what we are seeing is an impact on the middle class right across the country. These kinds of policies are attacking the Canadian middle class. We have seen an erosion of our middle class throughout this Conservative mandate. Canadians in the middle class are earning less. Canadians in the middle class have seen their debt loads almost double over the last few years. Canadians in the middle class are working longer and longer hours and are being paid less and less.
It is the equalizer of free collective bargaining, the ability to join a union, that has often made the difference in the growth of our middle class in the past. There is only one way to describe it. The spectacular speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Toronto—Danforth, earlier tonight paid tribute to the historic role the labour movement has played in building our country and in building our middle class.
We want to make sure that the middle class in Canada is prosperous. We want to make sure that the system of checks and balances that comes from a labour movement interacting with management is preserved, that the fundamentals we heard earlier from the member for Beaches—East York in what was a fascinating examination of collective bargaining and the importance of that fundamental balance, which is somewhat lost on some members of the Conservative Party--those kinds of elements are vitally important.
We have seen the erosion and the erosion has to stop. The idea that mean-spirited policies that benefit very few at the price of many is something that we are fundamentally opposed to. 
There is no doubt that what this legislation does is reward bad management practices. It rewards management that has not actively engaged in sincere labour negotiations. What it does is give them a blank cheque. It fundamentally erodes collective bargaining rights. It hurts 50,000 working families, and, more importantly, each and every year of this imposed sledgehammer will hurt further thousands of Canadians.
This is a fundamental principle. In our party the reason we have grown from 13 members to 19 members, to 29 members, to 36 members, to 103 members of Parliament is because working families across the country trust us when we say what we need to do is build the kind of Canada where everybody matters, where nobody is left behind, and where that balance is maintained and our middle class can grow and poor Canadians can be lifted out of poverty. Those are the principles that we bring to the House of Commons. That is why this caucus is fighting so terrifically this evening for the rights of working Canadians. 
We will continue to do so because it is right for our country. That is why we are here, and we will not stop. Our voices will not be silent until the government hears reason.
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I want to take issue not necessarily with the comments made recently by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but with many of the comments that I have heard from others in the NDP this evening during debate, particularly the comments about members on the government side being anti-union. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is well documented.
 The Minister of Labour's father was a very active member of the CAW. In my own case, my father was a high-ranking official with the United Steel Workers of America. In fact, Ken Neumann, the current head of the Canadian chapter of the United Steel Workers of America, freely admits that he learned his trade at the feet of my father. My father was his mentor. I see Ken Neumann quite frequently and we talk on very friendly terms. I can assure members opposite, even the member for Acadie—Bathurst who wants to heckle because he does not want to hear the truth, that this government is not anti-union. 
What we are saying, however, is that the NDP are propagating a myth tonight when they say they are representing working people. They are not. They are representing the views of union people.
There are millions of working people in Canada who want to see back-to-work legislation. It is fine for NDP members to represent unions and union workers, but would they admit the fact that they are representing a narrow perspective of views from union workers across Canada and not the wider range of Canadians? That is our role. That is what we will continue to do.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words, and the Conservative government is using a sledgehammer against working families today. There is no doubt about that.
I am a long-time member of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce. I am a proud member of the Burnaby Board of Trade. I have worked with small businesses all my life. Small business people understand that a strong labour movement means a healthy balance in the community. It means that more of the benefits of the industries that are in communities stay in those communities, recirculate through the community. That helps small businesses.
To say that it is only a third of the country where there is a breadwinner in the household who support the fundamental principles of collective bargaining, I can only fundamentally disagree. 
All progressive Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand the key role that is played when we have that balance, when working people have the ability to organize collectively, to bargain collective agreements, and to ensure that the benefits of the industry stay in the community. That is something most Canadians understand. I wish Conservative MPs did too.
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from the NDP with great interest. He said his party went from 12 members to 103. That is indeed a remarkable feat, but a reverse process can also happen.
I wonder if my colleague could tell me how much this is really costing us to be here tonight and to have this process. There is no way we are going to win against the Conservative Party. They outnumber us; they have 167 members.
It has come to my attention that the NDP has collective agreements with its staff. If I am not mistaken, and I stand to be corrected, something did not happen and they have not come to an agreement for a number of years.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I am proud and happy to hear the member for Scarborough—Agincourt speak about the idea of a reverse process. Our party has grown from 13 members to 103 members. I understand he is an authority on the reverse process, going from 174 members to 34. I would be very pleased to hear his comments about that. The way to avoid that reverse process is to be sincere and to work hard. 
I have been in the House for seven years. I have never in those seven years seen an official opposition willing to stand up to the government on bad policies or bad laws like the NDP caucus, 103 strong. 
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for an excellent presentation, as always. The passion that he shows is genuine.
I want to go back to one issue he talked about and that is the lockout.
 In question period on Wednesday I noticed that the Prime Minister said the wage increase in the government's bill is similar to that of other public servants. I think that was a slip of the tongue because the next day he said the wage increase is like that of civil servants. I really think he is talking about employees in the post office as being civil servants. If they are civil servants, then he is their boss. The Prime Minister, the head of the government, is the boss of civil servants. Why can he not take responsibility for the insidious lockout that is taking place in the postal service?
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Western Arctic for his question. He adds a great deal to the debate, and always has since he first joined this House in 2006.
I believe he is absolutely right. The Prime Minister and the government treat postal workers as if they are the bosses. What we have seen are bad management practices that the government is now reinforcing. It is sending the message out that if you do not bargain in a sincere manner, if you do not put things out--as a former management negotiator, I can tell you, you have to be sincere and get things out to get an agreement made. There is no falsifying. There is no hiding. When you are talking about collective agreement negotiations, you have to be sincere, you have to be honest, and you have to be forthright.
The member for Western Arctic will gather from my comments that we are not seeing those kinds of abilities on the government side of the House. They do not seem to be able to approach the whole process of collective bargaining in the way it needs to be approached: honest, transparent, forthright. That is why we are in the situation we are in now. We are saying to the government, take the locks off, let us get the postal system working, and let us have a real arbitration or collective negotiation that allows this issue to be resolved.
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, having just listened to his answer, he seems to be willing to offer some advice. I wonder if the advice on negotiating contracts that he might give to us is the example of the member from Hamilton Centre, which I referenced earlier. What the NDP did to the workers the last time it had the opportunity to govern in the province of Ontario for five long, dark, miserable years was this: it allowed them to negotiate a collective agreement and then said, “Forget it. We are going to rip that agreement up. We are going to cut your pay and we are going to force you to take 12 days off a year. We are going to take $1.9 billion out of the pockets of 30,000 civil servants unilaterally, we are going to call them Rae Days, and everybody is going to be very happy.”
Now the hon. member might not have heard because he lives 30 stairs up a mountain and deep back into the side of a hill. He might not have known that this is what was going on in Ontario at the time with an NDP government. I am wondering if that is the type of example and if these are some of the amendments that we are waiting for. Perhaps the member from Hamilton Centre might advise the member on how they negotiated with workers, the respect they had with the workers when they unilaterally—
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I live up a hill; I do not live in a cave. That is why I am so pleased to respond to the member's question, which is about NDP provincial governments.
Every year the federal Ministry of Finance, which certainly is not in any way an NDP sympathizer, publishes an annual compendium of which governments are best at managing money and paying down debt. For 20 years, year after year, the federal Ministry of Finance says the best party for managing the people's money in Canada is the NDP. That is the best provincial government in Canada.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise at this austere hour and speak on an issue that I think is of profound importance, not only to the people of this chamber, not only to the women and men who are affected by this legislation at Canada Post, but also to all Canadians who believe in fairness, who believe in human rights, and who want a country where we have a thriving middle class as the backbone of this economy.
I would ask a little bit of indulgence from my colleagues in the House to quote from a piece of paper that I think is very instructive.
[Interjection]
Ms. Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. There is so much noise across the way I cannot hear my colleague who is immediately adjacent to me speak.
The Deputy Speaker: I have just come to the chair. This is a very intense debate and I would ask hon. members to moderate their comments and listen to each other.
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, I would point out that I have been listening quietly to all of my colleagues who are talking and would ask that they extend the same courtesy to me when I am speaking and have decorum in the House of Commons.
I want to quote from something which I think would be instructive for all of us here. There is a saying that those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. The title of this document is, “Postal Workers Organizing: A Look Across A Century”, 1900 to 2000. It says:
 The first postal clerks' association was formed locally in Vancouver in 1911. 
 I am very proud to represent Vancouver Kingsway, the birthplace of the first postal clerks association. It goes on:
 It soon added branches in the Atlantic, and by 1917, the Dominion Postal Clerks Association (DPCA) had branches across the country. 
It describes the post office working conditions at the time:
 When one looks at the working conditions prevailing during this period, it's no wonder the postal associations soon tired of begging and petitioning for improvements. Post office workers often work 60 to 70 hour work weeks with no overtime provisions. 
 If a train was late, postal clerks might have to come to work in the middle of the night. Letter carriers were forced to wait around until the mail was ready for delivery. At Christmas, the work day had no limit. And for this, they received very poor wages. 
 These circumstances came to a head in 1918, when FALC, after failing to convince the government to appoint a conciliation board to establish regulated collective agreement conditions, called a strike. It was strongest in the West, Toronto and Hamilton. 
 By the way we have fine representatives in those areas who continue to this day to fight for working people in this country.
 The document goes on to say:
 By the end of the 10-day strike, letter carriers, clerks, railway mail clerks and porters...were all on strike west of the Great Lakes. 
 The first national civil service strike ended with a huge victory. Postal workers won a 44-hour week, overtime pay, salary increases, no discrimination against strikers and a Civil Service Commission of Inquiry into working conditions at the Post Office. 
Who today would quarrel with any of those victories?
That came from brave and courageous women and men who stood up to governments like this one, to people who would take away their right to strike, and look at what they were striking for: a 44-hour work week, overtime pay, rest between shifts.
Moving forward to 1965, the document says:
 The year 1965 was a turning point, a defining moment in the history of post office workers. In July, the government-- 
--I think it was a Liberal government at that time--
 --announced in proposed legislation a rejection of the right to strike for government workers and a wage increase of less than half of the union's bottom line. 
A strike ensued which lasted for two weeks in Montreal and a shorter period in other locations.They were rotating strikes.
 The immediate results of the strike included: 
 - wage increases 
 - no reprisals against strikers 
 - a Royal Commission into working conditions, headed by Judge Montpetit 
 - the inclusion of the right to strike in the new federal public sector labour legislation. 
I would also point out that the leaders of all three postal workers brotherhood unions failing to back the strike lost their positions.
There has been some talk here about whether or not there is a right to strike. It is true there is no right to strike that is implicit in the freedom of association provision of the charter. However, it is true that under the Canada Labour Code trade unions that are certified or voluntarily recognized under that agreement who go through the legal provisions can put themselves into a legal strike position and when they do so, they are validly on strike. That is the case with CUPW today.
We are not arguing whether or not there is a theoretical juridical right to strike. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Come on, Don.
Don Davies:  We are talking about a union that is legally on strike. If the government thinks the union ought not to be on strike, then it should have the guts to go to court and challenge that.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  They're locked out.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, I sit quietly while they speak and I would ask them to do the same. 
The right to bargain collectively has been talked about in this House as well. That right is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also guaranteed in international conventions to which this country is a signatory. Therefore, those international conventions are binding upon this country.
The concept of bargaining collectively is about free collective bargaining. This is where it gets interesting and challenging for the government. Free collective bargaining involves negotiations between two private parties. It recognizes each party's right to sit down and negotiate a private collective agreement. A collective agreement is a contract. Collective bargaining is governed by Canadian contract law. The right of two parties to sit down in this country face to face and freely bargain a contract is something I would think the Conservatives would support. 
The Conservatives claim to support private enterprise and the right of people to freely contract in this country. If the Conservatives believe that, then they have no choice but to allow a private enterprise which is a crown corporation, an arm's-length entity from the government, to sit down with another private entity, a trade union, and respect their right to bargain the terms and conditions of their relationship unmolested by government, without having the heavy hand of government imposing a settlement on them. I do not think the Conservatives would tolerate for one moment government intervening in two businesses that were bargaining a sales contract. If they truly believe in the freedom to contract, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. They must be consistent, but the Conservatives are not and this legislation shows that very clearly.
The law clearly recognizes that government has no right to intervene in free collective bargaining except in two circumstances. One is essential services. One of the members over there, who I understand used to work for the police force, would understand that. I think it is why he erroneously thought there was no right to strike, because that is true for essential services. Legislatively, very often the right to strike is legally prohibited for a reason. We cannot have our police on strike. We cannot have our medical staff in emergency rooms, sometimes firefighters, paramedics on strike. Those sorts of groups often cannot strike.
 The second exception to the right to strike is when a strike reaches a point that the health and safety of the public is threatened. That situation usually demands that a party wait until it has evidence. It can go before a labour relations board to establish that fact.
I would respectfully submit that neither of those situations is the case here.
I want to talk about the strike. From what I have heard from the members opposite, I think they fundamentally misconstrue and misunderstand the purpose and the nature of a strike or a lockout. Once again, not to belabour the point, we are not talking about a strike situation but about a lockout. However, what I am about to say would apply equally to both situations.
Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation. It involves a gradual increase of pressure. There are graduated measured processes taken that are calculated toward urging the parties toward agreement. These can involve things like taking a strike vote. The union will leave the bargaining table, canvass its members and come back to the table with a strike mandate and that will indicate to the employer how much support it has. It usually indicates to the employer that perhaps it has to change its position.
The employer can invoke a final offer process where it can present a final offer to the union and force a vote on that final offer. That also can force pressure on the union to change its position at the bargaining table. There can be work to rule where a union will not declare a strike but will work exactly according to the terms of the collective agreement as a precursor to taking strike action. There can be rotating strikes which are short of a full strike. Each one of these graduated steps is part of the acknowledged process of collective bargaining. Ultimately there is a strike or lockout.
The very purpose of a strike or lockout is to cause hardship. It is the ultimate weapon to exert maximum economic, political and social pressure on the other party. The government seems to think that only strikes that have no consequences for anybody ought to be allowed, that only strikes that do not cause hardship ought to be permitted.
 The government would tolerate strikes only if they were ineffective. That misconstrues the very purpose of a strike. It denies workers whose labour actually has an impact on the community around them the right to strike. It leaves the right to strike to groups that have little economic power. There are a couple of examples that illustrate that very starkly in this country. 
One example I do not think anybody would remember, except for my hon. colleagues from Alberta, is the strike in Edmonton during the 1980s. Workers at the woodworking plant, Zeidler, went on strike. That strike went on for eight years. Why? No government ordered them back to work. No government ordered the employer to get back to the table. No government sent it to binding arbitration or final offer selection to result in a collective agreement. Why? The Zeidler workers were a small marginalized group and did not have an impact on anybody else. In that case, the government let the workers suffer. Of course, many members on the opposite side would have been totally in favour of that.
Just last year at Vale Inco, workers in Canada were subjected to the actions of a billion dollar multinational corporation and they went on strike for a year. Did the government send them back to work? No. Why? Because the employer had billions of dollars and could easily go through that strike. A small community with hundreds families suffered intensely from that strike but that was okay. 
In the present case, the withdrawal of services, I would argue, was being done in a tempered and managed manner by the union, but when it started to exert some pressure, the government panicked. It said that the workers had to go back to work right away as they were causing pressure. Talk about a one-sided application of the strike and lockout weapon.
When unions have gone on strike, or when they have pressured the employers, what have they done it for? I could do much more research, but I have a short list of some things unions have fought for over the last century and obtained for Canadian people: minimum wages; paid vacations; minimum periods of time off between shifts, including the weekend; paid statutory holidays; parental leave; occupational health and safety committees and safety standards; pensions; health and welfare plans, including dental, eye care and prescription plans. 
These are the things unions go on strike for. Very often it is small groups of people who sacrifice their own financial interests for the betterment of groups as a whole. All Canadian families have benefited from these brave men and women, and they are going to benefit from the brave actions of the CUPW workers today as well. 
When we talk about interference in the collective bargaining process, the government would be aghast at anybody interfering with the contractual relations between two private actors, but it is quick to jump in and do it when a union is involved. Let us look at the government's interference.
 Not only did the government jump in and interfere, it started contracting for one of the parties. The government has put in this legislation lower wages than management was prepared to pay. How can that be justified? A private contract is being written by the state. Holy mackerel, they are a bunch of socialists over on that side. I have not heard one single justification for that from the members opposite.
I also want to talk about our colleagues in the Liberal Party because, of course, their position changes depending on the week, month, year or decade. I will be careful. I will just tell the truth.
In 1997 the Liberal Party brought in the same kind of legislation that is currently before the House. It ordered CUPW workers back to work and imposed wages on them. It is quite interesting to hear Liberals talk about this legislation.
And that is not the only time. It is a shameful history, because in 1965 the Liberal government proposed legislation that would strip all government workers of the right to strike, period. I hesitate to bring that up, because given that this Conservative government has copied what the Liberals did in 1997, I certainly do not want it to copy what the Liberals did in 1965. I want to be careful there.
In 1993 the Liberals fired 10,000 part-time advertising mail workers, the largest single layoff in Canadian history, and they handed over unaddressed advertising mail to the private sector. I think Canadians should know that when they see the Liberals stand up and try to pretend that they are actually on the side of workers in this dispute.
I also want to talk a little bit about what is on the table and what is at risk by this legislation. We have a proposal by Canada Post to treat new hires completely differently. They want to have two tiers of workers, where new workers who are hired receive 18% less wages than the current employees, where they have to work five years longer before they are eligible for retirement, where they join a defined contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan. Do honourable members know what a defined contribution plan is? It is not a pension, it is an RSP; that is what it is. There is no guarantee of any kind of pension amount when an individual retires, and the entire risk of the pension plan is on the workers, none on the employer. And there are reduced benefits on retirement as well.
I also want to talk about what is at stake in terms of pensions, which are of interest to all Canadians, because retirement security is very important. There is a two-tier plan here once again, and this is something workers are fighting for. They are fighting for their retirement security.
This government has bragged about its creation of jobs. It brags about the number of jobs it has created, about its fiscal performance. I note that it always compares it to July 2009, which is the trough of the recession, and then it compares how many jobs have been created from then. But it is the lack of quality jobs that is important, because what has been created in that time are part-time, temporary, and usually service sector jobs. We should ask Canadians, are there more, better, family-sustaining career jobs today than there were in 2006, when the government was elected? I would argue that is absolutely not the case. 
The kinds of jobs that Canada Post is proposing here--lower wages, reduced pensions, longer working till retirement--are these the kinds of jobs the government is bragging about creating? What a legacy to offer the young generation, to offer poorer jobs on which they cannot raise their families.
I come from Vancouver, where the average price of a house in east Vancouver is $850,000, where a two-bedroom apartment rents for $1,200 a month, and where the median income in my riding is $43,000, total household income. And this government wants to create more jobs to have reduced standards? That is not the way to create a healthy economy.
The way to build a healthy economy in this country is to have strong, family-sustaining, middle-class jobs with dental plans, pensions, medical plans, and job protection, jobs on which an individual can raise a family and maybe take a vacation once a year and actually be able to buy some goods and services in the community and support the business sector that this government claims to support.
 If we do not have a strong working and middle class in this country, we do not have a strong economy. I wish this government would start to understand that.
Steven Fletcher: Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and I have to say that the government is trying to bring together two parties that have been unable to reach an agreement. That has been demonstrated over the last eight months. The union went on strike, which caused huge problems for Canada Post. Canada Post then had a lockout. The labour minister has gone to extraordinary lengths to try to bring the two parties together. She has not been able to do so. 
The same economy that the member espouses is experiencing great harm. Small businesses are experiencing great harm, particularly in rural and remote communities in the north. Individuals are not able to get their mail. Things that keep our country together are not being delivered.
Will the member stand up and support the government and its legislation to bring all the parties together and get our economy going again? Will the member support the government's initiative in a timely manner?
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, what my honourable colleague left out is the fact that Canada Post locked out the workers. He fails to mention that the union offered to go back to work and back to the bargaining table if the corporation agreed to operate under the expired collective agreement, and the corporation refused. That would have allowed the mail to be delivered.
I cannot think of a more reasonable position for the union to have taken than that, but it was rejected by the employer. Of course it is no surprise it would be rejected by the employer, because there is no incentive for the employer to bargain in good faith with the union, since it knows the government has already said it will order workers back to work and give them lower wages than management has already put on the table. Where is the incentive for the employer to get back to the table?
I want to conclude by saying that a disturbing pattern is emerging in my time in Parliament. When I was elected in 2008, the first thing this government did was attack the public sector by attacking pay equity and rolling back negotiated wage settlements with the public sector. It also, by the way, reneged on its promise to pay RCMP officers the promised wage increases it claimed it would during the campaign.
When the Conservatives were re-elected in 2011, what was the first thing they did? They brought in draconian back-to-work legislation and attacked CUPW. 
It is very important that we stand up against this attack on workers' rights in Canada.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Madam Speaker, even though I am two hours late, I want to wish everyone a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. 
We are faced with a bizarre situation. Under the current government, Canada is the only country in the world where the money saved to stave off poverty in retirement is considered a nuisance.
That impression is so deeply ingrained among government MPs that the following question seems relevant: once the most powerful, the oldest, the most active, the most modern and the most democratic of Canadian unions has lost its right to a defined benefit pension plan, what will happen to the rest of the Canadian population?
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is one of the reasons the NDP official opposition is taking this issue so seriously. There is a principle that what happens to one can happen to all. New Democrats believe it is very important on the official opposition side of the House that protecting the rights of workers in every situation is important. 
Rights cannot be carved up. Rights either apply to all Canadians or they apply to nobody. It is very important that we recognize that and stand up for these rights, because if this government can unfairly attack the collective bargaining rights of CUPW workers, as has been pointed out by many of my colleagues, they can do it to anybody.
I want to conclude by providing a couple of facts, lest anybody thinks that Canada Post cannot afford this agreement. The Canada Post group recorded its 15th consecutive year of profitability, and its income before taxes in the last year we have figures for, 2009, was $319 million, an increase of $253 million from the previous year. At the bargaining table, of course unions have to be sensitive to the economic situation of the employer, but in this case the employer is on a sound financial footing.
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, the debate has been going on for a while and many points have been made and made again. We have talked a great deal in broad generalities, and in order to move this debate ahead we should try to at least throw out some specifics, whether it is suggestions, ideas, or amendments. I know New Democrats have not wanted to go where amendments have gone before, but we should at least be talking about some generalities.
At the outset of the minister's presentation she gave a bit of a chronology, saying the contract lapsed January 31 and she appointed a mediator and she went through the sequence of events through to the tabling of the legislation. 
That being said, when does one bring in the arbitrator, and when does one not bring in the arbitrator? We know the NDP has unionized staff, and we know they are currently without a contract. We also know that their last contract was served by arbitration. When is the perfect time to bring in an arbitrator?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I ask for a little bit of order, please, in the House. This is a difficult issue, but I hope the debate can continue respectfully.
The hon. member for Vancouver—Kingsway.
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, the real question is when are the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party going to actually respect their workers that they employ on the Hill here and voluntarily recognize the union to bargain for them to improve their conditions? 
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: What about you guys?
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, there is a lot of cat-calling from the third party behind us, so I will elucidate for them.
 The collective agreement that we have expired in March, and we are currently in collective bargaining, if that makes any sense to them. I would just urge them to start collective bargaining with their own employees. That would be a nice start.
What is very interesting as well and what is of interest to Canadians is the comparative price of the postal service in this country. Canadians enjoy one of the lowest prices for mail delivery of any country. To compare by the 20-gram rate in U.S. dollars, the U.S. is at 42¢; Canada is at 52¢; the U.K. is at 72¢; Japan is at 77¢; Germany is at 87¢; France is at 87¢; Austria is at 87¢; Sweden is at 93¢; Italy is at 95¢; and Finland is at $1.11. Canadians know they are getting excellent service at a very reasonable price, and that is because of the hardworking women and men who work for CUPW. Let us treat them respectfully.
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. 
I listened intently to the hon. member's treatise on labour law in Canada. It was a little bit like going to a labour law 101 lecture, and it was all very interesting. What I did not hear him talk about was what he heard from his constituents during the last general election a few weeks ago. When I went door to door, house after house, day after day, I heard people say “We just went through this terrible recession where lots of people lost their jobs. The economy is starting slowly to come out of the recession. It is fragile, and we need the economy to stay strong and we need you to do something about it.” 
I do not hear anything from the other side. All evening I have not heard anything about what they want to do to keep the postal service running for the benefit of all Canadians and our economy--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 
We must give the hon. member equal time.
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, that is a valid question, and I will tell you what I heard from my constituents who are concerned about the economy. They want good jobs. That is what they want. They want good, family-sustaining jobs. They do not want jobs that have 18% lower wages than currently exist. They do not want jobs where they have to work until they are 70 years old before they can retire. They do not want jobs that have inferior pension plans on which they cannot plan their future. They want good, middle class, sustaining jobs.
By the way, my riding is almost entirely small businesses, and the small businesses in my riding also want good, family-sustaining jobs, because it is those people who come to their stores and buy their goods and services.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise, although it perhaps is not an hour I would have chosen. It is not even prime time in British Columbia anymore.
I will begin by acknowledging that many Canadians go to work every day at this time. I acknowledge those who work as cleaners, those women and men across the country who clean our office buildings and our schools. It is not a very big sacrifice for me to be here at this time. They quite often work a second or third job to support their families.
I also acknowledge those who work in restocking the big box stores and the food stores across the country who often have to struggle to find child care at that time of the night so they can hold down the two or three jobs they need to afford housing and a better future for their children.
I acknowledge the health care workers, the health care professionals, the doctors, the nurses and the other professionals who work around the clock to help all of us enjoy better health. They are often working at this hour of the night.
In particular, I acknowledge the emergency services workers, the police, fire and ambulance, who are working at this hour of the night and quite often dealing with those problems that the rest of us do not deal with during the daytime, those problems of addiction and mental illness that we leave them to deal with at this hour of the night.
I also acknowledge those who serve in our military who work day and night around the clock to keep us safe and are quite often working at this hour.
On a normal day, postal workers would be working at this hour sorting the mail to help keep our economy running, sorting the mail to get it out to those seniors and charities who depend on the mail, and sorting the mail for small businesses in my riding that use Canada Post to deliver their products and make a profit to support their families.
For me, it seems late, but for many of those people, it is a normal time to go to work. 
Why are we here tonight? I think there is one thing we share on both sides of this House. We share the importance of Canada Post to this country in so many ways.
 I mentioned seniors and the disabled who wait for their cheques in the mail. I mentioned charities. Many workers receive their paycheques through Canada Post. Many small businesses do their business using the services of Canada Post. However, perhaps even more important to many families, they wait for Canada Post to hear from their family members across the country or abroad as a way of keeping in touch, one of the only ways they can afford when they are having trouble making ends meet at the end of the month.
One of the things I wish we would agree on is that Canada Post has done a fine job providing this service as a publicly-owned service that makes a profit on behalf of all Canadians while still delivering an excellent service that would not be delivered to so many communities if it were left to the private sector.
We clearly differ on some things tonight and I will talk about some of those differences.
One area on which we differ is the narrative of this dispute. The government likes to talk about these long negotiations but it leaves out the basic fact of those negotiations, which is that Canada Post was making a profit of $281 million. Where does that profit come from? It comes from the labour of those people who go to work every day and work hard to deliver that quality service that Canadians use. Therefore, when it comes time for collective bargaining, it is time to share some of that profit not just with taxpayers in general but with those people who go to work every day and work hard to ensure Canada Post is a profitable corporation. When they see the CEO being paid nearly half a million dollars, plus a 33% bonus, then it is not hard to understand why workers voted more than 94% for a strike to get their fair share of those profits. They voted for a strike because they are faced with a company that is trying to roll back their wages and roll back their benefits when there is no economic necessity to do so.
The second difference we have is in our understanding of what makes for a successful economy. The government seems committed to moving Canada to a low wage economy and thinking that somehow this will promote growth and prosperity in the future. I would like to remind all members in this House that Canada's greatest period of growth came in the 1950s and 1960s. What was that period in our history? That was our period of greatest equality in this country. It is equality and sharing the wealth that leads to economic growth and progress in the future.
The government's agenda is really something other than the financial health of Canada Post. I think it is to put us firmly on that path of a race to the bottom and a belief that this low-wage economy will somehow make us more competitive with other countries around the world, and that somehow this will produce the miracle of prosperity in the future. 
 I have heard from small businesses in my riding and they understand when workers do not have enough to make ends meet, do not have enough to go to the corner store to buy bread, do not have enough to pay for child care or do not have enough to buy houses. They know that an economy offering solid wages and providing a good living for families is the best way for small business to prosper as well. 
There is a very important work that influenced me greatly over the last year called The Spirit Level , written by two British epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. The book's subtitle, Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, is very interesting. 
The authors looked at the scientific evidence in 11 different areas of health and social measures. They looked at physical health, including how long people live and how often they are ill. They looked at mental health and what the frequency of mental health problems were in a society. On drug abuse they studied how high the addiction rates were. They looked at educational achievement and how long people stayed in school and how successful they were. They looked at the rates of imprisonment and how often people fell into conflict with the law. They looked at obesity, an increasing health problem in our own country. They looked at social mobility and how equal was a society and how likely were kids from different economic backgrounds able to succeed. They looked at social trust and whether people could trust their neighbourhood and feel safe in their neighbourhood and in their own homes. They looked at teen pregnancies and they looked at child poverty. 
What did they find? They found that the countries that do best on the equality measures do best in every one of those 11 measures of social progress. 
Thus, when we look at what is happening with Bill C-6, we see exactly the wrong remedy being applied for a successful society, not just economically but as a place all of us want to live and in which we want our children to live in the future. 
The three key mechanisms for achieving equality are: a living wage, sound pension plans and equal access to education and health care. The problem for me with the bill that is before us is that it makes a very direct attack on two of those three key mechanisms. 
The first of those mechanisms is obviously a living wage. I have heard people catcalling, which is perhaps the best description used by the hon. member, and asking why workers should earn these high wages and why postal workers earn this much money. They earn these wages because that is what it takes in our society to support a family. Their union has struggled to ensure they receive enough to make ends meet at the end of the month, to set a little bit aside for their retirement and to put some money away for their kids' education. That is what this is really about. 
The government has brought in a proposal that suggests lower wages than Canada Post actually had on the table at the beginning of this dispute. This is an attack on a living wage in our society. 
We will all do better and we will all be more prosperous when everybody can afford to make ends meet at the end of the month. 
The second key mechanism for achieving equality is a sound pension plan. What does this proposal do? It says that we cannot really do anything about the fact that some workers have good pensions and those pensions cannot really be taken away from them. Instead, it could have tried to ensure that all workers enjoy a secure retirement future by doing something that would be very easy, which is to expand the Canada pension plan. The NDP campaigned very hard on that and we found a very broad agreement across the country. 
Instead, this legislation proposes taking the new workers and denying them pension security in the future. That is the wrong solution both for economic and for social progress in this country. 
I will return to the question of why this is important by telling members a couple of stories. My grandmother was a postal worker and her husband, my grandfather, was a self-employed plumber. When it came time to retire, if it had not been for my grandmother's postal worker pension, they would have had nothing. Why was that? It was because they did not earn enough to save and buy RRSPs and pay fees to Bay Street to manage their wealth. They donated heavily in their community to support very important church and community work in which they were involved. They raised four kids and tried to put through university. At the end of the day, if it had not for my grandmother's postal worker pension, they would have been living in abject poverty. However, because she had a pension, they were able to get by and live with dignity in their retirement. After my grandmother died, my grandfather was able to live, through a survivor benefit, on her pension.
In my family, we know the great importance of these public pension plans. What we had in my family, I very much desire every Canadian family to have, which is a secure retirement for their parents and their grandparents.
My second story is about postal workers in my riding. My letter carrier is Julie. We move rather frequently but we move within the same postal walk. Therefore, no matter where that mail is addressed to, Julie writes on the front, “Please change your address”, and puts it in our box anyway. She has become a great friend of ours over the last four to five years.
I have heard from her colleagues many times today and I want to cite one of them who asked to be named tonight. She said, “I want you to tell the government”, from Sherry Partington of Victoria, “yes, I want to go back to work, but I want to go back to work under a contract that is fair and negotiated and not forced down my throat by the government”. 
 I want to address another issue because the members on the other side have tried to turn this into a union worker versus a non-union worker kind of dispute. I am very proud to stand and say that I am a member and my dues are still current in my own union as a college instructor. 
When I was on the campaign trail, I knocked on a door where a young man said to me, “Well, you're pro-union. What have unions ever done for me?” We talked about what the labour movement has achieved for all Canadians in this country through collective bargaining and through political action and alliance with the NDP. We had a lot to talk about. My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway has already mentioned some of these things, but I asked my constituent if he got sick pay at work. He said that of course he did. I said to him that he was not a union member and asked him where he thought the sick pay came from. I also asked him how many hours he worked a day and he replied that he did not work more than eight hours. I then asked him where he thought that came from and told him that it came from the union movement. I then asked him if he had weekends off and if he liked weekends. I then asked him whether he still thought the union movement never gave him anything.
We then went on to talk about holiday pay, overtime pay, extended health benefits, shift differential, pension plans, health and safety committees, parental leave, and now, many unions are leading the way on childcare, anti-discrimination and anti-harassment in the workplace. By the time we were done, he said that maybe he could vote for me after all because I had given him some important information on the contributions unions have made. He really did not know that history.
Therefore, I am very proud to stand here tonight. I believe we are still discussing the hoist. When other members ask why we are not moving amendments, it is because we are still on a hoist motion and, therefore, it is not the appropriate time to do that. However, I believe it is not too late for a deal here and it is not too late for the government to come to its senses. There are a couple of ways this could be done. If the government does not want to just take the lock off, end the lockout and let postal workers go back to work under the existing contract, as they offered to do, then there may be some other compromises that can be reached in this back to work legislation.
However, this debate is not just about the mail and not just about collective bargaining or union rights. This debate is about the kind of Canada in which we all want to live in the future: the vision we have for ourselves as a community and the vision we have for all of our children and our grandchildren to come.
Unions, particularly the postal workers union, have fought hard for decent pay and benefits to support their members' families. Locking out workers and imposing a contract tramples on those hard-fought gains. It turns back the clock. It sets dangerous precedents. Canada Post belongs to all Canadians and the benefits that go to Canada Post workers, we stand on this side and say, are the kind of benefits we should work to achieve for all workers in our great country.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member opposite in terms of what he was talking about in his riding. In particular, he talked about business and small business and wanting to ensure that they are helped in this process.
I've also heard from my own constituents. In fact, small business people are saying, “Get those guys back to work because we need to have postal service”. They send out invoices to get cheques, but they are not getting those cheques. I also have heard from other people, who are not employed, and they are saying to me that if the postal workers are not happy with $18 an hour they will take those jobs.
We know that the NDP is a very socialist left-wing party. We understand that. In fact, that party wants to ensure that it supports the union because it has a direct line to the unions. So I would ask that member what his party would do for businesses. We know that businesses need to get their cheques in and their invoices out.
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison: Madam Speaker, I talked to one business person in my riding today by phone. I asked him if he realized that CUPW said it would continue to negotiate under the existing contract, and he said that really changes things, that maybe we do not need back to work legislation and maybe we do not have to stay here all weekend. The government could just let the workers go back to work and let them reach an agreement through free collective bargaining.
I also talked to a woman who runs a small business in Sooke in my riding. She very much depends on being able to mail out the products she produces. She does hand embroidery work and sells it all across the country and around the world. She uses Canada Post for shipping. What she said to me was that she understands why there is a dispute and, she said, “I just want it to get settled”. That does not mean she wants to take sides. She does not want to side with the workers or with Canada Post. She wants to see the process of bargaining go on so that there is a resolution. We all know that could start immediately if Canada Post would open the doors, go back to the table and negotiate in good faith.
Raymond Côté: Madam Speaker, I was moved by the situation of my colleague's grandmother who used to work for Canada Post, because this brought back memories of my own youth in connection with another economic sector, that of construction, where my dearly departed father used to work.
Unfortunately, for many years in Quebec, given the impossibility of concluding agreements, the Quebec government simply decreed the working conditions that were in effect in the construction sector. This affected our family greatly. I remember that my mother was affected by it, and that it had an impact on her children.
Can my colleague tell me why, ultimately, postal workers are being prevented from negotiating with management?
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison: Madam Speaker, I promise that in the near future I will be responding in French.
I think there is a misunderstanding among some members on the other side. The last hon. member asked me if the postal workers were not happy with $19 an hour. Let me tell members about $19 an hour in my community. The community social services council members sat down and asked what it would cost in greater Victoria for a single person with one dependent to rent a house, to pay for the basic costs of getting to work and getting a child to school, and to pay for food--nothing else.
 Do members know what that costs in my riding? It costs $17.31 an hour, and that leaves nothing to put away for the future, nothing to put away for the kids' education, nothing for savings, nothing for emergencies, and nothing for a vacation. That $19 an hour in my community is not a princely wage.
 Most workers in my riding who work for less than that have to work at more than one job, and that's with not just one parent working, but two. Many of them have three jobs between the two parents and very little time with their kids. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that somehow Canada Post workers have achieved some great princely sum of money when all they are getting is the amount that it takes to make sure a family can live a decent life in our society.
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): 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--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I must give the hon. member equal time.
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison: Madam Speaker, I suggest that perhaps the hon. member was not listening all that carefully to my speech, since I spent very little time actually talking about the union specifically as a union in this dispute.
I find it interesting that she received a letter today. Not many of the rest of us have.
Kellie Leitch:  Would the member like to see it? It's right here.
Randall Garrison:  Perhaps it came through one of those private couriers.
I do acknowledge that this dispute is causing--
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.
[Interjection]
Jim Karygiannis: I am just wondering if my colleague is asking unanimous consent in order to table what she just pointed out in the letter. Is that what she is asking?
The Deputy Speaker: I thank you, but I did not hear the hon. member ask for any kind of unanimous consent. I am sure she understands that she can do that at any time.
The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison: Madam Speaker, what I would say in response to the member's question is that I do understand that this dispute is causing hardship for many people, not just businesses. There are many other Canadians who depend on Canada Post. What I would say is that it appears that who is holding these people to ransom is the strong, stable, Conservative national government those members like to talk about, because that is who locked out these workers and shut down the postal services.
The Deputy Speaker: Very briefly, the hon. member for Saanich--Gulf Islands.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam Speaker, I will try to make this brief, but I want to thank my friend from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca for his presentation. 
We have had some discussion in this House about the right to strike and the nature of the law in this country. It was a few speeches back, so I ask my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to forgive me for asking him if he can recall the B.C. hospital workers' case at the Supreme Court in the year 2007, which I believe made it very clear that governments cannot interfere in the basic rights of all workers, not just unionized workers. Labour rights are human rights. That is, I believe, the main ratio of that case, and if we recognize that, this legislation may well be illegal. I wonder if the member from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has a view on that.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has 40 seconds to respond.
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison: Let us see, Madam Speaker, if I have a 40-second view. What I would say is that I thank the hon. member for her question, and I think the important part of her question is to move the emphasis off this specious argument about right to strike, when what we are talking about is the right to free collective bargaining and the importance of that right in our society.
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am looking at the clock, and I do not know whether to say it is 7:25 in the morning, which it would be if I were in England right now, or 11:25, which it would be if I were in B.C. Whichever it is, at this time I want to wish all my colleagues in the House a Bonne Fête nationale.
As we debate this very important issue, I want to take a minute to recap. What is it that we are talking about here today? We are talking about a crown corporation, not some entity that is off on another planet, but a crown corporation of a Canadian government, a crown corporation that makes a profit each year and last year made a very hefty profit of hundreds of millions of dollars that went back to support Canadians in other work. That is okay.
This same crown corporation went into negotiations with its employees as if it was taking a loss. That is what I find hard to understand. That company is making a profit and doing very well, but for the very people who help make that profit, who work 24-7 in shift work, who have given years of service, and who deliver mail to some of the remotest communities and keep our businesses going, what the corporation says when the parties get to the table is, “By the way, we are going to pay new people who start to work here 18% less”. Is that the respect we have for the next generation?
Are we saying to the next generation of workers that they are not going to get jobs with decent pay, that they are going to have to make do with a lot less, that they are not going to be able to afford to own a house, and that they are not going to be able to afford a decent living?
 At the same time, that corporation turns to its workers and makes a direct attack on something that is dear to every Canadian: their old age security. It goes after their pensions, and not only theirs, but those of the next generation coming in.
When I was growing up, and I have been growing up for a long time and I'm still waiting to grow up, what I used to hear all the time was that with each generation things get better. That is what our parents worked very hard for. My parents immigrated to the U.K. They arrived there with a very young family. My father worked two or three jobs in order to give us an education and the kind of life that he thought would be better than the life he had had. He belonged to unions, absolutely, and instilled in us the importance of the collective: that when workers stick together, they make gains not only for themselves individually, but they make gains for everybody in society.
He also told me something else. He told me that things were going to get better for me and my children. I have a 13-year-old, although maybe she is a bit older than 13 now. By the way, if I was not here, I would be celebrating my 40th wedding anniversary this weekend. As it is, I could well be celebrating it with everyone here. As I look at my children and a lot of my colleagues in the House, and think of the hundreds and thousands of children I have taught over the years, it saddens me that things are actually getting worse for our youth. It saddens me that in this House the government is choosing to make things worse for our youth by reducing the starting wage, a differentiated wage. Those wages should be going up. 
Hon. members have heard about the cost of housing in B.C. from my other colleagues. In the area where I live, the cost of housing is very high. As I went door to door, I met family after family, and these are the things I heard them say. They did not want a Rolls Royce, by the way. They did not ask for limousines. They were not asking for transnational holidays or even going overseas to sit by the beach and read a book. They were asking for decent paying jobs so they could go to work, come home, spend time with their families, support their kids through university and college and, at the same time, help to look after their parents. That is what the average Canadian told me as I went from door to door.
However, they also told me what their day-to-day lives were like. Many of them, by the way, used to have what many people call well-paying union jobs in the health care sector in B.C., but we have had a coalition government in B.C. Some members may know that coalition, because it is made up of Conservatives, Liberals and Social Credit Party members. They call themselves Liberals, but we know who they are, because they also went after working people and stripped their collective agreement and fired thousands and thousands of workers. 
Later on, the Supreme Court found that to have been incorrect. It found it to be the wrong thing for the government to have done. Those workers, who used to make a decent wage, now have to work two full-time shifts doing exactly the same work. They get paid $9 to $12 an hour for something they used to get paid $18 to $20 an hour to do.
I heard stories of mothers, fathers and grandmothers who are working these two full-time jobs. They said, “We are getting sick to death of politicians telling us how important family is, because we do not have time to spend with our children”. Is that the way we want all working people in Canada to go? We want to have a race to the bottom, to reduce their hourly wages so they have to work two or three jobs. I really want to believe that not a single parliamentarian would want to do that.
I make a very handsome salary right now and would find it very hard to sit in this House and suggest that others can make do on $18 or less per hour. We are not talking about minimum wage any more, but we all need to talk about a living wage, because we know what the cost of living is like. Those are the kinds of things we need to talk about.
Let me get back to my narrative about this corporation, if my colleagues across the room would just give me a little of their attention. A corporation making a huge profit asked its employees for clawbacks of their rights, salary and old age security. Then in its wisdom, it put forward a salary increase as well. Then, out of the blue, which is the part I find hard to explain to my grandchildren, the government stepped in. It first needed a reason to step in, so Canada Post locked the door on its employees, knowing full well there was a government waiting to step in with legislation. Not only did the government step in with legislation, but it also now says that an arbitrator is going to come in and there will be a final offer. However, even that is not enough for the government.
What Canada Post employees have now been offered is a lower hourly wage increase than they had been offered by Canada Post. How can the government be wanting to move things toward a resolution?
Though it was not supported by the 4.5 million Canadians who voted for this side of the House, this is a government that wants to use its majority to smack working people on the head by saying, yes, the corporation is making a profit and, yes, we benefit from that as Canadians but, no, the workers have to pay the price because we need to extract more profits.
I just do not see how that is the right or fair thing to do. I also wonder what productivity is going to be like in that corporation when there is a settlement.
There is one truth, by the way, that I have learned in my lifetime, that whenever there is strike between labour and management, there is going to be a settlement at some time. There will be a settlement.
When a settlement is imposed externally by legislation, I can say from personal experience that the impact on the workers and on productivity is huge.
I am a teacher. I also come from B.C. I am used to being legislated by government, not once, but twice by a coalition Liberal-Conservative government. I know the impact it had on teachers in that province, what it did to morale, what it did to people who were not able to teach and the impact it had on students' learning.
This week a report was released that said a very high percentage of Canadian workers are depressed at their workplace. If the Conservative government believes it has found an antidote to depression, this legislation is not it. I would really urge the government to go and have another consultation to see what that would look like.
Once again, if we want to have employees who are productive, happy at their work and who will give their all, let them negotiate their own collective agreements. By imposing a collective agreement on this group of employees, what the government is doing is taking away one of their fundamental rights, their right to negotiate their own labour.
Surely that is not too much to ask for. It is not too late for the government to see daylight, which will soon be upon us. It is not too late for it to say to Canada Post, “Take off the lock. Let the workers go back to work”. They have agreed and will work under the contract. Furthermore, “Go back to the negotiating table. If need be, call in a mediator”. Let the two sides negotiate an agreement.
That is all it would take from the government, which would send a huge signal to working people in this country that they actually had a government that respected working people and a government that believed in free collective bargaining.
We hear a lot from the government about the free market. Let us use those same principles in this bargain. Let the bargain take place without any government interference. 
I will tell a small story about a young man I used to teach. He would come into my class. He had a family background that was very heavily into business in the north end of Nanaimo. His parents were very business-centred and had no time for unions and said “You are going to be teaching this unit about unions to our kids, and we really do not want our son to learn anything about the union movement because he is not going to be a worker. He is going to move into the business world”. I discussed this with them and said if that were so, their son had nothing to lose by learning about the union movement. 
I spent about three months going over the industrial revolution and the reasons the unions were formed. I mentioned that it was to make a level playing field, so that employers would not abuse employees and people would not get killed on the job, or work 20 hours a day, and so that kids would not be sent into the mines. It was for all of those reasons. 
When we had finished that unit, the parents came to the school. They came into my classroom and said they wanted to thank me. I asked what I had done, and they said they wanted to thank me because their son came home and they had a conversation about how to grow their business and what they had to do and how they had to look after the needs of working people as well, the people they employed.
That young man went on to manage his family business and I am still in touch with him and he still tells me that it was an amazing unit that he did. 
I wish my colleagues across the room would also realize that we do not have to demonize unions. What we need to do is to celebrate people who work collectively, people who realize that to build a strong Canada, to build our health care system and our education system and to have decent pensions, we must stand as a collective. 
Whether we are unionized or not, this is about the rights of working people to earn a decent wage. This is about average Canadians and their right to live in Canada in a way they can support their families and not have to go to food banks. This is about our youth having a future that will be a little rosier than it looks right now. If not for ourselves, let us please think of our children and grandchildren. 
I ran in this election because I wanted to help build a better Canada than we have today, where health care is stronger, education is stronger and old age security is stronger. 
I read a book a long time ago that said this: “One judges a society by how well it looks after its young, its old, its sick, its disadvantaged”. 
Colleagues, I would say that the CUPW discussions are about exactly that. As Canadians and parliamentarians, we cannot fail our children, our grandchildren and our working people, so I ask everyone to stand with us.
Michael Chong: Madam Speaker, the members opposite and this member have been talking about the need for workers to have high quality, high paying jobs. That is precisely what our government has been doing over the last 30 months. In fact, we have had the best economic job-creating engine in the developed world.
Do not take it just from me. Take it from the latest release from the labour force survey of June 10, some two weeks ago, from Statistics Canada. It says that over the past 12 months, full-time employment rose by 224,000 jobs while part-time employment was up 50,000 jobs. In other words, for every one part-time job the Canadian economy created in the last 12 months, we created five full-time jobs.
These are not just low quality, low paying jobs. These are good jobs. On May 9, CIBC released its economics report by Benjamin Tal. I will just quote from that.
 It says:
 More than 60% of the full-time jobs created since April of last year have been high-paying positions. 

[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Madam Speaker, I will say this. I live in Newton—North Delta and if these jobs exist, I wish many of them were in Newton—North Delta. I have talked to many of my other colleagues from around the country, and they do not find them there either.
I have told the House stories of women and men in my riding working two full-time jobs, eight hour shifts, and working at $9 to $12 an hour. That is the kind of jobs they are working at.
Nobody has denied that this strike led to a lockout. Nobody has denied that it was a rotating strike that led to a lockout.
The lockout is about reducing wages for people who are working, for current jobs. No matter how often we are told that the job market has grown in Canada, I want to know where those jobs are.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the hon. member speaks with great sincerity. I know of her from British Columbia. I listened to her speech and in fact I have sat here and listened to a lot of the speeches made by the hon. members of the New Democratic Party. They are sincere and I know that they believe in what they say.
I want to ask a question though. The question is simply this. I am a physician. As far as I am concerned, what is done must result in a positive outcome and one that will change the status quo. I do not understand standing in the House and repeating those same things over and over. The point is made.
We in the Liberal Party actually agree with everything that the NDP is saying. It is not only its members who have any sort of hold and great ambition for the workers. The Liberals also believe that workers need their rights. We believe that the government has been extremely intrusive and heavy-handed in this piece of legislation. It has intervened itself at the table and it has set some restrictions on arbitration or on bargaining that are unfair.
We agree and want the outcome to be a win-win. I am listening to a lot of discussion here that in the end will change nothing. It will be a lose-lose. I would like to suggest that if all of us really do care about a win-win answer, one that will support the needs of Canadians and that will also support the rights of the workers, then we should do something about it.
The Liberal Party has some amendments here. I would like to see us go to the amendments. They are solutions. If the government says that it has goodwill, then let us see it listen and change its mind and show goodwill by listening to those amendments. Let us get to a resolution instead of the talk.
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Madam Speaker, I really glad that my Liberal colleagues agree with everything the NDP is saying.
However, I do want to say that it has been a Liberal-Conservative coalition in B.C. that has time and time again gone in and stripped collective agreements and forced workers back to work with back-to-work legislation.
We are here today, and I can tell members that I am not wasting my time. I am here today even though it is my 40th wedding anniversary and my husband's 60th birthday, because I absolutely believe that the rights of all working people, and not just unionized working people, have to be defended.
We are going to continue to speak and advocate for as long as we have breath. We will continue to do so. This is not an inconvenience. This is a necessity, folks.
Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam Speaker, I find this debate wholesome and informative, and I intend to stay here until the end of this debate.
I also appreciated the speech and comments by my colleague. I do not have a labour union background. My family is not from labour unions. For a short time I was in a labour union.
I am wondering if my colleague could tell me about the effect that a lockout has on workers and on morale within companies.
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot about letters arriving by pigeon or somehow. I have also heard about people getting emails and tweets and Facebook messages. I have actually been receiving emails as well.
I have been receiving emails from postal workers who are asking me to speak up for them. They want me to be their voice, and to not let the government do this while I remain silent. They are counting on me.
All of us are getting emails very similar to that. I will say that when I hear people talking about the inconvenience, asking why we are here, it actually saddens me.
 Standing up for rights, whether it is for ourselves or others, is an absolute honour and privilege. As an NDPer, I feel absolutely privileged to have the opportunity to speak up for the rights of workers who are being legislated back to work by government legislation that absolutely disrespects collective bargaining and disrespects even the deal offered by the employer. The government has gone in and been intrusive in a way that is way beyond what is acceptable in a free and democratic society.
Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Madam Speaker, the member opposite, also from my home province of British Columbia, seems to have a selective memory.
The NDP government also legislated union workers back to work, just as it did to the British Columbia Teachers' Federation.
Why is it that when the NDP government is in power it uses legislation to put union workers back to work and that is acceptable to the NDP, but it is not acceptable when it is in opposition? Why does the NDP have a double standard?
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend over there for that wonderful question. I really do want to thank him.
The member knows my history and has heard me speak many times before. When an NDP government legislated, I stood out there and spoke. I was on television and radio, and I went out publicly and I spoke out because it was the wrong thing to do then, and as far as I am concerned workers need to be allowed to work out negotiations between the two parties. I believe in that today as well, and that is what I am sticking up for.
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I would first like to say, as a Hamiltonian facing a similar situation in which workers are being locked out, I just wish the government were as quick to take on U.S. Steel as it is to take on the workers at Canada Post, and that it would order that company back to the bargaining table and put almost 1,000 workers back to work who have been locked out because of the policies of the government. I wish the government would start with Hamilton before talking about improvements it thinks it is making.
Next, I want to state a couple of things I think are important here. First, Canada Post is profitable: $281 million. Yes, some of that is due to management decisions. However, one cannot deny that the workers who work at Canada Post have played a significant role in ensuring that Canada Post is profitable for the Canadian people. The workers have contributed to the profitability of Canada Post and now the government uses economics as an argument to say it has to bring in this legislation. It has been said over and over that this is a lockout, and I say to the government members that they are going to hear it a lot more over the next 10 to 20 days.
The fact is that the union began rotating strikes. That is a tactic that is meant to put pressure on management at the bargaining table. It is not meant to cripple the organization. Before the government introduced its legislation, the union offered to end its rotating action and to go back to work while negotiations continued, and all it asked was that the management continue to enforce the current collective agreement. Had that happened, the rotating strikes would have ended, the management and union would be at the bargaining table, and we would not need to be here dealing with this mean-spirited legislation.
One of my colleagues over here talks about eight months. That is just about the same length of time the U.S. Steel workers have been out too. Why is it okay that after eight months of negotiation, while Canada Post is still working, the government has to bring in legislation but those steelworkers and their families are out there without a paycheque for over eight months? That is okay somehow. They can stay out there. The government is not worried about the economic damage to them and their families in my community in Hamilton.
It is also interesting that the company or the government or management, which are pretty much all the same in this circumstance, wants to reduce the amount that the workers were offered in free and fair collective bargaining, saying that it has to constrain costs. Yet, it is okay to pay the CEO over $661,000. The Conservatives are going to go after the workers at Canada Post for nickels and dimes and pennies and anything else they can possibly get. It is okay for the CEO to make that kind of money but not for the people who are actually out there doing the work everyday. That is just not right.
Let us also keep in mind that we have legislation here that would reduce the amount of money that is already on the bargaining table. That alone justifies our being here and holding up this legislation for as long as we possibly can. How can that be right? 
How can it be right that there is a negotiated agreement on a wage piece, and the government takes the opportunity to bring in back-to-work legislation and in that same legislation reduces the amount that was offered? That is not fair, and everybody knows that it is not fair. That is another good reason for us to be here and to stand firm with the workers at Canada Post.
There has been some talk that maybe the government is getting ready to soften up the company to sell it and privatize it. There is actually evidence that it has already started. It has already started.
Here come the facts. I hear one of the members asking for facts, and I appreciate that. 
We all know that Canada Post has a very difficult job in terms of providing the same level of service to the far reaches of our country for the same price one pays if a letter or envelope is going only halfway across a city. That is not easy to do. It is a big country in terms of providing service.
The legislation mandates that Canada Post has to be financially self-sufficient. A number of years ago, some private entities decided that they were going to horn in on that business, because there was money to be made. It was the issue of remailing. I will not get into what that is, but postal workers know what that is. It is an important component of what Canada Post does.
Canada Post, at that time, still defended the fact that all that work belonged to it and that it needed the profitable pieces to pay for the parts of Canada Post that were not profitable, because it has to deliver to the far locales we have in Canada. Canada Post took these small companies to court saying that they were infringing on its business, that it had a legal mandate to do all this work, and that the other companies were doing it. Canada Post asked the court to please stop them. The lower court agreed. 
Being the fine citizens they were, the private entities that lost the case appealed to the appeal courts. The appeal courts, guess what, supported the fact that Canada Post is entitled to all of the work it does, if for no other reason than because of the economic aspect of having to be financially self-sustaining. In the beginning, the minister defended it and said that this work should not be done by anyone other than Canada Post and that the government would continue to pursue that policy. Then it changed.
We suspect that the lobbying started big time, because all of a sudden, government policy changed. To their credit, the Liberals were on the same page at that time and supported Canada Post. The Conservatives continued that when they came to power. When it changed, it was a huge change. 
What did the government do to these companies that were taking away the lawful work of Canada Post? It introduced a bill that would legalize what they were doing. It would legalize the work it had been fighting in the courts to keep at Canada Post. The government brought in a bill, after it flip-flopped, that would make the work that was taken from Canada Post legal. The Liberals supported that legislation, but the bill died, because there was either a prorogation or an election.
 The Conservatives introduced another bill to make it legal, and the Liberals supported that bill, too. 
They then ran into another storm, and we in the NDP were part of that storm and fought to defend Canada Post in maintaining the work it needed to have to be financially self-sustaining. When they ran into that storm, do members know what they did? It was rather typical of the government. They stuffed it into a budget bill so that it would not be a stand-alone bill any more and would not get the attention of the Canadian people. The opposition parties could not point to it and say that the government was privatizing Canada Post already, because, quite frankly, in the context of a broader budget, it was one piece.
Now, as we debate this today, it is lawful for that work to have been taken from Canada Post, which makes it that much more difficult for Canada Post to remain financially viable.
When we raise the issue of the government not really caring about Canada Post and its services, we think there is darn good evidence to support that, up to and including the legislation here today that is taking away wages that were already properly and fairly negotiated at the bargaining table. That is the kind of government we have here. That is the kind of attitude it has towards Canada Post, and that is the kind of attitude it has towards working people who are just trying to get a decent collective agreement and go on with their lives. That is all they are looking for.
We were saying earlier that we thought others may need to keep their eyes open, because the government is coming after them. Talk to my friend from Sudbury about what went on at Vale Inco and the damage that was done there and the economic harm that was done to those workers and their families and the community of Sudbury. It was all because the government refused to stand up for the community and the workers at the time and allowed the takeover. It was not much different from what happened with U.S. Steel.
Here we have a government in the early days saying that people do not need to worry, that they are not scary, that people do not have to worry about them, and that they are not hard right wing. Yet here they are, at three o'clock in the morning, trying to defend not just back-to-work legislation, which in and of itself is always problematic, but a vicious attack on those workers and their negotiating rights.
I cannot get past the fact that there is a government that would stand up and say that it is okay to take away, through legislation, something that barely was dry on the page in terms of negotiating. Why would the government do that? The answer we get from the Prime Minister is that it has to make sure that everything is in line with the rest of the public sector. The difficulty there is that Canada Post is part of the government. The government sets out the parameters for all of government.
The mandate was there. The people at the head of Canada Post know where the government is at and what its thinking is. They also know that they are sitting on at least $281 million in profit. They offered what they thought was, I would assume, a fair offer of a wage settlement, and it was agreed to. That is not the whole contract. Things can change. I have been in bargaining too. However, that is what happened. They had an agreement. They understood the mandate. 
For the government to come around now and say that it cannot live by what Canada Post has negotiated does not make any sense. It makes about as much sense as the government saying that the main reason it is bringing in this legislation is because of the economic damage being done by Canada Post not being at full service, while it is the one that locked the door. Come along. If the government wants to get Canada Post working again, open the door. The workers will be there.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
David Christopherson:  I suspect that the days will go on, and we will be here for a while. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  How many days will it be?
David Christopherson:  I hear one of the members asking how many days it will be. I do not know exactly how many days it will be. I just know that 102 other New Democrat MPs and I are prepared to stay here and hold this up as long as we possibly can, night and day and weekend. We will do all we can, because it is just so wrong.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
David Christopherson:  I think we are finding some unity in the House. I am not sure that it is what I was attempting to do, but if that is what happens, we could use some unity around here.
The fact is that what we are really worried about is the tenor that is being set in this country as employers see what is happening here.
We all know about the fights going on to save pensions and to save defined benefits. We are losing that battle. It breaks my heart to say it. I believe that there are a lot of working people and working families out there who are moving from defined benefit to defined contribution plans, and their dignity in retirement is predicated on whether they are good at stock market management and guessing. 
How many people here did not feel the pain of seniors when the tech bubble burst in 2000? Those people were 69 years old, and by law, they had to convert their RRSPs. They were forced to turn them into annuities, and those annuities were worth about half of what they were just six months before. Why did those people lose half their income for retirement? What is the answer? There is none. There is none as long as the stock market decides.
We are so much better off as a country when we have defined benefits. Yes, leave it to the corporations. They can hire the best advisors and all the best brokers and analysts, who, by the way, do not get it right. How can Canadians be expected to guarantee that they will have $1 million or three-quarters of a million dollars in their portfolios, when people who make half a million dollars a year doing it get it wrong? That is not right.
 Our worry on this issue is that working people in this country are going to lose a little more ground. We will not see it in a few weeks or a few months and probably not even in a few years. However, in five, 10, 15, or 20 years, as people begin to retire, particularly the younger boomers, who were affected by the switch from defined benefits to defined contributions, and begin to cash in their RRSPs when they are close to 70 years old, they will find out that even though they worked longer, maybe 50 years, the dignity they thought they should have in retirement, that they could have had, that they are entitled to, is not there, because the stock market crashed at a bad time for them.
Who do they blame? Where do they take that anger? Where do they take the fact that they cannot have the standard of living they are entitled to as retirees? Where do they go? Because there is no answer to where they can go, the best we can do is make sure that we are here, in the people's place, taking on these fights as best we can and start turning things around so that people have hope for the future, not despair. They can think that maybe there is a government that is on their side or is at the very least not their enemy.
We can do so much better as a country in terms of the approach we are taking towards public service, towards our public institutions, and certainly towards those Canadians who work in those public institutions. 
I am proud to be here tonight. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with every one of my NDP colleagues as we take on the government and this bad, vicious legislation.
Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend's comments, which ebbed and flowed like the great tides. He spoke with tremendous passion. I give him that.
To be quite frank, we have heard a number of comments about vicious attacks on individuals. I heard several references to hating working people. There is no need to delve into that kind of rhetoric in this discussion. 
We have heard about who is being hurt. Reference has been made to seniors by members on all sides. We have heard about small businesses, in rural communities in particular, that are predominantly dependent on mail, because there are a lot of places in the country that still do not have access to high-speed Internet.
However, there is another group that is being hurt, and I believe that I will be forgiven for mentioning them here tonight. They are the men and women of the Canadian Forces, who receive cards and letters from loved ones, such as their children, their spouses, and their support back in Canada. I would like the hon. member to address this quite specifically. It is a very serious question.
 During a break in the action, mail is perhaps the one thing they look forward to at the end of a long day when they have been out on patrol. They come back to their forward operating bases with the hope that they might have a letter from home. That ceases when the mail is not flowing.
I would ask my hon. friend to say something about the Canadian Forces who are serving us overseas as we approach Canada Day, hoping that they might receive a letter from home. If that is not reason enough to bring this debate back to a serious level, then I can think of nothing that will.
[Interjection]
David Christopherson: Madam Speaker, first, I thank the hon. minister for the tone of the question and the substance of it. I am pleased to provide the best answer I can because I agree it is serious. Believe me, there is not an MP in the House who is not riveted and focused 100% on the best interests of the Canadian armed forces. 
First, the government has the key. Unlock the door, the workers will go back to work and everyone will get their mail.
Second, though there could be disagreement on this and I accept that, though I suspect maybe not, I believe those fellow Canadians are there because they love our country and they are patriots. How could one be more patriotic than putting one's life on the line, particularly if leaving a family behind and putting oneself at that risk? 
I believe that most of those soldiers in Canadian uniform are there fighting for the kinds of principles we are talking about this evening and for the kind of democracy they want Canada to be. Though I stand to be corrected, I believe most of them would understand, because a lot of them are working people, that fellow working people are just doing the best they can to have a decent income and to have a fair collective agreement. 
Again, I thank the hon. minister for the tone of his question, which we have not had a lot of tonight and it was appreciated. 
My third point is that after World War II, it was the soldiers who came back and found there were no jobs for them, there was no housing for them and the things they needed to raise their families and to be a part of the community were not there. It was that generation of soldiers that came back during the 1940s and 1950s and went out on the picket line and put everything on the line to create the unions we are here tonight defending. 
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am really struggling tonight. This is a very polarized debate tonight. One side feels it is right and the other feels it is wrong. When there is a polarized debate, we end up hurting those we are trying to help. 
I have also learned a lot about my new colleagues and their history, even about their grandparents, which is nice to learn. However, we need to focus on solutions. 
My background is as a scientist. We look for solutions. I am hearing about history instead of hearing solutions regarding a living wage, pensions and improving well-being. I would like to hear real, evidence-based solutions from the hon. member rather than the polarization. 
[Interjection]
David Christopherson: 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. 
Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, I turn to the question that was put earlier to the hon. member, and to the tone of my colleague across the floor to our party generally, about the kind of approach we would take in making decision if we were in government. What troubles me is the government does not seem to be taking into consideration the people who are hurt by this legislation and by previous government decisions.
 I sat in the House in the last Parliament and heard colleague after colleague say that their rural post offices were being shut down. In my constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona, Canada Post is threatening to reduce the hours of the post office, closing it at 5:00 p.m. Workers cannot get to the post office by then. The government talks about seniors being able to mail a letter or seniors who have to go back to work. How will they get to the post office to mail their letters and buy their stamps? Could the member speak to the bigger issue of public interest?
I come from a province where this is an ongoing debate, and the debate is becoming quite serious. When the government makes decisions in the public interest, of whom is it really thinking? 
One has to think about the ramifications of a decision like locking out the postal workers in a situation when some of the complaints by the postal workers are hours of work being reduced and post offices being shut down so there will be less work. It is not just a case of wages and pensions, they are seriously concerned about the continued delivery of this public service.
[Interjection]
David Christopherson: 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.
Joe Comartin: Madam Speaker, I think everyone in the House knows that we are currently debating a hoist motion on Bill C-6. The hoist motion goes back to Westminster. It has been around for about 150 or 160 years. When the Leader of the Opposition moved the motion yesterday evening, it was done advisedly. 
The hoist motion is specifically designed to deal with legislation that is either premature, irresponsible in its nature, or just plain bad legislation. It is a motion that should not take up the time of the House for any one of those three reasons. Bill C-6 meets all three requirements. It is premature, it is grossly irresponsible and it is plain bad legislation. Again, I say that advisedly.
Today is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. We and the members of the Bloc Québécois have tried on several occasions to convince the government to adjourn today so that the members, especially those from the province of Quebec, could return to their ridings to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. But the government refused. 
It is irresponsible on the government's part to do that. It is a national holiday for the francophone community in Quebec and across the country. Bringing the bill forward at this period of time shows that the government does not know what it is doing. The government believed it could shove this down our throats. Because Saint-Jean-Baptiste is June 24, it thought we would buckle and give in to that intimidation. That is also a typical bullying tactic for which the government is well known.
This is a bad bill, so the hoist motion should proceed successfully, I would urge. It is a very clear interference by a government in the collective bargaining process. 
The NDP has a long history of opposing this type of legislation. We recognize that there are times when this will come forward. Even by those standards, using the standards of the Conservative government or a Liberal government, this bill is premature.
 It is also incredibly naive on the part of the government. It shows a serious lack of understanding of how the collective bargaining process works. It so clearly and blatantly takes one side, not only on this bill, but on the bill that was before us last week with regard to Air Canada. A very clear signal goes out to the management side. It should not worry about bargaining in good faith. It should not worry about performing its job on the management side, of engaging their employees in proper collective bargaining. All it has to do is create either the appearance of, which is usual in these two cases, a crisis or create an actual crisis by its conduct. If management does that, it knows the government will step in. Not only will it step in, it will step in and take management's side. There is no other message from the government that one could take, based on these two pieces of legislation in these last two weeks. 
The government has made it very clear, both from the bill we saw last week with regard to Air Canada, and Bill C-6 this week with regard to Canada Post. There were clauses in the bill last week, and I say this as a lawyer who has looked at a lot of collective agreements over the years, that could very easily have been written by the management side. There are clauses in Bill C-6 that similarly could easily have been written by Canada Post, entirely in its interest and entirely against the interest of its employees.
We have heard repeatedly this evening of the clause. It gets back to the intimidation the government uses all the time. It is saying to the workers that since they did not take what was offered to them on June 9, they will get less now.
Mr. Brad Butt:  You should've signed the deal.
Joe Comartin:  That heckle is typical of the attitude of the government. It is typical of the ignorance that t shows. Members opposite say on this one that they should have signed the agreement, but what about the other clauses that are very much against the interest of the union membership.
From a profitable corporation they are asking for clawbacks of a significant nature, changing the collective bargaining arrangement that has some clauses that have been in place for over 20 years, and over a series of collective agreements during that period of time. In spite of their profitability the government is saying it is going to take that away and they are going to lose some of the benefits. 
We could go down the list. There are a number of them that Canada Post has asked that of.
I want to deal with another issue with regard to the bill and why it is just bad legislation. This bill, as opposed to using the traditional mediation-arbitration clauses as contained in most back-to-work legislation, has completely done away with that in Bill C-6 and replaced it with final offer selection.
In the last two to five years in Canada and in the United States, we could go back and find studies, decisions by labour boards and decisions by courts that have said that the use of final offer selection works fine when you have a professional athlete, when you have a very small workforce. It does not work, and it has been shown repeatedly, when there is a large workforce and a complex collective agreement.
That is what the government is trying to force on the parties with this legislation. Final offer selection almost always works to the benefit of the management side. The government knows that. It has decided that as a policy. In all back-to-work legislation we are going to see from the government it is going to enforce that in every single one of them, in spite of those decisions from the labour boards and our courts.
The hoist motion is very appropriate here. I would urge all members of the House to support it when it comes to a vote some time in the next 24 hours.
Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was certainly encouraged to hear the member talking about evidence-based solutions. We are hearing this now in the wee hours of the night. When we ask that question of the NDP opposition, it is only going to be their solutions that are satisfying to them.
We heard much earlier in the evening about talking from the heart, and new members of Parliament being here. I, as a new member of Parliament, would rather talk from my heart and not from scripted notes that we had a feverish debate on earlier.
I would like to say that back in 1910, Inspector Fitzgerald of the RCMP led a group of RCMP officers from Fort McPherson to Dawson City to deliver the mail. That became famously known as the Lost Patrol. That issue, that commitment to deliver the mail, was done because they understood the needs of communication and commerce in the north. They did so on December 21, four days from Christmas.
They were not battling pensions. They were not worrying about wages. They were doing this because they understood how important commerce and communication was to the north and to the people of Canada.
Can the member please tell us, where have we lost that idea that this service to the north is so important? What is so wrong with a Conservative government trying to protect that and re-instill that for Canadian people?
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I know he is a new member of the House, and it is probably not fair for me to say this to him so I will say it to the two ministers who are here.
I would suggest to the member that he walk across the chamber and tell those two ministers to do their job. He should ask them to go to the Prime Minister and tell him to pick up the phone, call the CEO of Canada Post, and tell him to unlock the doors, honour the collective agreement, and go back to the negotiating table. If he wants to get something done and he wants it done right now and he wants to get those workers back to work who want to work, that is what he should do.
Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the intimidation theme referenced by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and, also, to come back to a question from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands earlier.
It strikes me that the legislation is probably unconstitutional. It strikes me, also, that my friends across the aisle would not be particularly concerned about it because they are going to have this collective agreement enforced long before the courts will be in a position to judge the constitutionality of the legislation.
Given the member's expertise in this area, I would invite his comments on my observations with respect to the constitutionality and whether it matters to those proposing the bill.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the House, and anybody out there who is watching, that I am not allowed to give opinions any more. The Law Society of Upper Canada has told people like myself who have withdrawn from practice not to give opinions.
Having said that, the reality though is that I do not think the current law would be unconstitutional. In the case of the decision that came out of British Columbia, the government there was tearing up a contract. There is no contract here. That is obvious. It has expired. That is the difference in that case.
I do not see a constitutional argument here at all or a Charter of Rights and Freedoms argument.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are here today, this evening, tonight, to debate a bill that is totally premature. It is truly our duty, as the opposition, to object strenuously to this piece of legislation. 
I live in a lovely riding far from Ottawa. We have many extremely proud residents. We have fishermen and artists. We have aboriginal communities, the Mi'kmaq in particular. We are independent, but we also stand united. Because of our remoteness from large urban centres, we understand what solidarity truly means. We depend on our neighbours, on our business people. Each of them has a place, and each of them makes an invaluable contribution. 
When a member of our community is wronged, we all lose. We depend on their services; we depend on every taxpayer and every public servant. We depend on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The closure of the rescue centres in Quebec City and Newfoundland and Labrador will cost us dearly. The government seems to be saying that those who live in the regions are less important.
In the regions, we depend on our port infrastructure. It worries us when the government tries to convince municipalities to assume responsibility for ports, when they cannot afford to maintain or even improve them. We depend on Environment Canada. We expect the minister to fulfill his role when public health is at risk, when outside companies come in to exploit our natural resources without seeking the consensus of our communities.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that we are debating Bill C-6 this morning. I did not realize that it would maybe turn into a Friday free-for-all. The member has not yet mentioned the bill in question that we are debating in his presentation. Perhaps he could get to the subject at hand.
The Speaker: I would urge the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep his remarks to the motion before the House.
Philip Toone: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker. I began by speaking about Bill C-6 and I will continue to speak about it. I am trying to provide some context.
I was saying that this same spirit leads us to support letter carriers in their demands. We are a united people. Post offices are the cornerstones of our communities in the regions. They are indispensable for communication between communities. We depend on them for affordable communications, to communicate amongst ourselves and to communicate with other Quebeckers and other Canadians. It is an essential service and the daily prejudice that we are subject to is intolerable.
The letter carriers in our communities understand that we depend on their services. They have never failed to give us excellent service. Throughout their negotiations with Canada Post, they continued to sort and deliver our mail. It is easy to understand why. These people are part of our community. They are our brothers, sisters and neighbours. They are just as much a part of our community as our other constituents. They know that, without them, we all lose.
Right now families cannot communicate with one another. Small and medium-sized businesses are having a hard time getting paid for services they have provided. Seniors are not receiving their benefits. Unemployed people are having a hard time receiving their benefits. The workers are not the ones preventing the mail from being delivered. During the negotiations, they made sure that the mail was delivered. It was the employer, Canada Post, that declared a lockout. The Conservative government is the one trying to force them back to work. Canada Post Corporation—a crown corporation—and our government seem to have forgotten that the workers offered to go back to work. What is worse, the bill before us would impose a lower salary offer.
I want to quote a statement from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers:
 The bill legislates wage increases that fall significantly below Canada Post’s last offer of 1.9% in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and 2.0 % in 2014. The law includes increases of 1.75 % in 2011, 1.5% in 2012, 2% in 2013 and 2% in 2014. This would take $875.50 out of the pockets of an average full-time postal worker during the four years of the agreement. It represents a theft of $35 million from postal workers and their families. 
It is shameful. Postal workers work hard to guarantee a good, reliable, profitable service, a crown corporation service that generates a profit for the Canadian government. It is a corporation that provides an essential service, and that is able to do so reliably and even generate a profit. Should we not rather get the workers involved, motivate them, and show them we appreciate them by giving them an appropriate salary that reflects their contribution? We should also protect their pensions. Questions must be asked.
Our Canada Post Corporation employees in the regions provide exceptional service. They know us and we know them. They want to do their best to help us but the government wants to decrease their salaries and reduce the services.
I will quote the Canadian Union of Postal Workers once again:
 On Saturday, September 12, 2009, the federal Conservatives quietly announced a Canadian Postal Service Charter that outlines the government’s expectations for Canada Post in regard to service standards and other matters. 
 The Charter largely reiterates existing policy and includes an expectation that Canada Post will maintain “the moratorium on the closure of rural post offices.” 
 The Charter also acknowledges that providing postal services to rural areas is an integral part of universal postal service. 
 While it’s a good start, the Charter isn’t altogether reasonable. 
 Retirement, illness, death, or the corporation's infrastructure—for example, the termination of a lease or even a fire—“may, nevertheless, affect the ongoing operation of a post office.”
Rural post offices are threatened. The post offices of , Quebec's Gaspé region have a long history. I would like to share some facts provided by Daniel Arpin, a philatelist. In 1705, in the territory we now call Canada, a postal service between Quebec City, Trois-Rivières and Montreal was established by the French regime. That same year, a postal service was established in New Carlisle—in my riding—in the Gaspé. In 1763, the service fell under the control of the British Empire and was managed by Benjamin Franklin. In February 1851, the New Carlisle postmaster created his own stamp, an unauthorized stamp, one that is much sought after by stamp collectors.
All that to say that the postal service has a long history in Canada and the Gaspé. Postal services are vital to our communities, but they are continually being whittled away. Rural mailboxes are being replaced by superboxes. Increasingly, we find ourselves collecting the mail on the side of the road, in places that could be dangerous. We are distancing ourselves from the rural post office that serves a community meeting place, and which is often the only place that flies the Canadian flag. It is considered a cultural symbol representing Canada in the region. 
The new philosophy is no longer based on providing service, and services are now being curtailed and eliminated.This philosophy leads to the reduction of services in communities and the erosion of workers' rights. It makes life difficult for my constituents, for small and medium-sized businesses. We must support our fellow workers against attacks by this intolerable bill. We will do all we can to oppose it.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debates most of the night. I think it may be time to put the sequence of events into a little bit of context. 
We know we have a lockout. We know we have disruption of the postal service. However, when the negotiations started it went on for some time with no resolve. As a result, it was the union that decided to start some rotating strikes in order to get the attention of Canada Post, and that is what they did.
Although rotating strikes may sound fairly neutral in their effect, in fact they really disrupt the postal service across Canada. The corporation does not know where it is going to happen next and it cannot prepare for it.
That had happened, and it was the union that started the rotating strikes. The post office said that did not work for it so it would lock the workers out and maybe that would get some results. That has not happened.
I understand the NDP's allegiance to the unions. They are their biggest supporters. The NDP always has to side with them. But let us put into context the sequence of events as they happened.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: I would like to thank the member for his comments. I really did not hear any questions, however.
Dick Harris:  It was a comment.
Philip Toone:  Mr. Speaker, as far as the comment is concerned, I am pleased that the member is able to present a certain sequence of events. I think the important one there is that the employees have been locked out. The government has taken note of this. 
I think it is very important that we recognize that postal services have come to a complete and utter stop. Until collective bargaining is put back into place so that the two parties can come to a proper solution between the two of them and we and the government can go back to our respective homes, and we in Quebec can actually celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste, we have to sit here and debate a law project that we should never have been presented with in the first place.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a very interesting speech by my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, a part of the country that I visited four years ago.
I found it particularly interesting that he spoke about the small isolated communities with great distances between them. That is a very important aspect of life in those communities. He spoke specifically about small villages where the post office used to occupy a central position. We are talking about bargaining and reaching an agreement. What about the impact of a decent wage and a worthwhile retirement in the future?
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, which is a matter of great concern for us outside the urban centres.
In those areas, a wage and a pension are essential. People outside urban centres are often disadvantaged, when compared to others. These are not big cities, and the economy does not develop at the same rate as in the major urban centres. People depend to a very large extent on each family member who has a job and the opportunity to have a pension and a good life after working at their job for many years. It is essential for us that all our jobs and our workers be protected and that we make sure that wages are commensurate with the need and the contribution made.
The bill that is before us is a disastrous and draconian step backwards and we will not tolerate it.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about solutions again. That is what Canadians who are involved in the lockout and those who are looking for a resumption of service need.
What could be done to address the most controversial elements? What overtures have the postal workers made? What action could government take to find new ways to improve the relationship between labour and management in the 21st century in terms of looking for solutions?
Philip Toone: I certainly think the first step would be to stop defining a lockout as a strike. We should definitely be looking at realities as plain as day.
We are attacking workers for having attempted to exercise their legal right to strike and their legal right to put pressure on their employer. I do not think that is a tactic that should be lost in the 21st century. It is a right that is enshrined in our Constitution. The Constitution is something that we are going to continue to defend, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, at this rare hour it is my first opportunity to debate in this new Parliament. I am not pleased that I have to debate this particular issue, but I am happy that Parliament is making the effort to look at this issue. It is a very serious and important issue to many people across the country, especially in my riding in the Northwest Territories, where postal service has been an essential part of the communications system for far-flung communities over thousands of miles. 
As my colleague mentioned in his case in Quebec, community post offices are very important and serve a function that in many ways goes beyond simply business service and becomes part of the culture of the community. Many join with their friends at the post office because there is no door-to-door delivery in the Northwest Territories. People go to post offices to get mail from their mailboxes. It is an experience that brings people together. 
In many respects, many of these communities absolutely need the service. There was a case in Colville Lake last Christmas. The chief of Colville Lake was working with me to try to get COD service for his community so that people could acquire gifts for their children after buying them online. Those types of services for northern communities are limited but extremely important. What happens with the post office means a lot to northerners.
Let us look at this move by the government and what it means. The Government of Canada really is the boss of the post office and through its crown corporation runs the post office. We have heard the Prime Minister say in question period that he wants to offer a wage settlement to the postal workers in the same way it was offered to other public servants. The government knows that its responsibility for the postal service is quite large.
What has the government done in the north in the last number of years in terms of policy with Canada Post? One thing it has done, which has turned out to be an abysmal failure, is the revision of the food mail program. The food mail program was an essential public service to northerners across this vast land. People needed it to provide them with the basic essentials of life. 
With the Conservatives having privatized this service to select businesses, there is a situation where the opportunities for people to take advantage of food mail have been severely curtailed. Protests have gone up around the north. The Conservatives' policy changes to privatize an essential part of the northern service of Canada Post has been nothing short of abysmal. 
Northerners do not have a system that works now and it is essential that this be changed. People are going hungry. People are not getting the proper food. This is not working. When changes are made to the postal service and the kinds of things that it provides, there are sometimes very serious results.
When we talk about the relationship between the postal corporation and its employees, we are talking about a very serious matter that can affect many of the things that go on in this country. I really do not want the postal service denigrated to any greater extent than it already has been for the people in isolated communities right across this country. 
Are these people simply a drain on the public purse? No.
Quite clearly, the resources which are driving the recovery that we see in the country come from the isolated regions. Our regions are important to the future of Canada. We need good services. We need services that work for us. We need public services that are fair.
My concern with the actions of the government early in the term of its first majority is that it is trying to take on this essential public service and force it down, to take the wind out of its sails and change this into something else, as it did with the food mail with an incredible result. 
When I first came to Parliament, the Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister, had a great friend in John Howard. The Conservatives brought him here and he spoke in Parliament. It was clear that the Prime Minister liked Mr. Howard a lot. In fact, he liked him so much that he took some of his speeches and gave them in other places. That was quite entertaining for many of us who could recognize the problem he had with his great friendship with John Howard.
The Howard government took on workers in its country very successfully at the start. It was very successful at the start. This is a word of caution to the Conservative government. The Howard government was very successful at taking little bites at the rights of workers. Then, toward the end of its time, it took too big a bite. 
[Interjection]
Mr. Dean Del Mastro: Was it a megabyte?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: It was a bigger bite than he could chew and now Mr. Howard is enjoying a forced retirement. He is out of government and he has been replaced. 
For the Conservative government which is starting off its majority by taking this rather draconian action against the workers of the country, take this as notice. If this is the members' start on the Howard road, we will be after them throughout this Parliament, and when it comes to the next election, if they continue down this road, they will end up in the same place as John Howard, in the dustbin of politics.
Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, sitting here after 4 a.m. is always a bit of a surprise.
I listened quite closely to what the hon. member had to say and I know he represents a very large rural area. He visited the beautiful Thousand Islands in my riding of Leeds—Grenville last summer. 
 In a news report just a couple of days ago, the local CUPW union representative said: “We want to deliver the mail especially in a small town like Gananoque where there are a lot of elderly residents and small businesses that rely on us for their mail”. She also went on to say that she had hoped the labour minister's legislative motion to put them back to work would be passed.
The hon. member mentioned in his presentation how important the mail is in rural ridings. Are those important considerations and does he believe that unions are always correct?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, do I think unions are always correct? No, I do not. 
However, do I think that the process of collective bargaining, where two bodies have the opportunity to interact, is a good process? Yes, I do. That is the process we use in this country.
We did not see much impact from the rotating work action that was taken by the union. It did not upset our service in the Northwest Territories. What we have seen though, with the lockout, is obviously a major disruption. Emails and complaints have flowed to me since the lockout. People were not too concerned about the rotating work actions that the union took because those were reasonable steps. 
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member talked about the importance of the mail being delivered to the north. As well, he talks about the union members as if they are the only workers. I am a business owner as are many of my friends and we hire bookkeepers, receptionists, groundskeepers and cleaners. These are all people who are average workers. We depend on the mail. Our businesses depend on the mail. What is the member going to say to these average workers when they cannot get paid any longer and they lose their jobs because our businesses are going under?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I would tell them to look at the Conservative government that would not tell the postal corporation not to have a lockout.
What is wrong with the government? Why was it silent in this regard? That is what I would say to people. 
When it comes to the importance of Canada Post, yes, I do not think we have had one disagreement in this Parliament about the importance of Canada Post, but what we have had is a major disagreement about the failure of the government to stand up and tell management it cannot act in this rather ridiculous fashion.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the north on his expression of how important postal service is to our northern communities and remote communities. I have had the chance to work with him on the food mail file and I would like to hear how he sees what happened when the government unilaterally took away the food mail contract and gave it to the northern stores. Does he feel that action and others against Canada Post may be part of a more general pattern or direction along with the draconian legislation that we have before us here, a direction that leads only to privatization?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development wrote an excellent report on the food mail and I hope the government looks at it because the situation with food mail has to change. We cannot simply go on with the policy the way it has been outlined. It is not working.
If we do not have changes, we will have problems. I appeal to the government to get busy and change that policy. It is not working.
Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling the House and everyone who is listening how very proud I am to see my party standing up so unswervingly and with such determination for the rights of workers. I am honoured to stand in the House and speak for the workers who live in my riding, and for all Canadians from sea to sea.
I find it very hard to accept a government that is turning back the clock on the quality of life for workers and their families, a government that is turning the clock back significantly for our society, with such archaic and quite simply irresponsible measures.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, without exception, is being penalized by this lockout at present. Yes, it is a lockout, not a strike, because, let us remember, the Canada Post employees themselves were prepared to return to work. The union has acted completely responsibly. It offered to end the strike if Canada Post agreed to keep the old contract while bargaining continued. Canada Post refused. Let us also remember that urgent mail was being delivered during the rotating strike. It was the employer, and no one else, that decided to lock the employees out and simply put a padlock on the postal service doors. That is easier than bargaining. That is the real explanation for why Canadian individuals and businesses are no longer getting their mail.
The government is truly acting in bad faith. All it wants to do is impose a labour contract on employees, which I find completely unacceptable. That is not at all a government's responsibility. A government should instead be concerned about the quality of life of its citizens. But that is clearly not the case here. What the government is doing does not give both sides an opportunity to reach an agreement.
The government is once again siding with the employer and with the CEO of Canada Post, who made $497,000 in 2010, not to mention a 33% bonus. What a perfect example of just how similar the Conservatives are to their Republican counterparts in the Tea Party in the U.S.
Employees are simply asking for better working conditions for a better quality of life for themselves and, by extension, their families. They are fighting for more job security, an entirely legitimate demand. They are fighting for a decent wage for all so that everyone can pay their bills, feed their families and enjoy life. They, too, have the right to enjoy life.
They are fighting for the right to retire with dignity. Everyone deserves a rest, especially after working for many years. Nothing could be more irresponsible than the unilateral legislation being proposed by the government. The government is flouting the right to negotiate a collective agreement and, furthermore, is proposing even lower wages than Canada Post's offer.
Is that really the kind of country we want? Do we really want a government that flouts the rights of workers? If we let the government behave this way with Canada Post workers, what will happen next? Whose rights will be violated? Children? Women? The elderly? Aboriginals? People with disabilities? Which rights will be next?
Personally, I find this extremely troubling. This debate is not just about mail carriers, it is also about safeguarding workers' rights to negotiate a collective agreement, an entirely legitimate demand. A negotiation is between two parties. In this case, however, only the union has behaved responsibly. Canadians have fought too long and too hard for a fair and equitable working environment. They fought tirelessly for adequate wages and benefits so they could support their families. The government must stop meddling in this situation and telling workers to take even more steps backward.
It is important to keep in mind that Canada Post belongs to all Canadians. We share a collective responsibility to ensure that our workers are treated fairly, because Canada Post has a mandate to provide postal service across the country. Everyone needs those services: citizens, small businesses and community agencies. We are lucky to have the best postal service in the world. The elderly need to receive their pension cheques so they can live. Small businesses need to send out their invoices so they can continue to operate.
Organizations must continue to receive their grant funding so they can continue to deliver services and pay employees. The government is looking to dismantle and privatize this service. That decision would have serious consequences for all Canadians. There is no—I repeat—no solution where the private sector could fulfill the mandate of Canada Post. On the contrary, we would pay much more for inferior service.
In Germany, for instance, citizens pay 77¢ to send a letter. In Austria, they pay 88¢. Why? Both countries have a privatized mail system. Here, where it costs just 59¢ to send a letter, the public option is far and away the best solution.
This is a government that opposes public postal service for purely ideological reasons. Its true motive is clear: maximize corporate profits, at the expense of workers yet again.
The employer argues that it cannot afford to agree to the workers' demands. They are too costly, too expensive. That is odd, especially given that Canada Post generated revenues in the neighbourhood of $281 million last year. It makes you think. 
In closing, I would ask you to think about this and to ask yourselves some questions. Where are we headed with a government that is not even able to protect the interests of workers or their families? Where are we headed with a government that does not care about giving Canadians a better quality of life? Where are we headed with a government that puts profits above all else? Where are we headed with a government that scoffs at democracy when it is convenient? My fellow Canadians, is that really what you want? Is that the future of your country, our country? I say no. You deserve better, a lot better.
We, the NDP, will not give up. We will fight for the rights of workers, so they can have a decent wage, so they can have a safe working environment and so they can retire with dignity.
We will fight for a country where no one—I repeat, no one—is left by the wayside.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here this evening working on behalf my constituents.
I stand with 165 members of the strong, stable, national Conservative majority government who ran on a pledge to be here for Canada, and here we are defending the rights of every Canadian worker. Is that not interesting?
It seems, from what I am hearing from the NDP this evening, that working families have a union card and everyone else does not work. That seems to be what I am hearing. What I seem to be hearing is to heck with small business; we are not worried about them. To heck with the economy; if that stops, it does not matter. Let us just be irresponsible. Let us take our marching orders from the big union bosses who will not even allow a vote from their membership. The tyranny, the intimidation--women working at Canada Post are afraid to say anything other than, “I will fall in line. Sure, I will follow the big union boss who will not allow me to vote on contract offers.” 
That is what she is fighting for. Is she proud of it?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: I would remind you that it was the employer who locked out the employees and shut down postal service; it was not the employees who decided to stop delivering the mail.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): I would like to thank my constituents for re-electing me in Nepean—Carleton. I know they are all watching me right now, at 4:20 in the morning, as we debate this important subject.
The member talked about the importance of pensions for Canada Post workers. I have here the portfolio of the Canada Post pension fund. The top 10 holdings of that pension fund are Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Canadian National Railway, and Talisman Energy. All of these companies' profits belong to the shareholders of those companies, in this case the employees of Canada Post.
Now when the NDP talks about raising taxes on these very businesses, they take a bite out of the money that flows from those businesses directly into the pension fund of the workers. Why is it that the NDP wants to raise taxes on the pension fund of the workers at Canada Post?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked earlier this evening. We have never called for higher taxes on pension funds, either during the campaign or at any other time. So the member's question is not pertinent.
Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.
Two days ago, I was in Montreal with union members on the picket line. A number of people were there, and they told me that Canada Post management wanted to impose orphan clauses. Could the hon. member tell us what an orphan clause is and what she thinks about such a clause being imposed?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert when it comes to strikes or lockouts. I have no idea about the question the hon. member just asked. I apologize, but I am not able to answer the hon. member's question.
Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the opposition. 
The union voted 94% in favour of a strike vote, which it has every right to do, and I applaud it for that. My question is this. Would the member and her party support the union on a free vote on the offer put before it, rather than following what it is being told to do by the bargaining committee? 
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in response to the hon. member is that going on strike is a right and that workers have the right to negotiate their collective agreement. That is all I have to say in response to the hon. member's question.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House, along with our NDP team, and bring forward the voices of the people in northern Manitoba, to stand up for the workers who build our communities and who have built our country. Standing in the House I also feel, in a way, that I am living history. 
As a 28-year-old young woman who was born and grew up in Canada, I am seeing the Canada that I grew up to believe in fade away. It was a Canada where people enjoyed one of the best qualities of life, the best health care, some of the best education, some of the safest workplaces, and some of the most stable futures. Yet with this kind of legislation, that Canada is being chipped away.
 Canada is being chipped away because the people who have built it, the working people of Canada, are having their rights rolled back. Number one is the right to collective bargaining, which is all that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has asked for. It has asked to go through an enshrined right, a process that working Canadians go through in many workplaces, to say, “This isn't fair”, or, “Times are changing, things are getting more expensive, and there are more challenges up ahead, so let us find ways to keep wages, benefits, and pensions in line with a Canada that is moving forward.
Instead of having a partner with whom they could negotiate, they were locked out. When that partner locked them out, just a few days later, the government, which has control over crown corporations, came around and did not just agree with what was presented by Canada Post, it went even further. The government proposed wages that were lower than what Canada Post, the employer, proposed to their employees. With this legislation in front of us today, the government has gone further and silenced the very people who hold up our communities, the very people who are asking for nothing less than dignity and fairness.
But that Canada is also fading away because of the specific attack on my generation. It is my generation that will have a double standard in the kinds of pensions that are proposed as a result of the Canada Post program. These are the kinds of pensions that have already been largely taken away in the private sector. 
I come from a proud mining community. Vale, a foreign-owned company, has put out the workers, our brothers and sisters in Sudbury, for over a year because they were asking for a proper pension, a defined benefit pension, so that they would know that their money--their deferred wages--was not going into a black hole to be played with by the markets, which we have seen cause great havoc with people's savings, but that it was locked up somewhere secure, because that is their money, that is our money.
 Now we are seeing a new page. We are seeing a crown corporation, which is controlled by government, take that very same approach and say that because you are young and new, you do not deserve the wages and pensions of those who have gone before you. What will result from that? It will result in a generation, my generation, being less well off than our parents. That is not just in an individual sense; it is in the kinds of communities we live in.
I think of my community of Thompson, one of the youngest regions in Canada. Rhonda, who delivers my mail, and Jen and Ian, good friends of mine, are people just like the rest of us. They want to buy a home, build a family, maybe buy a vehicle, and maybe once in a while take a holiday from one of the coldest parts in Canada. But they know they will not be able to make the same plans as their co-workers who are nearing retirement or their parents who have retired. 
That double standard also applies to people who live in rural areas of the country like the one I live in. Much has been said about the challenges people face in rural areas.
I really wonder how so many of the members opposite, elected from the same region of Canada in which I was elected, representing rural areas like the one I was elected from, can stand here and say that what Canada Post has been doing is okay. Not only has there been an attack on working people in general, but the kinds of allocations and terms of funding that Canada Post has made have far prioritized urban centres rather than investing in rural areas. The postal service in rural areas is not a luxury. It is absolutely integral, integral in not only communications and entrepreneurship but communication between people.
Most recently Canada Post took care of the food mail program that serviced some of the poorest people in our country, aboriginal people in the regions like the one I live in and represent. These are regions that are isolated, and this program allowed them to access healthy foods. Now that has been taken away.
Much was said about the $2 billion Canada Post committed to the modernization projects. I saw a fancy PowerPoint presentation about the new vehicles people would get. Those vehicles do not work in places like the one I come from. But I do know from people like Barb and Lorna and Bertha, who I talked to in Flin Flon today, that the permanent workers who are retiring are leaving empty spots that are not being filled up. There is increasing hiring of casual workers. When they bring forward challenges they are facing with rural postal delivery, Canada Post is reticent to respond to those concerns.
The hypocrisy in having a government that claims to stand for rural Canada or western Canada, that claims to stand for the future, leaves behind not just rural areas with this legislation but also begins the chipping away of the foundations that would help hold up my generation.
This type of approach is not singular here with Canada Post. We have heard that very question: Who is going to be next? What about those institutions where we all belong and come together to find ways for all of us to be better off?
The Canadian Wheat Board is another one, the single desk marketer of a very important product that comes out of my part of Canada.
What about our other crown corporations? Which one will be attacked next? We already know their funding has been challenged and cut. But how about the workers who work for these crown corporations?
It doesn't have to be this way. Our leader of the official opposition put forward the statement that it does not have to be this way. What we ask from the government is to get Canada Post to take that lock off the door and allow the two parties to come to the table and find a resolution in terms of the challenges that workers are facing on the ground and to recognize that these workers are the people who hold up our communities. These workers are raising children who are going to grow up in a world that is going to be increasingly more challenging. 
The role of government, if nothing else, is to stand up for its people. That is why our fight today is not just for the workers of Canada Post but for every worker in Canada and every Canadian who deserves dignity in a country as wealthy as ours.
Mr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have heard today over and over again from members of the opposition talking about the rights of the union. It is the only thing we seem to hear about. 
What we have here is that postal delivery and postal services are not happening. That is not what we are talking about. Strike or lockout does not matter as there is no postal delivery. The refusal to support our back to work legislation is causing real harm.
Here is one example. A constituent emailed me yesterday that she has lost her key to her postal mailbox. Her CPP cheque is in that mailbox. Canada Post told her it would take three to four weeks to get her a new key. Her rent is due on June 28th. Why is the opposition choosing to support its union friends instead of supporting a Canadian senior like this lady? I want an answer.
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I will respond with another question. Why is the government not standing up for Canadian working people who are asking for nothing more than a fair wage, a fair pension and dignity in the workplace? That dignity is something that will contribute to the communities in which seniors live with such great challenges ahead of them and in which young people are growing up. These are the fights of not just Canada Post workers but all of us, and we ask to see leadership from the government in standing up for a brighter future for Canadian people, instead of rolling back their rights and making their futures a lot more uncertain.
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but get into the debate. My colleague from the Conservatives said that Canada Post tells the seniors that they are going to get the key in four weeks. I am failing to see how a postal worker will be part and parcel of ensuring that the lady in his riding will get the key in four weeks. That is management.
We are having difficulty between the management and the postal workers' union. My question to my colleague from Manitoba is: Should the government not order them back to the negotiating table, without interfering, and should the government not allow the two parties to come to a conclusion? That is where our party has put amendments. I just wonder if my colleague will encourage her party to follow our amendments in order to ensure this is concluded, fairly, quickly—
The Speaker: Order, please. I will have to stop the hon. member there to allow the member for Churchill a chance to respond.
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that, just as the government has interfered with the process here, it ought to reverse that act, tell Canada Post to remove the lock from the door and allow the parties to come to the table.
Canada Post employees have been saying for quite some time that they want to work, but they want to work with a fair, negotiated agreement.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, I follow up on a question from my hon. colleague from the Conservative side who referred to us as supporting the union as if the union is some sort of inanimate object divorced from the people who actually make it up. Having worked for a union for 16 years, I know that a union is nothing more than a collective grouping of the men and women who work at a particular place of employment. It is a very democratic organization in which people vote to become certified. They vote whether or not they decide to join a union. They vote on their strike votes. They vote on whether a collective agreement is ratified or not. In my experience, it is one of the most democratic organizations in Canadian society.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Don Davies:  I hear some jeering from the other side. I do not know that they have spent any time in a union, but I spent 16 years of my life in one.
What does my hon. colleague have to say about the men and women who make up the union? Does she share the opinion that the union is something to be disparaged as the Conservatives are doing?
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to come from a community that enjoys the quality of life it does because of the hard work of unions like the steelworkers, UFCW, CUPE and CUPW that are out there because they fight for all of us. They ensure our wages are fair and that we have safe workplaces. They ensure we have health benefits and they ensure our communities are better off.
I am concerned by the negative, aggressive attacks on what is a basic right of unionization. This, to me, is language that I hear from the U.S., from the Republican Party, from the Tea Party. This is not the inclusive, tolerant language that—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.
Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have spent the day in the House. I spoke this afternoon. This evening, I have two comments to make. I am a new parliamentarian, a new member. I am starting, as everyone has done. My eyes are wide open. I look at these people and I admire them all, because I think we are doing everything we can to pull Canada out of a bad situation and to improve things, both for the workers and for the country as a whole.
This evening, a Conservative member rose on a point of order and made a comment about reading from a prepared text. We are starting out here and we are being told not to work from a prepared text. That is how I understood his comment this evening; it struck a chord with me. So we will put the texts away and proceed differently.
After that, a Liberal member behind me rose to say that we should be talking about real issues. It is true that we should be talking about real issues: the people are suffering, too. I experienced a six-month lockout. People lost their homes; they were unable to buy groceries. The union fixed their appliances and bought them groceries. That is the reality when people are not working and when no paycheque arrives on Thursday. That is what we need to be looking at here in the House.
I am part of the labour movement; I am a factory worker. When we talk about unions in the House, I can feel the contempt people have for workers and unions. That is not normal in a country like ours. It is not normal, and I can feel that contempt.
I have negotiated collective agreements. In 1992, I spent 14 months negotiating. A conciliator was brought in; there was no strike and we signed our agreement and got back to work. In 1976, I was locked out and in 1979 we chose to go on strike.
In 2006, I was the spokesperson at the bargaining table with Alcan. In one month we managed to negotiate a $1.2 billion contract to build a new factory with new technology. We did that in one month: a team of eight people worked night and day for one month. We had a deadline and we met it. Anything can be done in this world. Anything can happen when both parties are willing.
I urge the Conservative government to bring these two parties together in the same room and force them to find a solution. That is the only way this is going to be resolved.
In any case, I am a bit disappointed. This is my first time and I would have liked to read my speech, but I will not. I have spoken from my heart. It will not be more than five minutes, but I can say one thing: we need to start taking care of people, the people around us. I spoke on behalf of people who are not even unionized. I defended them. I defended people who wanted to have a home. That was not my job; I was the union representative.
The unions helped create progress in both Quebec and Canada. We contributed to Quebec's occupational health and safety legislation. We participated in the arbitration panel and all these things. People in unions are not so bad. We are not all some kind of insect. For example, today we have FTQ and CSN investment funds. We participate in society. Other people must stop holding unions in contempt.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again engage in some questions with hon. members from across the floor.
A number of members across the floor talked about Canada Post as being an “essential service”. Essential services in Canada often have special rules that apply to them, including—
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: No lockout.
[Interjection]
Dean Del Mastro: And no strikes, Mr. Speaker. The member is right: no lockouts, no strikes.
Would the member be in favour of listing Canada Post as an essential service? If so, does he think it would be a good idea that the workers would not be able to strike or be locked out in the future? Would he support that?
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, I said it this afternoon and I am going to say it again: we can force the parties to sit down and find a solution. It has been done. I have seen it happen. It involves setting deadlines and assigning the right people to the right places. It happens when everyone acts in good faith.
If everyone is not acting in good faith, an agreement will never be reached. The union, management and the government all have to put some water in their wine. I call on the government to ask that the doors be unlocked and that the employees return to work. People are prepared to work under the former collective agreement while finding a solution for the future. That is what is important. That is how I see the situation. 
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, l want to tell my honoured colleague how much I appreciated his passion, especially at this time of the morning. He has probably been up for about 23 hours and he still has that passion because it comes from his deep belief system.
What action does he think the government needs to take to put an end to the fiasco that is happening this morning?
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, I do not know; I am not a miracle worker, but I believe it can be done. In fact, I worked in the labour movement with management and with big multinationals. It is not easy dealing with big multinationals either, but we found solutions. Why? I would like to give an example. In the last negotiations, we put five issues on the table, the company added others and then we had to work on them. Of course, we sometimes had to make painful choices, but that is how you get to the end and get something out of it.
Canada Post, as well as the union, will have to compromise. They need to sit down and do it the right way. If they all go back to work and are forced to sit down with either a conciliator or a mediator—it does not matter which one—to reach a solution, they should find common ground. At any rate, we know that if the employees are forced to return to work after a lockout, the work environment will be intolerable for everyone. I have experienced this situation in factories.
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot relate to the member's experiences in 1976, because at that time I was three years old.
My generation are first-time homebuyers. My generation are young parents and owners of small businesses. My generation and constituents are northern, rural, and vast, and my generation is pleading, “I hope this strike ends somehow, soon, because it's killing small businesses like mine”. 
 The key to ending this strike is not a key held by anybody but the opposition, and it is by supporting this legislation. 
 I ask the member to stop fighting the legislation and to support it so that Canadians can get their businesses running again and get back to work.
The Speaker: The member for Jonquière—Alma has 30 seconds left.
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, the first thing to be done tomorrow morning is to unlock the doors, bring everyone back in, sit them down and make them negotiate. They will deliver the mail, everything will get back to normal and the parties will negotiate and find a solution. That is the first thing to be done tomorrow.
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are here at this time, and I am going on my 22nd hour today, to discuss this unfair back-to-work legislation.
Before I came here for midnight, I quickly wrote my speech. I am going to be reading from the notes I made before I came here, if the House will accept that.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is rising on a point of order?
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, twice now I have heard members ask, in essence, whether or not they could read their notes. And I do not think it is right that the person advising them told them it was not acceptable to read from their notes in the House of Commons. Ministers are not even able to answer the questions put to them in question period without their notes. It is well recognized here in the House of Commons that members are fully entitled to read their documents and they should not be embarrassed to do so. Those are their documents. I invite the member to read her document; she is welcome to do so in the House of Commons.
[Interjection]
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for clearing that up for me.
We are here to discuss the unfair back-to-work legislation. The Canada Post Corporation decided to lock the doors and not allow in the 48,000 postal workers who want to work.
To defend the rights of all workers, I stand in solidarity with my sisters and brothers in the CUPW who want to work but cannot, with my colleagues here in this caucus, and with thousands of members of my community and other Canadian communities.
The postal workers started a legal rotating strike on June 3. When exercising their legal right to strike as part of the collective bargaining process, they made sure that it did not stop the mail delivery so many Canadians depend on. Actually, it was only after Canada Post shut the doors and locked the workers out on June 15 that we started to notice that the mail service had been interrupted. This past week, the government chose to interfere with the collective bargaining process and institute back-to-work legislation.
The government's proper role in this process is not to interfere, but rather to tell its own crown corporation to get back to the negotiating table and to work out a fair and equitable collective agreement. The government's role is not to aid the corporation to achieve its bargaining goals through back-to-work legislation. This legislation removes all incentive for Canada Post to come back to the negotiating table and relieves Canada Post of its obligation to bargain, never mind bargaining in good faith.
This act by the Minister of Labour is undermining the collective bargaining process that many women and men have struggled, sacrificed, and fought for over the course of many years. When I was a conciliator with the provincial labour board, we pushed for all parties to come to a negotiated settlement on their own.
The strength of those who came before us and defended the right to collective bargaining created benefits for all Canadians. Today's young women and men who are entering the workforce are able to do so knowing that they will be able to enjoy benefits such as the eight-hour workday—of course, I do not have this but most Canadians do—the concept of a weekend, standards and measures to ensure safe working conditions, parental leave, and many others.
Basically, we all have an improved standard of living because of the work that the union movement and workers have accomplished over the years. It is also important to note that the workers of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the CUPW, have themselves been responsible for many advancements over the years.
As a young woman, I would like to outline a few of them.
In 1974, the CUPW members stood in solidarity with the mostly female workforce of the coder machine operators. These workers went on an illegal strike to defend the need for equality for the women who were in the low-paid coder classification.
In 1981, the CUPW workers went on strike and won paid maternity leave. This allowed many young women the freedom not to have to choose between raising a family and following and building a career. We women now know that we will not have to worry about financial barriers to taking care of our newborns, and that we will have a job to return to after maternity leave.
In 1985, the CUPW organized and obtained a collective agreement representing cleaning staff in Toronto, one of the first bargaining units in the private sector, many of whom were women.
The union movement and CUPW in particular have a strong history of standing up and fighting for the struggles that led to workers' rights and increased equality for women.
As women, young workers, workers of all ages and community members with a conscience, we cannot sit idly by as the rights of all workers are taken away and deteriorate. 
Postal workers are our neighbours and friends. They are everyday Canadians who deserve decent wages, benefits and good working conditions. 
They provide vital services to my constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River and to all Canadians alike, including single parents who depend on the monthly child tax benefit cheque, seniors receiving payments through their GIS or OAS who do not have direct deposit, Canadians who depend on the CPP disability benefit payments, low-income Canadians waiting on a tax return cheque, individuals waiting for their passports and newcomer families who use the mail service for their family sponsorship applications to be reunited with their loved ones. These neighbours across the country are waiting on Canada Post to unlock the doors and unseal the red mail boxes so their lives can return to normal.
The postal workers are asking for the same thing my neighbours are asking for: to go back to work and continue to deliver the millions of pieces of mail every single day. 
Through this back-to-work legislation the government has decided to punish the workers by imposing a contract with wage increases much lower than Canada Post's last offer. Let me outline some of the details.
Canada Post's offer was 1.9% in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and 2% in 2014, well below the 3.3% rate of inflation. 
The government's legislation, however, would offer something much lower than that. It offers 1.75% in 2011, only 1.5% in 2012 and 2% in 2013 and 2014. This is despite the fact that Canada Post is profitable, earning $281 million last year alone. Its CEO, as we have heard, earned an incredible $497,000 plus a 33% bonus, whereas the offer on the table offers a two-tiered wage system discriminating against young workers because Canada Post wants to roll back the starting salaries for young workers. 
This proposal is unfair and unwarranted against young workers.
As Paul Moist said, “There are no such things as two-tier rent or mortgages: young and new workers don't get a discount on utility or grocery bills”. 
I agree with him. I never got an opportunity to pay a discounted rent because I was a student working a part-time job. This is an outrageous—
Jim Karygiannis:  You were staying at home. 
Rathika Sitsabaiesan:  Sorry, I actually lived away from home for nine years, seven years when I was in university and after that as well. I did not have the luxury of staying at home in the way one of the hecklers just mentioned.
It is outrageous to say that young workers do not deserve the same wages that other workers do. Women are still fighting for equal pay for equal work, and along the same lines, young workers deserve equal pay for equal work. This legislation is eliminating the right of public sector workers to negotiate collectively.
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the debate. It is almost five o'clock in the morning and we have all been up 22 or 23 hours. 
I am amazed by the rhetoric I am hearing from the opposition members. I have heard that we are operating in bad faith, that we do not care about workers, that we are battering the rights of workers, and it is amazing to me that when the opposition talks about workers, it is only talking about unionized workers, specifically the 50,000 unionized workers in this dispute.
The truth is that over these last eight months our government tried to facilitate and help the parties to come to a negotiated agreement. Negotiation is just that. Until there is a settlement, it is just negotiation. Nobody is taking anything away from anyone when we put these measures forward.
I would ask the member opposite, when she speaks of the rights of workers and specifically women workers, of which I am one, why there is no concern about the over 33 million Canadians who rely on the postal service and all the workers who are not—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River. 
[Interjection]
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are speaking to the bill that is in front of us, so I speak of the current situation where 48,000 unionized workers are locked out of their workplace. That is why I am speaking of currently unionized workers. 
The actions of the government have caused a deterioration in the quality of the rights that workers have obtained over the many years of the labour and civil rights movements in Canada. This attack on the unionized workers who are members of CUPW is a direct affront to all workers in Canada. 
Today I stand with my New Democratic Party colleagues in solidarity with all workers in Canada to preserve all of their rights. 
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, what practical solution would my hon. colleague recommend to reduce the polarization that is occurring?
I would ask that we refocus the debate on what really matters, and that is Canadians, Canadians who want to work and who cannot, and Canadians who want a resumption of the postal service. 
What three things would the hon. member recommend to reduce the polarization?
[Interjection]
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that has been answered time and time again tonight. What must happen to bring about resumption of the mail service wanted by so many million Canadians is that Canada Post needs to unlock the doors and allow the workers to--
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Unlock the doors.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan:  Mr. Speaker, I was a little confused by the heckles. Canada Post needs to unlock the doors and allow the workers who want to work to go back to work and to deliver the millions of pieces of mail they deliver on a daily basis. 
Maria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, it is 5 a.m. on June 24, and it is Quebec's national holiday. This is a great day. I am very sorry that we could not get unanimity to adjourn so that we could go and celebrate with Quebeckers. That being said, I nevertheless want to rise in order to wish all of Quebec a happy national holiday, and I extend the same wishes to the members from that province who are in the House.
Last Monday I was on a picket line in Montreal and I met a number of workers. They were very angry, disappointed and indignant. In fact they gave me this handsome cap because they wanted me to show it off in the House of Commons.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to remove the prop. There is a standing order against the use of props in the House, so I would ask her to respect that. 
Maria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, I heard the word “disguise”. I would not say it this is a disguise, but perhaps the translation was inaccurate.
In the House, several other members also have headgear. The workers talked to me and gave me this cap and this tee-shirt which says “The struggle continues”. These people are outraged because they do not feel respected given today's events. This is not going to help things in future nor improve labour relations. That is what they told me.
In its 2009 annual report, Canada Post confirmed that for a fifteenth consecutive year it had a consolidated profit and net benefit of $281 million, out of $7.3 billion in revenues. Moreover, Canada Post is still not releasing—in case people do not know this—its financial statement for 2010. A bare minimum of transparency would require that it release its accounts for the past year. We don't know how many million or billion dollars it made.
I would like to remind parliamentarians and those at home watching us today that the Canada Post Corporation Act establishes that this public service must be financially self-sustaining, not that it must seek profit at any price, such as no longer offering equitable service throughout the country, particularly in smaller communities. Subsection 5(2) of the Canada Post Corporation Act states the following:
 While maintaining basic customary postal service, the Corporation...shall have regard to 
 (b) the need to conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis while providing a standard of service that will meet the needs of the people of Canada and that is similar with respect to communities of the same size; 
The Canada Post Corporation Act mentions self-sustaining finances in a global sense; it does not target specific operations. It makes sense that certain aspects of Canada Post are profitable, even very profitable. Those services should finance the necessary operations that run at a deficit in order to develop and maintain services in communities. We know full well that it is difficult to maintain service in some small towns.
From the beginning of this labour dispute, the federal government should have clearly instructed Canada Post management to make an offer to the postal workers that would respect the spirit of the act.
I asked a question in the House and requested that the government allow us to resolve this dispute not with special legislation, as it is doing now, but with a clear message to Canada Post management that they need to sit down and resolve this dispute in a respectful manner.
Instead, the government introduced a bill stating—at least this is how we interpreted it—that if the employer's overall offer is not accepted, the workers will be given a salary that is lower than the employer's last offer. That is unfair, shameful and unacceptable. This bill will take $875.50 from full-time workers during the four-year agreement. In total, the government would deprive these people and their families of $35 million. That is truly unacceptable. And this is all in a context where Canada Post itself decided to declare a lockout and deprive people of their mail.
The union represents men and women who enrich our society. These people responsibly decided to hold a rotating strike rather than a general strike. That is called being responsible. However, Canada Post decided to close the doors and prevent everyone from coming in. We are seeing the purpose of this action today: a special bill to force people back to work in unacceptable conditions.
When I asked the question, the Conservative ministers said what they are still saying and that is that Canada Post is an independent entity and that they are not getting involved. However, in actual fact, this government was a full, silent partner in Canada Post's actions. The government is now the key player in this labour dispute and calling all the shots. The government got involved, not as a mediator of justice and equality, but as the organization's true employer, and not even a good employer but a dictatorial one that imposes its rules by force. It is a shame and the government is bringing shame to Canada. It is a bit difficult for me, as a sovereignist, to say this, but I am going to say it anyway: this is a shameful thing for Canada.
One of the most important issues in this dispute, and what the workers have been telling me, is that Canada Post wants to impose orphan clauses. As a result, the salaries and benefits of new employees, in particular their pension and vacation plans would be subject to clauses providing for different treatment, known as orphan clauses. That means that, once these clauses come into force, any new people who are hired will not receive the same starting salaries and benefits as those who were hired previously. This creates two classes of workers within the same institution, which is unacceptable. In Quebec, significant measures have been taken to ensure that these infamous orphan clauses cannot be applied systematically. 
This is quite a dark day as a result of this bill. In my opinion, the government decided to leave its mark of inequity, lack of respect, discrimination and injustice on the labour relations that will prevail at Canada Post. That is too bad because, according to Brand Finance Canada in 2009, Canada Post employees made this organization the most iconic brand in Canada. In addition, Corporate Knights Magazine considers Canada Post to be one of the best 50 corporate citizens in Canada, and all that—
The Speaker: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I remember over the years when the member for Ahuntsic was a member of the Bloc Party, which is not recognized here anymore, she and her colleagues would constantly demand that the federal government become more and more involved in the affairs of Quebec by way of sending more funding for this, more help for that. They wanted the involvement of the federal government. Now the federal government, through this legislation, wants to get involved in a way that will be for the good of all Canadians and end this postal strike. The member cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other. 
It is curious. The member said that Canada Post must unlock the doors. Well, if Canada Post were to unlock the doors tomorrow, would the postal workers go back to full delivery and get back to the negotiating table with the promise of no more rotating strikes until an agreement has been worked out? Has the postal union said that it would do that? I have not heard that mentioned at all tonight during the debate.
[Interjection]
Maria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind my colleague that I am still a Bloc Québécois MP; that has not changed. Second, I would like to remind my colleague that, for many years, the Bloc Québécois always fought against federal government involvement in provincial jurisdictions. When he says that we rose more than once to ask the federal government to intervene, I swear that I do not know what he is talking about.
We are asking that the federal government give Quebec what it is owed, whether it is the $2.2 billion we asked for and received—and hurrah, it was a victory—or the right to also work in French in federal institutions in Quebec. We will continue to put forward demands.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member posed a question to the Bloc Québécois member. He asked her if the postal workers would be prepared to return to work with no more rotating strikes, to deliver the mail and to negotiate a collective agreement. 
Does the Bloc Québécois member recall the question I asked the Minister of Labour last week in the House of Commons? I informed the minister that the union had asked for that on one condition, which is in the legislation we are discussing: that Canada Post honour the expired collective agreement and that it restore the drug and disability benefits. If that were put in place, the union would return to the bargaining table and the workers would return to Canada Post offices to deliver the mail to Canadians.
Does the member recall that the question was asked in the House of Commons and that there was the assurance that everyone would return to the bargaining table?
[Interjection]
Maria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. That is also what the unionized workers were telling me. They are acting in good faith and they are willing to return to the bargaining table. They would like to see the old collective agreement prevail until negotiations on a new one are complete. Unfortunately—and I want to say so in their presence—the government has taken advantage of the lockout by Canada Post to table this special statute. The workers feel insulted by all of this, because they were acting in good faith. Deciding to hold rotating strikes is a right; it is legitimate. People have the right to go on strike. They have the right to organize rotating strikes. However, the Conservatives waited for Canada Post to impose a lockout to do precisely what they are doing today.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, at this time of the morning a few months ago, I would have finished delivering a little over half of my newspapers to my clients. I used to deliver Le Soleil; yes, I was a paperboy before I being elected to the House of Commons. At the time, I had 160 clients. However, I want to point out that today would have been a holiday for me. Delivering newspapers to 160 people, in all kinds of weather, year in, year out, makes me feel particularly qualified to understand the working conditions of our letter carriers. This makes me all the happier to be here in the House, despite the fact that we are celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day today. I have to mention that I am missing the celebrations on the Plains of Abraham, to which I was invited this year.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about unions, about their operating principles and their democratic principles, it is important to put things in their proper perspective and understand what they represent. Regarding the back-to-work legislation and the negotiations around it, there has been a lot of confusion and shortcuts and simplification, if not simplistic speeches made in the House. This prevents us from seeing the real situation for all postal workers, and the impact that the lockout and the threat of forcing workers back to their jobs may have on the Canadian population.
We have to start by understanding clearly that the union bargaining unit represents tens of thousands of people. When we look at an organization the size of the postal employees’ union, we have to understand clearly that these tens of thousands of employees are not all sitting at the bargaining table with management. Quite the opposite. The basic starting principle is several tens of thousands of members who organize locally, who delegate powers to an executive body, which itself delegates powers to higher bodies and then instructs a bargaining committee. This is a basic principle that we see in all kinds of organizations. These are widely accepted principles, operating methods that have been tried and tested, and rules that the postal union members apply and follow today. So there is no reason now to show them no respect by pointing a gun at their head to force them back to work without allowing them to bargain as equals with the management of the corporation.
Unfortunately, as we know, unions have a bad image among a certain segment of the public, among certain groups of people. We might even say certain elites who would like, at all costs, for them to disappear. After all, the freedom to organize and come together to achieve a common goal is a very widespread principle and operating method in our society.
Take the example of a large corporation, a company that is listed on the stock exchange, in which there are a number of shareholders, equivalent to the members of a union who have decided to pursue a common goal, and they delegate certain powers to a board of directors and to the management, to operate the organization I am describing. The difference, with a union, is simply in the details. The goals and the roles within a company are obviously different, but the basic principles are the same, and they are largely adhered to and accepted. I assume they are also largely adhered to and accepted by all members of this House.
We can look at this from another perspective. My late father, whom I talked about yesterday, was a member of a senior citizens’ club. There too, this is an organization with a democratic structure that is composed of its members and delegates certain powers. I remember very well how my father would give us reports at home about internal disputes, disagreements that happened. It is a very healthy sign that an organization is operating democratically when among all the members, people can say that they do not agree with how things are working and they would prefer them to work differently. Unanimity would actually be unhealthy. At its worst, it would be a sign of dictatorship.
We hear in the House that out of several tens of thousands of people, some union members are apparently complaining about the present situation and are almost calling for back to work legislation. I am sure that is so, but I hope someone will be able to produce concrete evidence of it rather than telling us things anonymously and secretly. 
I feel I can say that because I have been a member of several democratic organizations. I have held various positions; I was treasurer, chair and secretary. For two years I was chairman of the parents' committee of the Commission scolaire de la Capitale. Somewhat like in the House, sometimes I heard outrageous statements and exaggerations, but I understood that in an emotional debate where the stakes are high and people have different opinions and different interests, sometimes things get out of hand. However, this absolutely does not discredit the union model, whose democratic functioning has been amply demonstrated. No one, absolutely no one, has been able to show the House a shred of evidence that a union structure is not a functional one or does not respect those principles just as well as a large corporation trading on the stock market, or a seniors' organization.
The fact that unionized postal workers gave their negotiating team a mandate to sit down with management in no way constitutes a problem, and it is totally incomprehensible that this government is so obstinately pursuing its efforts to introduce back-to-work legislation. All the more so since there is another principle that is very important to our freedom and to Canadian society, and that is freedom of association. In this debate we are holding right now in the House, these stakes are important for our society, as the decision that will be taken in the House is going to have an impact on our collective future. Indeed, if we deprive unionized postal workers of the right to negotiate, what is the next step? Are we going to deny them the right to associate freely, to defend their interests and to defend the need to deliver collective services?
In summary, it is very important that this bill not be passed, in order, at the very least, to allow our society to maintain forever the right to freedom of association and the right to negotiate. That is fundamental.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to again engage in this debate with the members of the opposition.
It is interesting that the NDP keeps making the case that this is unheard of, that we are breaking new ground. In fact the history of Canada Post indicates that sometimes the government has had to get involved when the parties have not been able to agree. 
It is always a last resort. There have been eight months of negotiations. There was more than three months of work with a conciliator and more than a month with a mediator, and they have not been able to come to an agreement.
The last time this happened, in 1997, the then-Liberal government did bring a bill that set in place the wage rates moving forward. This bill has followed that structure. That is what we have done. 
We want to bring stability. There are raises and there are protections for the workers. There is an opportunity for them to put forward their position to a mediator who will then select the offer from Canada Post or the workers, one or the other. That is what the government has put in place.
What we want is stability. We want the mail to flow. We do not want more rotating strikes. We do not want more harm to our community. We want to stand up for all 33 million Canadians, including those at Canada Post.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not want to approve of or comment on the past actions of the Liberal government. If the Conservative government chooses to learn a lesson there, that is their business, but I believe that we need to get back to the bargaining table. I would urge the government to stop pointing a gun at the union's head. 
Kirsty Duncan: I am focusing on solutions.
Recently there have been challenges for organized labour in Canada, with Air Canada, Canada Post. In Greece, there have been demonstrations against cutbacks. In Spain, government officials are meeting to discuss labour reforms.
I am wondering what role the hon. member thinks globalization has to play in the challenges that unions face today and what actions the government might take to address this issue.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.
There is an opportunity to be had here and bridges to be built. Various countries around the world have very different practices. Union coverage and membership rates vary greatly. It would be very interesting to take the time to study it, to see what works best and to consequently make a proposal in partnership with the union members themselves.
Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is recognized that workers have the right to negotiate their labour contracts. Canada's courts have also recognized the workers' right to join with other workers to ensure that their rights and labour contracts are respected.
If draconian measures are imposed on the workers, what will the consequences be when these people want to ensure that their right to negotiate better working conditions is respected?
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member.
There will be consequences. It is a question of taking away their right to speak freely, to make demands, to hold talks and to truly join forces for a common goal. We cannot back down on this if we want to keep our society from irreparable harm.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members in the House are tired at this point, but it is our duty to be here to speak on behalf of our constituents regardless of our opinion.
As this is my first moment in the House to be giving a brief speech, I want to thank the constituents of Edmonton--Strathcona for re-electing me and for having the confidence in me to represent their interests in the House.
As have all of my colleagues in the House, I too have received quite a few emails, and some letters too. I do not know if those came by passenger pigeon; I thought those went via the way of the dodo.
 As members on both sides of the House have said, our constituents are deeply concerned that they are not receiving their pension cheques, their old age security cheques, their provincial welfare cheques, disability assistance cheques and so forth. We all share that concern.
And we all share the concerns of the various non-governmental organizations that our communities depend on. They depend on government cheques for grants and donations and the campaigns they run in order to gather funding.
I am gratified by some of my constituents who have raised concerns about the impact of the strike on their businesses but nonetheless they have congratulated me on my re-election. They respect my determination and principles, wish me luck and tell me to keep up the great work.
Those are the kinds of constituents I have in Edmonton--Strathcona. They understand that we deal with difficult issues. They understand that there are pushes and pulls between employers, employees and unions. There are those who are not necessarily for unions and would like to strike the unions down.
One of the things that has troubled me in this debate is the suggestion by members on the other side of the House that somehow we are doing something importune by continuing this debate into the wee hours. Let us remember that it is the government that is trying to force this legislation through in a rushed manner. We were forced to resort to mechanisms to represent our constituents and those who are going to be impacted by this repressive legislation.
I too share, with my colleagues from Jonquière—Alma and Scarborough—Rouge River, the concern about the suggestion that we on this side of the House only care about people who work in unions. There is a bit of hypocrisy there. There have been complaints that my fellow caucus members are not speaking to the subject of the legislation. At the same time they accuse us of only representing the interests of union workers. They cannot have it both ways.
As some members have reminded the House, we are talking about legislation that is going to affect the rights and privileges of union members, particularly union members who are postal workers. Therefore it is logical that if members are speaking to the bill then that is what they would address.
In no way does that mean that our members, or any member in the House, do not care about people who work in any place of employment, whether they are sole proprietors, lawyers in a law firm, surgeons or dentists, working in a corner grocery store or a large corporation, or they are miners or farmers. Surely all Canadians have rights and privileges, and we have the responsibility to protect those rights and privileges.
I would remind the House that we are discussing a particular piece of legislation that the government has tabled in the House. By the way, it was at the last minute and just before we were about to adjourn.
I am also deeply troubled by the suggestion that we are either for seniors or for private entrepreneurs, or we are for union workers. Surely our responsibility as elected members is to represent every Canadian equally and to make sure their rights and interests are protected.
I heard a lot of discussion in the House about protecting the rights of various members who run businesses themselves, but I have not heard a lot about the people who are working for those businesses and whether provisions are in place to protect the rights and interests of those workers.
As a number of members on my side of the House have mentioned, it is through the organized labour movement that we have the right to practise what some members in this House call family values. 
What are family values? Surely it is the right for people to have time off from employment to spend with their children, with elderly parents, to visit them in their retirement homes, to travel across the country and visit cousins. 
That is what these workers are fighting for: the right to have extended time off. It is my understanding that what is being proposed is to limit the time off from work. That does not sound like family values to me.
We have heard in the House over the past week about the reports of rising family debt. Yet, the proposal in the government legislation is to reduce the salary levels below even what the employer was offering. The result down the line is that we will have even more family debt. Surely every Canadian should have the right to a liveable wage.
 If we do not ensure that the employers are providing a liveable wage, somewhere down the line the taxpayers will have to supplement that. That is why we fight for a liveable wage. People prefer to work hard and earn that liveable wage. They do not want to have to turn to one order of government or another to supplement them, or to turn to a food bank.
We have heard the discussions by some hon. members that even some of our veterans, who have served valiantly overseas in defending the freedoms of our country or other countries, are now having to turn to food banks. We need to make sure that all workers, our armed forces, RCMP, police officers, postal workers, nurses, have a liveable wage. 
It troubles me very deeply. I am getting the sense that some employees should have rights and that some employees do not deserve those rights.
I want to give hon. members a concrete example of where unions have stood up for the kinds of workers that the government has been promoting: temporary foreign workers. In the province I come from there were tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers brought in. Who was looking after their interests? It was the unions that stood up and came to the forefront. They offered free legal assistance to these workers where the governments had dropped the ball. 
Both orders of government dropped the ball on that. Who was looking after the interests of workers who were working for private businesses and big corporations? The government was not there for them; it was the unions that stepped up to the plate.
 The unions had no interest in protecting foreign workers who could potentially replace their own members' employment, but they fought for proper inspections to ensure the rights of the temporary foreign workers were being respected. That is the value of the unions.
I have never been a member of a union. I have not done union work or labour work in my practice. That does not mean that I do not respect the work of my colleagues. I have great respect for my colleagues who have done this work. It is tough, hard, arduous work to be at those negotiation tables. It is a very valuable role to play, whether one is on the management side or the employee side. I think we should respect the advances that have been made in this country.
I have had the honour and privilege of working overseas in countries where we trade, and these rights and privileges do not exist. These are the kinds of countries where we are exporting products like asbestos. Daily I would go to my work and I would see the workers in bare feet going to construction sites. They were not provided with boots. They had no helmets, no proper clothing, no proper way to wash and no union protections. In fact in most cases, if they tried to unionize, they would be beaten. 
We are very fortunate in this country. We are very fortunate that a lot of those who work in the unions have freely been offering their assistance to other nations to make sure they have the same rights and opportunities. 
Why is that important? It is very important to an operation, whether it is a mine, a petrochemical industry or an agricultural operation, to have proper working conditions and health and safety. An organization has to maintain a healthy workforce in order to deliver its product.
We should be honouring these workers who are willing to stand up against a major employer. It is not easy to stand up to against a major employer.
I have to say that I find--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The member may know, despite some signals, that she has run out of time.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. 
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is not a union member but I appreciate her candour in what she said.
We have heard from a lot of union members and union leaders here tonight. We have heard from the member for Hamilton Centre , who was a union leader of the Canadian Auto Workers. We have heard from the member for Vancouver East, who was a hospital employees' union worker and leader. We have heard from the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who was a trade union representative.
We have heard from several union leaders. We will also hear from another union member because I have been a member of a union for 20 years as a professional educator. We have heard a lot about the democracy of the union and how members get together and vote and choose legislation. I want to challenge some of that. Many people who are members of unions are forced to join the union. To be a professional teacher in the public school system, I had to become a member of a union.
If unions are so democratic, why do they feel the need to force people to join? Who is standing up for the rights of the workers who do not want to join a union but are obliged to do so to work in their profession? 
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. A number of speakers here are worried that the agenda is much larger than the legislation may suggest. In reply, I would have to say that this may well be evidence of that.
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I can stand and say that I am a union member because I negotiated collective bargaining agreements for the doctors, so I understand all about this. We were emergency workers so we could not go on strike. We had a difficult time negotiating. I understand the need to have a fair process but I have a suggestion. 
We Liberals have been getting up and asking certain questions about coming to solutions, and it is not because we mind the time. I am a doctor. Staying up for 48 hours is not a big deal for me. This is something I have done all my life. I am not worried about the time spent here.
What I am concerned about is that I do not know where we are going. I would like some resolution. For instance, we, as Liberals, would like to support this process. We believe the government's bill is draconian and we agree with the NDP on what they need, but we do not want to hear all the spinning and the rhetoric. We would like to find a solution and we have solutions. I would like to see us get this done. 
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat what many before me have said. We have put forward the solution, which is to end the lockout.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members of Parliament are saying that some people did not vote to join a union, that they were forced to join. Could the member explain the difference between that and the present situation in the House of Commons where the Conservatives have a majority with only 40% of public support and plans to pass a bill that 60% of Canadians do not want?
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it is the ongoing dilemma, which is why we are here until the wee hours of the morning. Our responsibility is to oppose the government when we think that it is proposing legislation that goes against the interests of the broader public. 
The big issue here is what the public interest is. Is the public interest to protect an employer against the employees? Is it to protect some people who are discouraged at not receiving their mail? Is it the right to a fair wage? What is the public interest? Surely we have a responsibility to think of all people in Canada.
Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I spent the whole night wondering what I am doing here. Yes, there is Bill C-6, but what is really keeping us here is an ideological barrier, and this barrier is not created only by this side, by a fanatical group of unionists. Personally, I have never been part of a union. Unions defend perfectly legitimate rights. I do not understand why we are discussing this. 
When a very sincere young woman stated her point of view with some emotion, I saw some of the members opposite laughing. To me, this is serious. If this were really a serious issue for them, they would not be laughing. If they want to make people laugh, they are already off to a good start. Look at what they did when things were not working at Canada Post: they closed the doors. If the statistics are not good, they eliminate the survey. It is raining in Saskatchewan, so they fire the weatherman. That is the type of logic we are seeing.
I am from Quebec and I should be at home celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, but I believe in one thing. The reason why I ran for a federal party is that I believed that it was possible to do something positive with the rest of Canada. I told myself that, in this great country, there were certainly a sufficient number of people who were interested in doing something positive. However, what I am finding out from seeing the members opposite turning around and talking to each other, is that they are ignoring the members on this side of the House. If they do not want to listen to me, then they should listen to Laurence Cannon, who was the only Conservative member who had anything intelligent to say the night of the most recent election. He realized that his party had become a regional party. If the Conservatives do not know what a regional party is, they need only look in the corner of the other side of the House and they will see two members of regional parties.
There is an expression that says, “He who laughs last laughs best.” They can continue to laugh for four years but things may not seem as funny to them then.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about honouring the process. We have been honouring the process for eight months. We have been trying to get a resolution, encouraging a resolution, offering conciliation and mediation services, but we also on this side of the House believe in honouring all Canadians.
We have a strong mandate to protect Canada's fragile economy by continuing forward with our recovery plan that was voted for by all regions of Canada on May 2. 
Canada Post estimates that it is losing $25 million per day during this work stoppage. Since opposition members are not okay with bringing workers back to work through legislation, should we assume then that they are okay with taxpayers covering the cost of the losses of this crown corporation for an undetermined amount of time?
[Interjection]
Marc-André Morin: There is unanimity in this place about the seriousness of the interruption in postal services. We are all suffering because of it. We are waiting for important mail from our constituents, personal bills, and so forth. Some people are waiting for cheques that they need to survive. Everyone agrees that we must find a solution. However, we must agree to reflect on and listen to viewpoints that are different from our own. It is in this way that we will move forward and find solutions.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague why tensions have been rising at the bargaining table. Does he think it is globalization, pension shortfalls or the sluggish economy that have put pressure on employers to cut costs? I wonder whether he thinks these factors will cause lasting problems for unions and, if so, what might be done. I am trying to focus on solutions now and in the future.
[Interjection]
Marc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, we should not reintroduce globalization into this matter.
What is happening is that the government is taking rather radical action that will have very serious repercussions. It must be doing this for a reason, but obviously it will not tell us why. However, it will make excuses. Excuses are made to justify one's actions, whereas reasons are kept hidden until the end. That is the difference.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that these measures against Canada Post workers are part of a broader agenda, an agenda leading to privatization, an agenda that could affect not just Canada Post, but also essential services and other crown corporations in our country?
[Interjection]
Marc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, I believe that some parts of Canada are very right-leaning.
I advise my friends opposite to monitor the situation. Perhaps one day their party may be called the Wildrose Alliance of Conservatives, or something like that.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, if you might indulge me for one moment, this is my first time rising to speak on a debate, so I would like to thank the good members of my riding of Burnaby—Douglas for electing me to this place. I would also like to thank my family, who supported me all the way through the election, as well as my lovely wife Jeanette, who has been by my side right through and still may be watching me on CPAC from B.C.
I would also, if I could, beg your indulgence for one more moment. My brother-in-law is very ill, and my thoughts are with him tonight. So if I am a little rattled, I am thinking about him.
I found this debate over the course of last night and this morning fascinating. I am not from a union family. I have been a short time in a union. However, to hear the passion that has been spoken on both sides of the House I think is a credit to the House. It is fantastic that we can come to a place like this, that we can express our opinions and debate each other, most of the time in a civil way. I think the decorum that has come to this House is really something we should all be proud of, and I hope we can keep it up, even though we are dog-tired.
As I said, I am not from a union family at all. In fact, my father is a management consultant. He has worked for very large companies, such as IBM, Westinghouse, and a lot of others. My own experience in life has been through private and public sector work.
One thing that is of great concern to me is what events like this do to the morale of large companies, of large organizations. I am very concerned that the tug, the pull, the struggle between the workers and the management is going to cause long-term damage to a very important Canadian institution, whatever the outcome. I hope that comes into the conversation at some point, the long-term impacts this will have.
I am not from a union family. I am not in the private sector. I am in the public sector, a university professor. What I do, essentially, is public policy analysis. That is my thing. So I feel a little over my head when I hear all the terms and phrases, conditions and ideas that are being used here. However, I have learned a lot, thanks to the contributions from both sides of the House.
What I am trying to figure out is what the problem is here. In public policy analysis, what we do is try to identify a problem first, work through a number of options, come up with viable solutions, and then try to implement those solutions.
Fom what I can see here, the problem that is facing the government, and indeed the whole House, is the problem that workers have been locked out from Canada Post.
This has been a gradual escalation. There have been tensions between the workers and the management. This has gone on for some time. There were rotating strikes. From what I can understand, there was not a full strike. Then the management decided to lock out the workers.
There has been some dispute in the House as to whether it has been a strike or whether it has been a lockout. So just to make sure of my facts, I decided to go through the various news sources to figure out whether it is a strike or a lockout.
 I started with my favourite source, which is the National Post business section. It does say, indeed, that this is a lockout, that the employer has indeed locked out the employees.
I went to the business section of The Globe and Mail, and it indeed says it is a lockout as well.
I went to the CTV News website. It says it is a lockout.
I went to CBC News, both radio and television. They are saying it is a lockout.
So from what I can understand, the problem that is facing the government is that a crown corporation, which is at arm's length from the government, has locked out its employees.
I was struggling for a while. I thought maybe it was a strike and maybe the government is portraying the facts as they should be. I thought maybe this is a strike and this is the problem why the government is moving so quickly to force this measure through the House. But indeed it is not a strike. It is a lockout. I think this side of the House has tried to make that point time and time again. I think it is time we should recognize that this is what we are facing here, and that is indeed the core of the problem that is facing both the government and us here on this side of the House.
What we are debating here this morning is Bill C-6, an act to provide for the resumption of postal services, restoring mail delivery. There is a lockout at Canada Post, and the government has decided to force the workers back to work. That is the government's policy solution.
I have been puzzling through the discussions that have been going on in this House. I have been puzzling through the explanations as to why this is occurring, the effects this is having, and trying to decide whether indeed this is the best solution.
In public policy, there are essentially nine instruments that any government can use, or perhaps a combination of these instruments, in any kind of policy situation. They can be put in any kind of order, but how I like to organize them is in order of coercion. I like to organize them in a sense of how much muscle the government has to use to get its will through.
The first thing that—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please.
 I realize, members, that there may be a changing of the guard happening at the moment, but there is an awful lot of noise in the chamber. I wonder if we could let the member for Burnaby—Douglas continue with his remarks.
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In public policy we have essentially nine instruments that any government can use to solve any policy problem. Sometimes a combination of the instruments is used. I will just walk through these, because it is really what the government should be considering as it goes through any policy problem, including this one.
The first instrument that the other side of the House would probably favour in most circumstances is a market solution. It is the least coercive solution, where the government is hands-off and lets the parties solve things.
The second has a little bit more coercion. It is something called the symbolic gesture. The government might strike a commission to look into the situation, and the commission might make a report that is non-binding. The government is making some kind of expenditure, but it is not binding in any kind of way.
The third is exhortation, or asking people to do things publicly. The government could have asked the two sides to come together and make a solution for the good of Canada. Again, it is expending money, but it is not actually doing anything forceful at this point.
The two next ones would be tax expenditure. The government could kind of give people a break on taxes. I do not think that is applicable in this situation. You could do public spending: you might be able to supplement one of the sides to make up for the problems they are having.
Another instrument might be regulation. Again, that is a non-forceful way of regulating how the two bodies would talk together. 
Another solution might be taxation.
 Public ownership would be to totally reabsorb Canada Post back into the government.
The last one, of course, is a state of emergency. A state of emergency is perhaps the most draconian thing a government can do. What they can do is basically force parties back to the table in this situation.
What is strange to me is that a government that professes to be non-coercive and professes to say that market solutions are the way forward in most situations in fact has gone to the other end of the scale and used the most coercive measure possible to try to end this lockout.
I am quite puzzled by that. I do not understand why this has been the policy instrument the government has chosen to use in this situation. Perhaps it would have been better to leave the parties to work these things out on their own. Not forcing them back to work would definitely be preferable to the current Bill C-6 that is before us.
In closing, I have enjoyed the debate. I look forward to future debate on this. It is a great pleasure to stand and speak in this House.
Thank you very much.
Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do have to make a couple of observations.
The member talked about the nine ways in which these kinds of things can be solved. I will not list them all, but it seems to me that the government has utilized about eight out of nine. The only one that we have not used is a commission. Maybe their answer to everything is a royal commission. 
The member talked about solving it quickly. Well, it seems to me that we have been doing this for at least eight months. So I am not sure what his definition of quickly is either.
The member talked about what events like this do to the morale of companies, large and small, or people. What I would suggest it does is it undermines the confidence of companies, it undermines the confidence of business in Canada. It seems to me that in the current situation we are facing, with the economic recovery and so on, what we need most of all is confidence.
I would like to ask my honourable colleague to address the impact of what is going on right now on the confidence of companies, big and small, the confidence of Canadians to know that government, or somebody, is standing up for their future in solving these kinds of things, using eight out of nine of the instruments that the member mentioned. When does this end? We need to move forward. We need to get on with this, because it is having an impact on companies, large and small, and Canadians of all stripes.
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
There is another thing that has been puzzling me through the debate that is related to the question. Canada Post is a crown corporation. It is supposed to be at arm's length from the government, yet there is this kind of grey area. We are not sure when the government is involved in running Canada Post and when it is not involved.
We have heard that the government has been trying for eight months to strike a settlement to try to get the two parties together. We have not heard much detail on how that has been done.
With regard to the morale of the corporation, Canadians are going to be worried that the government is so quick to move to draconian measures. There would be much more confidence and better morale in Canada Post and in other organizations, in their own organizations where people are working, if the government were not so quick to go to this measure. It might be necessary if this dragged out for years and years, but it seems too quick at this point. 
I would suggest another measure.
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member's speech. As a professor, he knows all of these issues very well with regard to solutions. In fact, I am sure he knows what I am going to refer to. It is a book I had to read when I was going to do negotiations. It is a Harvard tome called Getting to Yes, which talks about a win-win situation. 
I am glad the hon. member talked about solutions, because what I wanted to say is we know that the postal workers want to go back to work if we stop the lockout. Let them go back to work, let them negotiate for a limited period of time with a timeline and then go to mediation or arbitration. What the bill will do is not allow that to happen, because it is going to set complete limits on any arbitrator trying to come up with some way to facilitate an agreement. That is what should stop. 
We should make sure that they take away the piece that talks about future collective bargaining agreements for this particular group. If we did that, and if we could go to these Liberal amendments on the table, the government would then have to show that it means what it says and that it really wants a solution and is prepared to bend a bit and to come to a win-win situation.
What does the member think of that?
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart:  I thank the hon. member for the question. I enjoy being with her in the House here. 
My point is that the government has gone to this too quickly. There is still time for negotiation, and it was indeed the crown corporation that locked out the workers. The government does owe it to the workers and the managers of Canada Post to try to work this out. Forcing people back to work this quickly sends a bad signal. We talk about market signals all the time. This is a bad signal to other companies and to other crown corporations that this is going to be the answer to every labour problem: that we will not work through various solutions, we will go right to the hammer. 
That is unfortunate, because it does not leave anything in reserve. If you use the hammer all the time, nobody ever sees the feather. 
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk a little about what is really going on here, about this totally trumped-up lockout. It's not just happenstance that the postal union is the target of such a massive attack. You have to know the history. In the history of this country, postal services, either as a department or as a crown corporation, have always been subject to political authority. No one will make me believe that the director of the Canada Post Corporation imposed a lockout without first getting permission from the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister reacted favourably to this lockout. Then the Prime Minister introduced a special bill, saying that there was a lockout and that he had to act. But if he had not agreed, there would have been no lockout.
This union, which has been in existence since 1911, is exemplary on any number of levels: democratically, socially, and as an institution. When it was part of the public service, it professionalized the public service and made it non-partisan. The members of this union have always delivered quality service. The Canadian postal services have always provided the services expected of them.
Over time, this union negotiated some important improvements, such as salary increases and job security. Then it obtained a pension fund. The first pension funds were perhaps not extraordinary, but at a certain point the union obtained a defined benefit pension plan. It made sure that this defined benefit plan was indexed and that it included survivor benefits. The union even obtained the acceptance of same-sex survivor benefits. As institutions go, the union has a good pension plan. And that is the problem. This issue is at the heart of all of the collective agreement negotiations. Salaries are not the issue, as they have already been settled. The union signed a salary agreement with management. The problem is not compensation, nor is it the normative provisions, as they too have already been agreed upon.
The problem is management’s desire to reconsider the pension system. That is nothing new; it is the same problem as at Air Canada. It is no accident that in both cases there was speedy intervention by the government. In the case of Air Canada, the pension fund deficit is $2.1 billion. If the private entrepreneur that owns Air Canada, which is in fact a speculative venture, is able to reduce that to $500 million, it will have gained a $1.5 billion asset in one fell swoop, with the help of the politicians in this government. That is the problem.
In the case of the postal union, what can it be accused of? Wanting to defend a system that guarantees its retirees that they will not be reduced to poverty? Essentially, they are having a gun held to their head and being asked to agree to be poor when they reach the age of 65. No, they do not agree to that. That is why they have used pressure tactics, to which the Prime Minister responded with a lockout.
If someone here tries to make Canadians believe that the Prime Minister did not authorize the president of a crown corporation to impose a lockout that was going to damage the Canadian economy, I think they have not read the same Constitution as I have. I also think they do not know their Prime Minister. On this side of the House, we know perfectly well that he and he alone makes the important decisions. That is the problem. The Conservatives have got to the point of attacking the largest and oldest Canadian union.
If they succeed, they are going to be able to get their hands on private pension funds. All union funds will become private funds. For the next 35 years alone, that represents $1 trillion in Canada. That is the problem: greed. The people on the side opposite are defending greed. We are not going to allow something as essential to the social and economic life of this country as pension funds to disappear. We will not agree to turn a blind eye to the fact that two or three generations of Canadians will be condemned to poverty when they reach retirement age.
I will also point out to my colleagues that at present, in spite of the economic exploits the Conservatives boast of, the poverty rate in Canada has been rising for five years. That is nothing to brag about.
The people on the side opposite are preparing for another Walkerton. People will remember that little Ontario municipality. The government had assigned the water testing to its friends in private enterprise, who supposedly did everything better and more cheaply. They walked off with the cash and left a mess. If they had only left a mess for the government, no one would have complained, but the problem was that people died because of it. The Conservatives are making exactly the same mistake all over again. This is the same mistake the Americans made not so long ago: giving the public’s money to the private sector. What a great bargain: commissions and bonuses. The devil is in the house and they are the ones who let him in.
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I just want to start by offering my sincere congratulations to the workers at the Toyota plant in my riding of Cambridge and North Dumfries. The Toyota auto-worker plant has been named the number one automotive plant in the world.
Speaking of the automotive industry, I would like to remind the member it was this Conservative government that put forward an agreement, a package, that saved 52,000 auto worker jobs in Ontario alone. We did not just do it for auto workers, but for the forestry workers, miners, students and seniors. Why? It is because as a government, we are responsible for all Canadians, not just one sector, like the socialist party fighting for the unions.
It is no surprise that the socialist party has been for the unions, but what about the students in the member's riding? What about the seniors who are not getting their cheques? What about the small businesses that will suffer if the members do not agree to this legislation and take the locks off that door now?
[Interjection]
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, not only do I know these people, but I can say that the cheques they are receiving do not cover their rent, let alone their groceries. And that is the government's fault because it ignored our budget proposals. A word to the wise.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if the government's current attitude reminds him of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. He decided to lock out all of the air traffic controllers in the United States because they were using pressure tactics.
Since the Conservatives have gotten their majority—which was not that long ago, just since May 2—we have come to recognize their ways. We had our suspicions. We were worried. And now it has become reality. We saw it with Air Canada, and now we are seeing it with Canada Post. Special legislation was quickly put in place. It did not take long. We have our suspicions, and I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks, as I do, that with Canada Post, it was a prepared script, which included the threat of special legislation immediately after the lockout. And the special legislation imposes employer-friendly conditions on the workers. It is scandalous.
[Interjection]
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, since the country is run by the Prime Minister of Canada, not the head of a crown corporation, it is clear that the 55,000 Canada Post employees were ambushed in an attack that was planned and directed by the Prime Minister's Office.
Unfortunately for them, the more we talk about it, the sooner people will understand that it makes no sense that the Prime Minister imposed a lockout and then brought in special legislation with the excuse that there was a lockout.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, this is not a point of debate, but the hon. member has made several insinuations about the Prime Minister. Because I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I know what he is saying is absolutely incorrect. However, if he has any evidence, he should table it. Otherwise, he should withdraw those remarks and apologize to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of this country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on the same point of order.
[Interjection]
Mr. Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I see my colleagues over there are probably tired and grumpy after staying up all night. I think they are starting to be a little delusional. I think they just need to calm down and engage in some respectful debate and stop interrupting. It was a very interesting speech, and I find that what I am hearing from across the way is starting to sound rather delusional. I would say, have a little cup of Ovaltine and everything will be fine.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I think we have heard a couple of interventions on this. In all honesty, we need to get on with debate. Members should know that while the point speaks to the substance of the comments, the substance of the comments are part of debate.
I would say that members should recall that they should address their comments to the Chair when they are in the midst of directing their remarks or comments. That is always a good idea.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, it was very clear last night, when the labour minister was speaking in terms of the Conservatives' little narrative they are trying to set up and their attack on unions and the NDP for defending the rights of people to have pensions, that the labour minister said it was obvious the NDP had a direct line to labour leaders.
 I would think that any labour minister with any sense of responsibility would also have a direct line to labour leaders, because if she did she would not have stood up in this House and given us this drivel about how the Conservatives were not taking sides and how they wanted to get people back to work. If she had a direct line to the labour leaders, she would have known that the lockout was engineered, that the workers are ready to go back to work and will be delivering the pension cheques.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the labour minister has no direct line to labour union leaders and so has no idea of what is actually happening in this debate.
[Interjection]
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, she is not in contact with the union representatives because she is in contact only with management. She is not doing her job. It is clear that the postal workers have been ambushed.
If anyone here thinks that the Prime Minister of Canada was not informed that there was going to be a lockout, they are about as broad-minded as a skinhead and they are not too bright either.
Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would first like to take this opportunity to greet the people of my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. Many of them are celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day today. I will not be with them and I would like to express my great disappointment that the Prime Minister refused the leader of the official opposition's proposal to suspend the sitting of the House for today. We therefore cannot celebrate with our constituents.
That being said, I rise today in this House to do my duty and carry out the mandate that was given to me when I was elected. My constituents gave me the mandate of defending workers. It is a question of principle. Workers and the public should not be punished for Canada Post's bad faith.
Forgive me, but I am starting to feel a little bit tired since I have been here since yesterday morning. I listened carefully to what was said during the debate last night. I am concerned about the fact that the hon. members are not listening to each other.
I would like to speak a little bit about the effect that these events will have on our communities.
The union we are discussing this morning is a responsible union, one which took moderate job action so as to accelerate the negotiations without stopping mail delivery. It is the employer, Canada Post, a crown corporation under the government's responsibility, that decided to reduce and then stop mail delivery entirely by locking out all of its employees. We have debated this a great deal and I think that that is clear as can be.
It is unreasonable for the government to impose wages that are lower than those in the previous proposals, to make workers pay for the employer's bad faith and to try to turn the Canadian people against postal workers.
Even though the people of my riding, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, want to get their mail, they understand the difference between a lockout and a strike. The people in my riding understand very well that the postal workers want to distribute the mail as quickly as possible. However, they cannot agree to sacrifice their pensions, their health, their job security and the working conditions of the newer workers.
Small businesses in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel know that in order to be able to depend on quality service from Canada Post, its workers have to feel they are valued.
 All of the workers in my riding support this, because they know that small communities cannot be sustained when members of the community cannot support themselves.
 We are talking here—tonight, this morning, and over the weekend if necessary—about giving people the means to defend themselves. This is a matter of respect for workers and the dignity of workers.
 I would point out that it is thanks to the workers who were in the vanguard that parental leave, paid for by employers, was won. I think this is something extremely important, since it represents equality. It was the trade union movement that gave us this. These women and men, these workers, simply want to be able to preserve their standing in our society and not become second-class workers.
 The work done by postal employees is extremely important to all Canadians and Quebeckers, but it is obviously not valued by this government.
 I hope that Canada Post will return to the bargaining table to negotiate a fair and equitable agreement.
 I will be here day and night, if need be, to stand up for the right of all Canadians to collectively bargain the right of everyone to a job that enables them to support their family and their community, so that all Canadians are able to retire with security and dignity.
Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for getting up and making that speech. It is good for her to stand and talk in the House of Commons. It is a right and privilege that we all have.
When I was first a member I had to remember who put me here. I had to remember that it was the constituents who were my priority. I wonder if the member would tell her union bosses that they are fired. She no longer represents her union bosses. Now she represents her constituents. My constituents, just like her constituents, would be telling them to get back to work. 
When will she tell her union bosses that they are fired and that she works for her constituents?
[Interjection]
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I think the point my colleagues and I have been trying to make tonight is that we have to value our workers. Our communities need every member of the community to be able to live in dignity. It is upsetting to me that the members on the other side have not quite realized that this is not about specific groups of Canadians but about our communities as a whole.
Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her thoughtful comments. 
Like many others, I have not been part of a union. In fact, in my previous life I negotiated many collective agreements on behalf of management. While we always approached those negotiations with an attitude of a win-win for both sides, we realized that after negotiations, we still had to maintain good relations. We had to have faith in one another. We had to build morale on both sides, for the employer and the employee.
Last night I received a letter from a CUPW member, George, who asked me to see if there was any possible way he could get back to work right away, have the doors unlocked and resume the mail for all people, for businesses and residents who deserved to receive it. 
I wonder if the member could speak about the merit of letting everybody go back to work, resuming their former positions, and going through a normal mediation and arbitration process rather than going through the terms imposed by this legislation.
[Interjection]
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I think the workers just want to go back to work with a fair negotiated agreement.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech in the House of Commons this morning. I think it is important we recognize, as she has, that what is happening right now is connected to the issue of community. There is no doubt that Canadian postal workers are very much a part of the community, as is the case, for example, in Windsor West, in Sandwich Towne.
I hear some heckling in the background, but I will ignore that for the moment, just as that member has often been ignored in the House of Commons.
However, I think it is important we recognize that community is very much a part of the postal services. 
 In my riding there was a threat with regards to closing the postal outlet in Sandwich Towne. We stopped that closing, the first one to be stopped across Canada, because it affected the businesses, residents, seniors, students and so forth.
 I would ask the member to expand upon that connection to community. It is very important, because it is not just about the individual workers here but about the best service at the end of the day. This is a very important postal service that is recognized and renowned worldwide.
[Interjection]
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I agree that communities are interconnected networks of people, and a standard for everybody should be maintained such that the community can function well.
 At this point, I think we will probably be elaborating more over the weekend, but I am a bit too tired to keep going right now.
Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have risen in this House, but it is the first time I have made a speech. First, I would like to thank the voters of Chambly—Borduas for electing me to this position. Speaking of them, I also want to point out that like all my colleagues from Quebec, I will unfortunately not be able to take part in activities marking our national holiday in Quebec with my constituents. I do wish them a wonderful holiday, however. I want them to know that I am very disappointed not to be there.
 What is happening is worthwhile, though, because it has given me an opportunity, on this national holiday, to put things in perspective. I would like to take a step back for a moment. I assure you that what I have to say is relevant and relates to the bill we have before us.
 One of the activities I was going to take part in today was a performance put on by students at Osias-Leduc secondary school, entitled Je me souviens. All Quebeckers—and many Canadians—know that the motto Je me souviens appears on our licence plates in Quebec. But those words mean much more.
For one, they remind us to think about important historic events, such as the asbestos strike in 1949, which I think is relevant to this situation. I am not bringing this up to upset the member for Winnipeg Centre. The town is called Asbestos. We will not talk about the asbestos issue. One all-nighter is enough. Perhaps another time.
In all seriousness, I want to talk about the asbestos strike because, at that time, there was a serious issue in the labour dispute. It had to do with the language of work. People had no say. At that time, they literally had no say because management and workers did not speak the same language. Now, 60 years later, we find ourselves in the same situation: the workers have no say.
Responsibility for the lockout does not lie with Canada Post. It lies with the government, which wants to force a return to work and impose previously determined conditions that have been set out in the bill we are debating. I find it very problematic and very disappointing that, after 60 years, we are still in a similar situation, even though the circumstances have changed.
I would also like to tell a story about a woman in my riding who is a teacher. Last night, the Minister of Labour spoke about the 45,000 Canada Post workers, who, it seems, are less important than the rest of the Canadian public. However, we must not forget the big picture. My constituent was right to bring this up. She and her colleagues are constantly fighting for their fair share. Yes, I know what the members on the other side are thinking. They are going to give me a lesson. They are going to tell me that education is under provincial jurisdiction. I know that.
I am bringing up this example because the government needs to lead by example and show people that they can have a say, that they have a role to play in society. Be it through a union or some other means, they all have a right to their fair share in society.
This teacher, when she spoke to me about this, told me that she was worried that this bill would pass. Why? Because from that point forward she would be living in a society in which she did not even know whether she would be able to fight for her rights. She did not even know whether she could defend her right to have an acceptable collective agreement, get her pension, and so on.
This is all very relevant for me as a young person. With all due respect to our seniors, it is not only them we are thinking about and whom we have to think about when it comes to pensions. We must also think about young people. As young people, we do not even know if we will have pensions. Without unions or organizations that allow us to have a forum in which to speak, we cannot guarantee the security of these things, the security of pension plans.
That being said, this teacher certainly took notice of what the 308 members of this House wanted. Yes, we want the mail to be delivered again.
However, she said it very clearly. We can spend the whole night, as we have done, taking out our BlackBerrys and saying that we have received an email from some person or another saying that the workers should go back to work or that they should not and that we are doing the right thing. However, the fact remains that the letter carriers, Canada Post employees, were delivering the mail. It was management that decided to declare a lockout, not the workers. People, including those from Quebec, know this. It strikes at the very core of the community values we hold in Quebec.
I would therefore like to take this opportunity, with all due respect to the people in the rest of the country, to note that today is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. It is indeed important to remember. We need to be able to say “Je me souviens”, I remember this important event and the fact that, 60 years later, we are still fighting for the same thing. That being said, this is why we must oppose Bill C-6.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate and others with some interest. At some point, people need to be legislated back to work. This legislation provides how that might be done and gives some guidelines to the arbiter. One of those guidelines is to ensure the short and long-term economic viability of Canada Post. What does the member have against that principle. Does Canada Post not have to be viable if it wants to protect its workers?
It also talks about maintaining the health and safety of its workers, and that is pretty important, and ensures the sustainability of its pension plan. In order for workers to benefit from a pension plan, does it not have to be sustainable?
 Would the member not agree with me those guiding principles are reasonable?
At some point, people must come to a place where someone other than the parties bring the matter to a resolution. There are third parties involved, Canadians, who are suffering economically and need to have this brought to a conclusion. It is costing them a significant number of dollars, and that is right across the country.
[Interjection]
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the problem with this way of thinking is, as I mentioned, that we can no longer hear the workers' voice in all of this. Are the workers not also Canadians who are negatively affected by certain circumstances, as the member opposite said? Yes, we understand the importance of the economy, but workers are also part of the economy.
I would like to say—as we have said throughout the night and will continue to say this weekend—that things were going well at Canada Post until management decided to lock out the employees. There is no reason to prevent workers from expressing themselves and having a voice at the bargaining table.
Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was born in Asbestos. An entire generation of workers have talked to me about the conflict that took place under a government that was in power in a period that we call the great darkness in Quebec. We will see how history will depict the government opposite.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas what will be the social cost of a collective agreement that is not negotiated, a bogus agreement. Once again, the gap between rich and poor is growing and is greater than ever before. 
[Interjection]
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am happy to have the opportunity to reply to a question from a colleague who is from the area I was referring to.
In fact, that event I referred to does for some mark the beginning of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. To answer the question, if this bill is passed, if we silence workers in this way, we will be losing ground and going back to that era known as the great darkness. 
As I mentioned in my speech, this is very important because it is going to create a precedent. The time to act is now. We have four years to go and in my opinion, this is not a very good message to send at the beginning of a mandate.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member had beautiful speech in the House, especially when he says that it is his first speech. He was very thoughtful. The sense of history he brings to the debate today is very important. 
He mentioned that postal workers had no voice. That is a very pertinent comment because they have been locked out. They want to do nothing more than get back to the bargaining table.
It was very surprising to us last night to hear the minister talk about the strike. She did not seem to know the difference. Could the member comment on what a lockout is and what took place?
[Interjection]
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple, but it is crucial to this debate.
The rotating strikes the workers were holding allowed them to serve Canadians anyway and to perform their duties, even in a less-than-perfect way. However, when there is a lockout, there are two things to consider. Firstly, people are deprived of service. The other factor, which is even more important, is that management makes this decision and workers pay the price, without being able to make their voices heard, voices that my colleague and I deem to be important, but that are being jeopardized by this debate.
Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the government announced its intention to introduce a bill to force the unionized employees of Canada Post to go back to work, it quite simply sounded the death knell for the bargaining process.
Obviously, once an employer is assured that it will win its showdown without even making the effort to bargain, it has no further reason to go back to the table. An employer that is given assurance that it will be backed up by the full legislative force of the government has no further reason to listen to the employees’ demands, to bargain and to compromise, and to recognize the need to go forward with an open, honest and constructive dialogue.
Since the government announced its intention to force the workers to give up their most fundamental rights, bargaining has simply come to a halt. The government is thus subverting an entire tradition of dialogue, dialogue that is sometimes passionate, sometimes difficult and often agonizing, but that is always carried out with the ultimate goal of improving working conditions and enabling businesses to develop.
Let us be clear: employees do not want to harm their company’s profits. They never intend to jeopardize development and interfere in the pursuit of business opportunities that will increase revenues and, yes, produce higher profits.
No Canada Post employee is questioning the fundamental objectives that are shared by any business: success, growth, profit and investment. The employees unquestionably have that success at heart. Their demands are in no way egotistical or naive. On the contrary, they want to put their experience to work. We are talking here about an organization that is head and shoulders above all its counterparts in the world. Canada Post has adapted its management methods to the reality of an enormous land mass and a widely dispersed population, a land that presents unique challenges for a delivery company. That is how Canada Post has distinguished itself from the competition, by finding ways to extend its network everywhere within Canada, while not only continuing to be profitable, but maximizing its profits.
Canada Post is a company with an enviable business model and sets the standard for many countries worldwide whose networks are not as complex and capable of absorbing such large volumes for delivery.
That is why the government’s attempts to compare Canada Post to other delivery networks elsewhere in the world amount to such a weak argument. Canada Post should not be comparing itself to anyone else. Rather, the competition should be showing how it would be capable of doing the job that is done so admirably by Canada Post.
If we look closely at the operating methods referred to by Canada Post managers and the Conservative government to justify their actions, what we really see is that very few of those businesses stand up to the comparison.
Canada Post is a pillar of the Canadian economy, not because it compares favourably with the competition, but because the services and expertise that have been developed by Canada Post employees over decades are unique in the world.
Recently, the new president and CEO of Canada Post, Deepak Chopra, recognized the opportunities for expanding services at Canada Post. He compared Canada Post’s potential to that of other countries in the world, in particular New Zealand, which has developed new services and thus increased its profitability.
Mr. Chopra could have taken that opportunity to point out that Canada Post is exceptional when its performance is compared with New Zealand specifically. We are talking about a country with a population of 3.5 million, one-tenth the population of Canada; a country with an area of 270,000 km2, or one-thirty-seventh the size of Canada, with its 10 million km2. If we consider population density, we can also compare New Zealand, which has 15 inhabitants per square kilometre, with Canada, which has 3.3 inhabitants per square kilometre.
I am pointing out these simple facts to remind people that when Canada Post executives compare Canadian service to service in other countries, they must keep in mind the outstanding performance of employees in the field, which is such that the public sees no difference in service delivery despite completely different geographic and demographic situations.
Does the government thank the Canada Post workers for their outstanding contribution to the provision of our national service? Absolutely not. Rather, it resorts to disinformation by insinuating that more needs to be done with less in order to catch up with the competition.
But what competition? It is not up to Canada Post employees to compare themselves to the examples the Conservative government uses. No, the Conservative government should instead be humble and express its gratitude for our uniquely successful mail distribution service.
And who is behind that success? The employees of Canada Post. Canada Post has always favoured a strategy based on the competence and talent of its employees, a strategy that rests on human resources.
How else can Canada Post proceed if it is to provide service across the vast Canadian territory? How can it achieve that without having absolute confidence in every one of the workers who contribute to the success of Canada Post? The success of Canada Post is indeed based on that confidence, the result of a long tradition of cooperation, collaboration, and yes, negotiation. The absolutely unique historical success of Canada Post rests on the confidence it has in its mail carriers. They are far more than simple employees; they are in fact partners. These mail carriers are area managers, distribution route managers, client service specialists, performance optimizers, performance engineers. Letter carriers are dependable, independent, consistent and punctual. These are all criteria that our modern economy values highly.
And what does the Conservative government do? What approach has it adopted even though it has only been in power for a scant few weeks? Without hesitation, it has chosen to totally sabotage a whole history of loyalty-building and mutual understanding, of support by the business for its employees, in the form of decent salaries, stable benefits and renewed confidence following negotiations. The Conservative government is attacking the relationship of trust that allows Canada Post to depend on employees who manage their distribution routes in the most remote parts of our country.
Now let us discuss the moment the government chose to impose its legislation. The Conservative government thought it would destabilize the opposition by introducing an extraordinary measure. But we have news for the government. The government's strategy, aimed at forcing a quick vote by extending the parliamentary session and preventing Quebec members from being with their families and constituents during Quebec's national holiday, is going to backfire.
The Conservative government is forgetting, or ignoring, that the absence of their New Democrat MPs will not go unnoticed by Quebeckers.These very Quebeckers are the ones who revolutionized the Canadian government by electing a record number of young people, women, members of visible minorities, and progressives from all walks of life. They are the ones who hoped for and caused the most extraordinary wave of change that has been seen in Canada for a number of years.
Does the Conservative government actually believe that the NDP members' absence from the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day festivities will go unnoticed? No. The absence of their members of Parliament will disappoint Quebeckers, as will the Conservative government's attitude of contempt for Canada Post employees.
What is even worse is that this absence will draw the attention of the entire population of Quebec to what is happening here in the House. When they ask, “Where are our elected officials when we have been waiting since their historic election to celebrate their entry onto the Quebec political scene?”, we will respond that we are standing steadfast in the position to which they elected us.
Mr. Ed Holder (London West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I salute the hon. member opposite for presenting her comments with great dramatic flair. I salute her energy, but I now want to go to the content of the message. 
This is becoming less about Canada Post and its workers and more about the members opposite, who are now holding Canadians to ransom. That is exactly what is happening. They are holding Canadian businesses and the public to ransom.
I had a note the other day from Scouter Tim. It is from London, Ontario, the 10th largest city in Canada. He said that he was having a jamboree, but he could not get the crests that his scouts used for trading because members opposite were blocking the legislation. Canadians now have that same sense. It is no longer Canada Post and its workers; it is members opposite who are saying that they are unable to deliver.
What does the member opposite she say to Canadians—
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While listening to the debate through night, I noticed the members were always calling on these emails they had received from various constituents. 
I find it shocking that Scouter Tim would have said days ago that the members of the other party were holding up the debate. Would the member table the email from Scouter Tim so we could see what it actually says?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The member will know that members are not obliged to table documents in this particular manner. If the member has a question, he can certainly rise on questions and comments. 
The hon. member for London West. 
[Interjection]
Ed Holder: Mr. Speaker, let me just read that, because I think that is a fair comment. He wrote, “I'm a scout leader with the 68th London scouts group. We have a group of scouts that will be attending a jamboree in B.C. this July 9th through 16th. One of the big events for scouts is the trading of crests. Unfortunately, the crests that have been designed and made specifically for this jamboree are being held up in a Canada Post depot. The youth have saved money through fundraising in order to purchase the crests and now there's a good chance that they will attend this once in a lifetime event and not have the crests they were going to trade.”
Members opposite should know that after all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done, and that is very disappointing. 
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member took the time to read it.
 I certainly support the scout movement. However, it is clear that scouter Tim did not blame the members opposite. The member did, and I would ask that he withdraw his statement. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order. That is a matter of debate.
[Interjection]
Paulina Ayala: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, it is up to Canada Post—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The hon. member for Langley is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Mr. Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, just days ago we had a promise from members opposite that decorum would be returned to this House. As my colleague was trying to answer questions, there was a great degree of heckling from the other side. That is not what was promised, so we need the return of decorum in this House. 
[Interjection]
Mr. Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, the member from the Conservative Party might have noticed, as we all did, that the version read before did not correspond to the version he actually received. That is what we call something not adjacent to the truth. We were just trying to get to the part of the email he said he was quoting, but unfortunately it is not in the email. He was making it up. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We have received sufficient interventions on this point. These are points of debate and I would encourage members to use their time during questions and comments to put questions to previous speakers. 
The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier. 
[Interjection]
Paulina Ayala: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, I am saying that it is up to Canada Post and the government to respond to customers who are being held hostage. It is not up to the workers who continued to do their work while they were on strike. The question was not clear. It is Canada Post and the government that must take responsibility for the fact that the crown corporation is not operating at the moment.
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I see that the calendar on the table says June 23. That should be corrected since today is June 24. Last night, few francophone members spoke but some will this morning. I will speak in French from start to finish. I would appreciate it if questions were asked in French given that this is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
We remain optimistic about the resolution of the dispute but, as the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said earlier, both parties must demonstrate goodwill. When both parties are present, they must frankly discuss the problem and resolve it. 
For several weeks and a few days, the government has been wanting to violate the fundamental rights of Canadian workers, not just those who are unionized but also those who are not. The working class's battle to have its rights respected is not something new. Unfortunately, with this Conservative government, it is an ongoing battle. 
The government is quick to attack fundamental rights such as the right of association and freedom of expression, which are guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as, by extension, the right to peacefully negotiate working conditions in accordance with the fundamental principle of labour relations—industrial peace. We wonder how far the government will go. All night long, the Conservatives have been nasty, arrogant and sarcastic and have shown a total lack of respect for human rights. That is what this is all about.
Freedom of association is the freedom to combine together for the pursuit of a common purpose. This fundamental freedom, along with freedom of opinion and expression, come within the realm of civil and political human rights, which find affirmation in the Constitution. The government must respect this right and can only infringe it by a rule of law, within limits that are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. These are not my words, but those of Justice Bastarache, in Dunmore v. Ontario. 
It is mind-boggling. I have been awake for 24 hours. Furthermore, I am somewhat intimidated by the quality of the interventions by all these people around me. This is my first speech. I would like to say hello to the members of my fans club who, I am sure, are watching me at 7 a.m. on CPAC.
Yesterday, I listened to the hon. member for Beauce try to give us a crash course in economics and quote such outdated and utopian theorists that you would think we were back in the 19th century. I get the impression that his colleague, the labour minister, attended the same university, because she wants to take us straight back to the 18th century when it comes to labour relations. It might be time for the members opposite to come up to speed by studying more pragmatic theorists given that modern civilization has evolved. Extreme capitalism is dead. That is what started the economic crisis. They are going backwards. 
When a bill is introduced to dictate working conditions that are less favourable than those previously negotiated, and without acknowledging this fact and claiming the contrary, it makes us wonder where the government has been these past few weeks. Is there a pilot on board? That is how I would summarize the past few days.
We are moving towards an abyss, the suffering of the working class. The gap between the ruling class and the working class is widening once again. What will happen? Which services will be privatized in the coming weeks and months? What is this government's hidden agenda? Will it be honest with us?
Through no fault of their own, postal workers are often seen as spoiled public servants. I would like to challenge a government member to do the work of the letter carriers, day after day. Perhaps then they would understand the frustration of these workers, who do not deserve what is being imposed on them.
Yesterday, while listening to the leader of the official opposition, I said to myself that it was a great speech by a great democrat. I am proud to be a member of this party, which defends the interests of all Canadians. Is there anyone opposite who will rise and say that today they wish to stand up for the working class or the middle class and all the interests of Canadians?
I am a little nervous, and I will end on that note. Thank you for listening. This is what this is all about.
Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind the hon. member that there are two official languages in Canada and we can ask questions and give our answers in whichever of the languages we are most comfortable with. I listened intently to every word the member said. I realize he is tired, but we are quite refreshed on this side.
There were no solutions raised. There was no talk about how to solve the problem. We can continue this debate for four or five days. After today, I will be back on Monday. We can keep right on going and still be here on July 1. What are the solutions? We can stand here and talk about ideology all we want, but what are the solutions to the problem we are having, on behalf of the 33 million Canadians, including the 55,000 postal workers?
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. The solution is at the bargaining table. Let us remove the locks and make the parties sit down with one another.
Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks of the fact that the government wants the workers to return to work when there is a lockout. Does he think that it would make more sense to have the employer allow the workers to work?
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, as we have said repeatedly during the night, the workers are ready to go back to work. It is that simple. They are ready to negotiate an agreement peacefully, as equals.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, my colleague from Compton—Stanstead has experience in labour law. That is what I believe I understood in my chats with him since this session began.
When he took a look at the bill, he saw that the government was imposing salaries on postal workers that were in fact less generous than the previous Canada Post Corporation offers had been. By imposing such a salary reduction—another measure in the bill that is unfair to workers—will the government not create a conflict when people go back to work and create an absolutely poisonous job atmosphere until the expiry of the collective agreement?
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his question.
All this is going to do is poison working conditions and relations. Moreover, the imposition of an “orphan clause” will make things even worse by creating two salary scales. This provision was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a judgment involving the Sherbrooke municipal police force and the City of Sherbrooke, which had created a second salary scale. This is no way to settle the conflict and bring about labour peace.
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, the member indicates that the parties should get back to the negotiating table, but they have been at the negotiating table since October of 2010.
 Conciliators and others have helped the mediators, but at some point there needs to be a solution, as was suggested in one of the faxes I received. It said: “Personally, I believe in the right of union members to negotiate and strike under unfair labour practices. However, when negotiations drag on to the point they threaten the livelihood of Canadians or the good health of Canadians, then we need a government that will legislate and provide a solution.”
What about Canadians? He is looking at one party or the other, but there are more parties involved than just the two at the table. If they cannot resolve their differences, there must be a means by which that can happen. This is that means and he should get behind it and support it.
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, people have to start by showing goodwill at the negotiating table. That is the essential principle on which any good negotiation rests. It may take 6, 8 or 18 months. The letter carriers guaranteed that they would provide services during negotiations in good faith between the two parties.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks, I have to say that I have been sitting in this House for more than five years and that I am extremely proud of my new colleagues. I congratulate them.
I have kept abreast of the Canada Post situation for a long time. I have learned a lot by speaking to workers, to the union and to representatives of management. This is what I have learned. Under its mandate, Canada Post must make a profit each year. We have learned that, in 2009 I believe, the profit was $281 million. But that is not all. The corporation must also give part of that income to the federal government. In other words, Canada Post is a way for the government to make money, to get a guaranteed income. To make this profit possible, management wants the crown corporation to become more efficient. And to do so, it must make cuts.
I have noticed this in my communities. We forget this when we are talking in this debate today, but draconian measures were instituted by the former CEO of Canada Post, Moya Greene.
 In my letter to her on February 9, 2010, I outlined how the restructuring of, for example, the Trail and Castlegar post offices was creating staffing problems, with such things as part-time employees with years of seniority receiving fewer hours than casual term employees, and two fully-trained wicket clerks being transferred to a night shift position in another community. Our Castlegar post office is now one wicket clerk short, which means more lineups, and one nighttime position has been eliminated. 
All of this of course decreases the service to the community.
I also understood, in talking with representatives of CUPW and others, that prior to her coming to Canada Post, there were relatively good labour relations and the work climate was better. So I believe the background to this conflict is a climate that has been fostered by this crown corporation and that is not conducive to good labour relations.
My constituency assistant, Laurel Walton, yesterday spoke to a member of CUPW on the picket line. This person was wondering if this legislation included benefits that were ripped away on June 2, such as sick leave and medical and extended health care.
 I know that the employer arbitrarily reduced hours for full-time clerks and letter carriers without consultation with the union. They are asking if their regular hours are going to be restored, if the minimums in the collective agreement are going to be restored, and if five-day delivery will be restored. These are questions that are being asked by CUPW workers on the picket lines.
 I am proud to report that my local retired teachers association in Grand Forks is rallying at the picket line to support postal workers. In fact, now more than ever, it is time to get support for all those who value fairness and justice. It is simply unacceptable for the federal government to legislate workers back to work, to offer less in wages than the employer, and in fact to lock out the workers.
Canadians must understand that this is just a start. As part of its cutting and slashing, Canada Post has cut back hours and positions in my province in approximately 72 rural British Columbia communities. One time, a postal worker contacted me almost in tears. She was working seven part-time hours a week and this was cut back to three hours. She was just making ends meet and working to support her disabled husband in the process. This kind of policy is hurting rural communities especially.
Prior to writing my letter to the CEO of Canada Post, I consulted with the president of CUPW in Trail. He mentioned to me that he and his colleagues were willing, before the discussions started in regard to this lockout, to sit down with Canada Post to work out a solution. They had some creative ideas about how the corporation could sell to new customers and increase revenue at the local level. In fact, I was told that relations deteriorated when the new CEO took over.
Subsequent to my letter to the CEO, I communicated with her successor. I mentioned to him in my letter of December 17 that certain staffing positions are not being filled upon retirement. This has placed additional stress on those workers, as well the public they serve.
The pattern is there. It is clear. Canada Post is embarking on a streamlining of its operations by going as far as it can go on the backs of the workers.
After the Canadian Union of Postal Workers started a series of rotating strikes, it offered to end them if Canada Post would agree to keep the previous agreement in effect while negotiations continued. But the corporation refused. 
We are being asked a number of questions about what is happening and what is being done. My answer is that Canada Post imposed the lockout. The workers wanted to keep working during the negotiations. So this is not a strike by the workers, it is a lockout imposed by management. The government is now imposing a contract that is not a fair collective agreement. It is not appropriate for the government to intervene and to impose a contract on the workers. 
We still remain optimistic that the dispute can be settled, but goodwill has to be shown on both sides. The government must stop interfering in the process. The management of Canada Post and the government have discussed nothing. They imposed a lockout right away and introduced a bill. It is wrong to say that the government did not make the decision. They both did.
In a communiqué by Dennis Lemelin, the president of CUPW, he said that the government’s heavy-handed intervention will damage labour relations for years to come. As I said earlier on, there had been good relations until we started these kinds of draconian measures.
 The last time the federal government imposed back to work legislation, in 1997, it included a provision to ensure that the mediator/arbitrator consider the importance of good labour-management relations. The current legislation contains no such provision. 
I would like to quote from my response to constituents who are concerned about this lockout. What we are seeing in this current lockout is a snapshot of things to come. There is a concentrated effort by the current federal government and others to take away the rights and benefits that Canadian workers have fought for over the years. This will eventually affect all of us, especially in our rural communities. Fewer jobs with less pay means that less money will trickle down to our small businesses. I believe, as former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said so well, that a strong economy needs a strong middle class.
 If our postal workers are subjected to these cuts, loss of wages, benefits and pensions in other sectors will surely follow. There are no two ways about it. Local economies depend on well-paid jobs. Fewer jobs and less pay will mean that less money will trickle down to our small businesses.
Let us support our postal workers. Let us ensure that the government tells Canada Post to take the lockout away so they can continue negotiating and come to a reasonable solution for all. 
Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome all of our viewers who are tuning in. This may seem a little unique to people who are tuning in, but at the House of Commons this is still actually Thursday, even though in the rest of the world it is Friday, which will explain to some of the viewers why many of the patriotic members, all members around here, are not yet wearing red. It is “wear red for the troops” Friday, and I know that many hon. members will be putting on red ties and so forth later on--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that on the fête nationale the member would say we should be wearing red for the troops on Friday. We all respect our troops, but he does not even take a moment to recognize that this is the fête nationale and for the Quebec--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order. This is a point of debate. I would remind hon. members that these points of order do indeed take time away from legitimate questions and comments that members may have for the previous speaker.
The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
[Interjection]
Bradley Trost: Mr. Speaker, I do wish everyone a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I was just putting in a small, friendly preamble to give my colleague a moment to catch his breath.
My understanding of the legislation, while I'll admit that I may not have read it in the detail that my hon. colleague has, is that it fundamentally comes down to a few basic things. What has been agreed to by the various parties will be part of the agreement. There are very small, modest changes in the wages they have agreed to, which, frankly, after a week's worth of a strike would not be much different, and then there is final settlement arbitration, which can go in favour of either management or the union. 
Does not my hon. colleague think and understand that with final offer arbitration being put on the table there is a potential for both the union and management to lose their best positions and thus a certain degree of incentive for them to get to a reasonable compromise?
[Interjection]
Alex Atamanenko: I would like to thank my colleague for his preamble to let me get my thoughts in order.
I would like to quote from the CUPW bulletin of June 5. In it they say that what management is not saying is that they are demanding an end to sick leave for all employees and the imposition of a short-term disability plan that provides inadequate coverage for short-term illnesses and that threatens medical privacy. It says that they have been attempting to reduce service in rural areas and that they have not responded to the union's proposal to extend door-to-door delivery service to seniors and persons with mobility restrictions. They have rejected proposals to follow the example of other postal administrations and diversify into financial and banking services, and they are demanding a starting wage that is 22% less than the current starting rate.
These are not conditions, so how can they be accepted when in negotiations?
Mr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am noticing something about the government opposite.
In negotiations—I do not know whether the hon. member can comment on this—my union experience always leads me to say that negotiations go on year in, year out. That is what we call communicating with the employer to make sure that possibilities always exist. And it costs absolutely nothing. This government seems to be saying that it had to impose a lockout because of the lengthy negotiations. 
[Interjection]
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comment. 
The odd thing is that negotiations were under way and they were supposed to continue. The union was saying that it would continue to deliver the mail during negotiations. But then, all of a sudden, a lockout was imposed. In my view, that does not reflect a willingness to try to solve the problem. Both sides must be willing to do so.
Mrs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let me also wish all Quebeckers and francophones a happy national holiday. I would especially like to extend my wishes for a happy national holiday to my constituents in Hull—Aylmer.
The current Conservative government is using all available means to restrict and destroy the right to collective bargaining. This government is in support of an employer locking out its employees, and finds it acceptable. This government is basically refusing to recognize the right to collective bargaining, a right that these workers and workers in Canada and even abroad have fought hard for.
Over the past 100 years, workers have demanded rights, such as reasonable working hours, health and safety laws that protect them, maternity and paternity leave, and decent pensions. That was only accomplished through sacrifices and struggles.
Yesterday, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism tried to teach us an Economics 101 course, but today, I would like to take the opportunity that we trade unionists finally have to talk about the battles that unions have fought and the gains they have won from employers and from successive governments. I think especially of the battles waged by the women in trade unions. The result is that, today, we in the NDP have 42 women members, and I am very proud of that. 
In the world of labour, these rights, such as the right to a pension, are very important to us. They are rights that this employer and this government want to scoff at, such as the right to present demands, the right to negotiate, the right to decent wages and the right to work in the language of one's choice.
At this point, I would like to provide some examples of the battles waged by the men, and certainly by the women, who have worked for Canada Post. I will be going back some way, because I believe it is very important for us as trade unionists to do so when we talk about the union movement, about where we came from, and about the way in which we have won those rights that the current government, the government of Canada, and the employer want to treat with contempt.
Let us go back to 1880, when a royal commission recommended hiring women into the public service because they would be happy with low wages. That is a long way from equal pay for work of equal value. In 1884, the postal service had more women as third-class clerks than any other department.
In 1918, the wives of strikers were in the front lines of a major demonstration in the streets of Toronto, a demonstration organized in their support by several other unions.
Through the 1950s and 1960s, many female postal workers were hired. Those women worked part-time or as casuals, once more for a pittance. 
In 1955 came the abolition of the ban on married women, who had previously been denied work in the public service.
In 1981, CUPW, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, went on strike for paid maternity leave, and won.
In 1986, the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers was established. Most of its members were women. 
In 2000, the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers mobilized to improve conditions for those women workers.
In 2004, finally, rural route and suburban mail carriers won a collective agreement. As a result, finally, a host of women workers obtained access to pensions, employee benefits and other protections. 
It is important to talk about this to show all the gains that have been made by women and workers in the federal public service and the postal service. This is what we have won and that is what the government wants to take away from us.
I would also like to talk about another example where workers have fought some battles. Let us remember back to May 15, 1919, in Winnipeg, a day that some people refer to as “Bloody Saturday”.
That day is remembered by those of us who did the honourable thing by taking part in the battle for the rights of wealth producers. It is remembered by the sons and daughters of those participants whose stories they heard at family evening gatherings. But today, family gatherings are no longer what they used to be.
Closer to us, here in Buckingham, there is a monument erected in memory of the workers killed in a labour dispute at the beginning of the 1900s. Those two examples show the courage of the workers who fought for the right to collective bargaining. And the current government and Canada Post are trying to destroy these very fundamental rights. Postal workers have made a significant contribution to the improvement of the living and working conditions of society as a whole. I would like to thank them on behalf of all Canadians.
As a woman who has been active in these movements, I am very proud of having trained in trade unionism and made a career for myself. I am equally proud to be able to share this story with hon. members and to share the pride that they too must feel from fighting together to benefit members of parliament, women and society as a whole. If it had not been for trade unions, we would not be here today, and women would not be as far ahead as they are today. Many women of my generation well remember the time when paid maternity leave did not exist. The term “pay equity” was unheard of. 
Let us also not forget the public sector myths that Canada Post is trying to spread. Canada Post is supposed to be a drain on public funds. In fact, the public postal service and its workers cost the public treasury nothing.
In the last 15 years, Canada Post has earned profits of $1.7 billion and has contributed $1.2 billion to the federal government in dividends and taxes. Yet they are now trying to tell us that there are problems, that public services are too much, and that they have to be privatized or destroyed.
They talk about low participation and low productivity in the public service and in Canada Post. On the contrary, Canada Post is very productive. Unlike a great number of companies, it has seen strong growth in productivity in the last two years. It is important to note, for example, that productivity in processing transactional mail has increased by 6.7%. 
I would also like to mention something that postal workers once did that has been forgotten over the years. In large cities, postal workers played a very significant role in the community. When delivering mail to the door, they often noticed when elderly people had not picked up their mail for five or six days. They then called the police or people in the community who found out whether those people were all right. This value, this need, this action, which was so important in a community, has been lost. Now we often see elderly people left on their own. We have heard of situations where elderly people have been found in the community after several days. 
Once again, I deplore the attitude of the government and the employer that have colluded and agreed to a lockout, refusing the right to collective bargaining that is fair and equitable to all workers. This means that, in the future, these same workers and society as a whole will be losing their rights and losing ground. 
I hope they will go back to the negotiating table and the government will listen to reason.
Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the media is reporting that 70% of Canadians are in support of the back-to-work legislation because of the difficulties it is causing a lot of Canadians, especially in rural Canada, where there has been a huge impact, even though they are not on strike.
 For many people who count of day-to-day mail service, it actually has not been good for quite a while, I must say. 
I guess I should backtrack and say that this was an election issue for me in Saskatoon. Briarwood is an area that should be quite well served. It is an urban area. Briarwood residents were only receiving mail three days a week, so they do not really notice the interruption and are not quite as upset about the service that has been suspended.
There have to be two sides to this story. I wonder if the member has had people asking about supporting the legislation the government has put forward.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, like a number of hon. members, I have been hearing that, since 1991, the Conservative government and the Liberal government in office at the time have denied the rights of workers and have overused back-to-work legislation to prevent workers from having the right to fair and equitable collective bargaining.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have been sitting here listening to speeches, I have been struck by this being a metaphor for an ideological warfare. It seems to be two-by-fours at two sword lengths between the warring parties. How else could we explain a government putting forward legislation that it knows will be toxic to the unions, putting forward legislation that is actually less than the employer provided for in the collective process thus far, and simultaneously, a party and a union being unable to come to grips with the reality that the demand for their services has actually declined over time and in fact is looking for a place to continue to exist? 
I have heard a lot of rhetoric from both sides. I have not heard a great deal of solution. I anticipate this ideological warfare will go on for quite a number of hours, if not days. I would be interested in the hon. member's solution to how this matter gets back to some bargaining.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments and questions about solutions. We have said it many times and I repeat it: Go back to the table. Let the process of collective bargaining go on. That is what we are asking for.
Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to my colleague who just spoke. 
Concerning the maternity leave benefits that were put in place by this union in 1981, how has that impacted Canadian society in general, and what is the good that has come from that?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
Yes, the right of women to stay in the labour market, the right to work, had a significant impact. As I mentioned, women in my generation had to leave the workforce when they were pregnant. Today, women finally have the fundamental right to work, to have children and to raise a family. As a result, they receive salaries and benefits, and thereby can also contribute to the economy of their regions and of their communities, which is very important for everyone.
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am rising in opposition to Bill C-6.
 I would like to take us back to what we are talking about here in terms of our postal service. 
A country with as vast a geographic scale as Canada obviously needs excellent communication. From the very earliest days of our country, we have placed a real priority on our mail service. The first paid mail delivery in Canada was back in 1693, hundreds of years ago. We have had a federal mail service since Confederation, since 1867. 
It is logical, with Canada's vast land mass, that we have efficient, punctual and affordable mail service that works for all Canadians. It would be easy to design a mail service that works in the major urban centres and leaves behind the huge number of Canadians who live across this vast geography. What we have with Canada Post is a service that works for Canadians, whether they live in Inuvik, Vancouver Island, St. John's, Toronto or Montreal. That is the principle on which Canada Post was founded. This system, even to this day, works incredibly well.
Every single business day Canada Post handles 40 million pieces of mail. As a Canadian, I can send a letter to anywhere in this vast country for the princely sum of 59¢. That is a pretty good bargain. In countries such as Germany and Austria, which have a much smaller geography and have perhaps privatized their postal service, it costs 77¢ and 88¢ respectively to send a letter across much shorter geographic distances than we have in Canada.
Our postal service is not just something we should sneeze at. It was built into the fabric of this country. It was designed to help Canadians communicate with each other. It was designed to bring our country together across this vast geography. Of course it has a personal and an economic role but it also has a nation-building role. 
Our postal service is a success story. We have a modern, efficient postal service, which is making a profit for Canadians. This money gets ploughed back into our coffers to the tune of $281 million a year. It is actually a money-maker for Canadians. It is a system that works quite well for us.
What we are seeing in this latest round of negotiations is a bit of a public relations war. Of course there are Canadians who are upset since Canada Post has locked out and shut the doors on its workforce. I am getting emails from small businesses in my constituency that want the mail service to resume, and I agree with them. We should have our mail service resume. This would be easily achieved if the government and Canada Post took the locks off the doors of our post offices right across this country and allowed postal workers to get back to work and resume sorting and delivering the mail right across Canada. Would that not be a good thing to have happen?
I have had constituents, including small businesses, tell me they are hearing that the bill the government has put forward would actually impose terms and conditions on Canada Post workers that are worse than the terms and conditions Canada Post is negotiating at the bargaining table. It would roll back the clock on their working conditions and on their pay and benefits.
Those same people, not all but some, have said they just want the parties to go back to the table and keep negotiating, not send them back saying they have to accept even worse terms and conditions than Canada Post was willing to pay at the bargaining table. How ridiculous is that? 
What is the role of the government in deciding what the terms and conditions are going to be that would undercut even what the employer was willing to pay? I do not think that is what Canadians want to sign up for. That is not about getting the mail going. That is about imposing a labour relations regime in this country and rolling back the basic rights of Canadians, not just at Canada Post.
 Let us think about it. That is telling employers across this country that they can get a better deal through the government and that they do not have to bargain with the union. They can get a better deal by going to the government and, rather than the government using the fine tools of labour relations to do the difficult work of negotiating a collective agreement or fostering the negotiation of a collective agreement between employers and employees, the government will take a sledgehammer and impose terms and conditions that will give employers a much better deal than they would ever have to fairly negotiate at the bargaining table.
What would that mean? It would mean that young people would be hired for lower wages than people have been hired in the past, almost 20% less than new hires were getting paid at Canada Post. It would mean lower wage rates, poorer benefits and the loss of the ability to get a pension. I do not think Canadians want this kind of intergenerational betrayal to be imposed by their government on working people in this country. They want a fair, efficient, functional postal service that will serve them, their communities and their businesses. What they do not want is this sledgehammer approach that rolls back the clock and betrays young people and their job opportunities for the future. 
What do we say to our children and grandchildren about their job prospects? What do we say when they ask if they are going to have security throughout their working lives and in their retirement years? What kind of betrayal is that? What message is the government sending?
New Democrats do not think the sledgehammer approach is the way to go. We think the difficult work of rolling up sleeves, communicating effectively with both sides and fostering a negotiated settlement is the way to go, but Canadians do not have to wait until that is achieved. The government and Canada Post could take the locks off our postal system today, open the doors, allow postal workers to return to work, get the mail moving and then get back to negotiating a fair collective agreement.
Canadians understand clearly that this is not a strike that we are seeing. This is a lockout by the employer, clearly with the approval of the government. Canadians want it to end but they want it to end fairly. They do not want it to end by betraying young people and future generations or the service that has had such an important nation-building role in our country.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the member provided very thoughtful comments. One of the very positive parts of this debate is the enormous amount of labour history we are learning about, what it is that affects working people in this country and the role unions have played in flighting for better working conditions, hours of work, health and safety and better wages that lifts everybody up in this country. That has been a very interesting part of this debate.
I know the member has many decades of service in the labour movement and has been part of negotiations. One thing that is very interesting for us to hear, which the member for Hull—Aylmer also talked about, is the impact of women and the changes that have taken place, whether it is on pay equity, parental leave or equal pay for work of equal value. These are very important wins by unions and the labour movement.
I wonder if the member could relate that to the situation we are now facing, of these workers being locked out. All they want is to go back to the table and get a fair deal for their members and for the rights of all workers in this country. How does that relate to equality for women in this country?
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is an employer in the federal jurisdiction and a crown corporation. It is an employer where today we will see large numbers of women employed. At Canada Post it is probably around 50-50, if I am not mistaken. We will see provisions around maternity and parental leave that were pioneered at Canada Post. 
However, I dare say Canada Post did not just wake up one morning and ask what they could do for working women. It was because the workers got together, through the legitimate voice of their union, to organize and to press for gains like better maternity benefits and better opportunities for women, including pay equity. 
Therefore, all Canadian women owe a real debt of gratitude to CUPW and the women who work at Canada Post.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member, who worked so long with her former union boss, Ken Lewenza, has no faith in the union's ability to win final offer selection. 
This is actually a fair situation if we look at it from the workers' perspective. They get a guaranteed pay increase for four years when others do not. They get to go back under the current agreement, which is exactly what they have been asking for anyway. They get an improved pension trajectory, which is mandatory in terms of the final offer. They are going to have to get an improved pension solvency. 
All matters that have previously been settled are not going to be reopened. They are settled. In terms of the outstanding issues, what remains is that the union gets to put forward its offer and the company gets to put forward its offer.
 Is the member saying that she has no confidence in the union's ability to put forward a competitive bid that will be in the interest of workers and actually win the final offer selection?
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in the member's previous life as an auto worker it was the union that bargained the excellent wages, benefits, and working conditions that allowed him and his family to prosper in the community of Windsor. 
I have enormous faith in the ability of the union to negotiate a fair settlement. Final offer selection is a bit of a sledgehammer approach. It would be much better if there were a mediated arbitration. That would allow both sides to negotiate and tailor a solution instead of the winner-take-all approach that the government is favouring.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to take this opportunity to correct my colleague on the other side of the House, the Minister of State for Science and Technology. He mentioned that his riding had received good financial assistance from the federal government to help the automotive industry. I am very happy for his constituents. However, he said that through the same package, the government had provided strong support for the forestry industry. I worked in the forestry industry for a very long time and honestly, this government did nothing. During the economic crisis, it provided assistance in the form of $10 billion in loan guarantees to the automotive industry—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology on a point of order.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of State for Science and Technology, I know exactly what I said. The member was not here, so I can forgive him for misquoting me. I will give the member the opportunity to stand up and apologize for again misleading Canadians. That is not what I said. 
I said that this government has helped the automotive sector, as well as the forestry sector, as well as mining, as well as seniors and students. We did that because as the government we are responsible for all Canadians in all sectors and not, unlike the socialist party, just the unions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): On the same point of order, the hon. opposition House leader.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I just want to make sure that when this happens it does not affect the time of the members of the loyal opposition who are speaking. That was obviously not a point of order. It was a point of debate. 
The member was also signalling that in his opinion someone was absent from the House. That is another breach of the regulations governing our debates. I would have hoped that this would have been pointed out to the member. I ask that particular attention be paid to that type of intervention. It was definitely not a point of order. It breached another rule of the House. 
As the parliamentary House leader of the official opposition, I ask for confirmation that this type of intervention does not negatively affect the time allotted to the members of the opposition for speaking.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I appreciate the advice offered to the chair from the hon. members of the chamber. 
I would encourage all members to refrain from using points of order as opportunities to engage in debate and to take away from speakers. I have just come back to the chair. It is actually morning to me rather than late night. I do not know what has happened to this point. In this case, the clock has been stopped during this process. This will not infringe on the time allocated to the member speaking.
I appreciate that many members have strong views on this subject. I would appreciate the cooperation of all hon. members. I hope they will show their colleagues the respect they are due.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: 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.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are some ironies in the current debate, Right now the NDP is perpetuating an effort to delay an end to a corporate lockout. Apparently, its members wish to have the workers of Canada Post continue to be locked out and have Canadians denied service. I know they have an affection for work stoppages.
When we hit 11 a.m. this morning, this back to work legislation will have been delayed longer than any of the other 32 times such legislation has been tabled in Canadian history.
Is it really the case that the members opposite are so committed to the New Democratic Party that they will do everything possible to deny Canadians postal delivery and everything possible procedurally to keep the Canadian economy from having the benefit of the postal service it depends on so strongly?
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: I would like to thank the member for his question. When I began my speech, I said I was sincerely sorry and offered my apologies to my constituents in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques that I could not be with them because we are here debating this issue. This is a fundamental issue that is going to set the direction that labour relations will take now and for the next four years.
 The government members are well aware that they could settle this issue very quickly. They can change the special legislation; I offer them that option. This is not an option that has been only half discussed here. They can introduce another special bill and end the lockout. They can make sure that the employees retain their right to hold rotating strikes. Tomorrow morning, Saturday, I am sure the postal workers would be happy to work that day to make up for the losses. Beginning on Monday at the latest, people will start getting their mail again. It is up to the government to make the effort to end this debate by introducing a bill that is fair to everyone, which will mean that Canadians and Quebeckers will get their mail.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, frankly, this debate strikes me as a dialogue of the deaf. We have the hard right ideologues in the government jamming the union with legislation that it cannot possibly accept, and we have hard left ideologues in the NDP who cannot quite come to grips with the actual decline in the need for postal service, as evidenced over a number of years.
Simultaneously, Canadians are looking at this discussion here in the chamber and shaking their heads. If my office is any indication, frankly, they do not care. I am not getting a whole lot of push-back other than from the identifiable hard right or hard left. 
I suggest to hon. members that they have a chat between themselves, because Canadians are otherwise just going to let them talk and talk.
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear a question. 
At the moment, it is very easy to put the situation in a left and right context, but that is not the issue. As I said in my speech, the fact is that we have a polarizing government right now that had other options than introducing a special bill, one with unfavourable terms, that requires an arbitrator to abide by strict conditions, something that did not exist in previous legislation. It had a choice. 
As I said, if it absolutely wanted to use a special bill to end the bargaining process, it could have put a halt to the lockout and still allowed the employees to retain their right to strike, which they were using to hold a rotating strike, and this would have meant that people would get mail service. It could also have arranged, in a special bill, for the present collective agreement to continue for one or two years, and this could have let that people get their mail.
 There are options here, but this government is refusing to consider them. In all honesty, if the people they represent were to write to them, what they should reply is this: the government has made a choice, and the choice is to pit management against the union, and that creates disputes like this one. It is not a matter of left or right; it is a matter of justice and fairness. 
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to add my voice to the growing concern over the government's heavy-handed and draconian legislation.
Essentially, the government has declared war on working people in Canada. Within hours of Air Canada's workers going on strike, the government advised that it was bringing in back to work legislation. Within hours of Canada Post locking out its workers, the government advised that it was bringing in back to work legislation. There was no attempt to reason or to meet with the sides in this dispute; they just brought in the sledgehammer.
Workers in Canada should look out, because this government has decided that it is appropriate that the standard of living of ordinary workers in Canada continues to slide backwards relative to inflation. They have decided it is okay for pensions to be clawed back. They have decided that it is okay for young workers to be paid less for doing the same job.
The government's intention is clear. It is attacking in the holy name of profit and ideology the very standards of living that working people have struggled to reach over the past fifty-plus years. This legislation attacks working families by making them take a lesser wage increase, $40 million less in fact. It attacks pensioners and retirees by demanding that the agreement not touch the solvency ratio. It attacks working conditions by demanding that the arbitrator look at the imaginary market place of postal companies for comparisons of working conditions. There is no comparator, but the arbitrator is forced to do that.
This legislation also attacks young workers by signalling to them very clearly that they should expect less than their senior colleagues in working conditions, wages, pensions and everything else. That is not the message this party wants to convey to the people of Canada. We want to convey a message that Canadians should continue to expect to do better every year, that our standard of living should continue to grow, that our ability to purchase our homes and food should continue to grow and not slip backwards.
The solvency ratio part of the legislation really bothers me, because the government has advised that it is concerned about the cost of a mediated or arbitrated system. Yet in order to determine the solvency ratio of the offers to be sent to the arbitrator, they will have to spend millions of dollars to have actuarial evaluations of a $14 billion pension plan done on each offer and then on the final selected package. That is an incredible waste of money.
The government only mentions the solvency ratio and not the going-concern ratio. What does that mean? A solvency ratio shows what will happen if a pension plan is wound up. If Canada Post ceases to exist, how much money will be owed to the pensioners? That is all they talk about. Does that signal a hidden agenda to privatize Canada Post? I say this because the government did not talk about the going-concern ratio, which Canada Post itself is not worried about. Canada Post states that: 
 Since the going-concern deficit is small, it is anticipated that this can be eliminated quickly— 
That is Canada Post itself saying that. The deficit in fact is 1%.
I think this points to a government intention to perhaps contract out the postal service in the near future, and we should be very concerned about that.
I also want to point out to the members opposite that I have a long history in the labour movement in Canada. I remember what started me on this quest in the labour movement, the 1975 legislation by a certain Prime Minister who had promised not to do so, but who limited wages across Canada. That legislation in 1975 was called wage and price controls, and it was introduced by a Prime Minister this party does not really like, Mr. Pierre Trudeau. Today, the government smells an awful lot like that Prime Minister, because the government is introducing legislation to limit wages. It is awful.
Then again in 1982, he brought in some more wage controls. Again, this legislation seems to have the air of the beginning of wage controls in this country.
That prime minister lasted only a couple of years before he was kicked out of office. The government should pay attention. 
If this is about restraint, if that is what this is about, that the workers of Canada Post are being told they must exercise restraint, why is the restraint not being practised at the senior levels of Canada Post? Why is the Canada Post CEO continuing to get wage increases and bonus increases that far outstrip the rate of inflation? That is a clear message to the people of Canada that the government actually cares more about the CEOs and their wages than it does about ordinary working Canadians and their wages, working conditions, and ability to get by. 
The other thing that bothers me about the government's comments is its complaint that bargaining took too long and that is why they had to step in. In fact, I have bargained collective agreements that took 22 months to negotiate, and that is because the issues were so complex and so detailed that it took that long to actually figure a way out of the morass without a strike or a lockout. That is part of what happens in Canada when things are complicated. We take a long time to discuss them; we take a long time to deal with it. 
The minister also claims that she did everything possible--everything possible--under the legislation to prevent this dispute. That is not true. The legislation still contains a provision for a conciliation commissioner, which was not used by this minister. A conciliation commissioner has the power to issue a public report, and while the commissioner is deliberating, there is no possibility of a strike or lockout. That was not done here. The minister did not do everything she could. 
Let us also talk about the other effects of this legislation on the rest of the people of Canada and the signals it is sending to other governments in this country. 
My son-in-law is a police officer and his job is declared to be an essential service, and he does not have the right to strike. In return for that denial of his right to strike, he has an understanding that is put in place by the province that his wages, benefits, and working conditions, if they cannot be negotiated, will all be sent to a third party for determination--not some of his benefits, not everything but pensions, not everything but wages because we are going to define the wages over here. 
Recently the police officers in the city of Toronto, with an arbitrated settlement, reached an 11.5% wage increase over four years. That is an appropriate wage increase. They accepted it. That is what was determined by a third party. 
However, here the government has decided to instruct the third party that they are not to give more than 7.25%. That is more than 4% less than an arbitrated settlement in Canada. I believe that a lot of those police officers may have voted for this party. But if this government introduces this kind of legislation, it will signal to other legislatures across the country that it is okay to limit wage increases in arbitrated settlements, it is okay to limit benefit increases in arbitrated settlements, and it is okay to touch pensions in arbitrated settlements. That will be a very sorry day for the rest of Canada. 
I just want to say one other thing. In a Canada Post press release right after talks broke off on June 22, the company announced:
 Canada Post must now find ways to deal with the financial damage caused by the work disruption. 
That is a self-inflicted wound. They did it to themselves, and now they are worried about the damage? 
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question on the last point, the self-inflicted wound.
There are two financial costs here. Of course, one is happening now; $25 million a day is the estimate. The other was caused by the rotating strikes. After eight months of negotiations there were rotating strikes caused by the members, which caused an interruption in service and a loss of stability to consumers of what Canada Post offers. This is something the NDP just does not get about business. 
People start to outsource their needs. Canada Post starts to lose business. That was about $100 million. That was not caused by Canada Post. That was caused by the rotating strikes. So after eight months of free negotiations and rotating strikes, which caused a lockout, there is significant financial damage.
Here is my question. If the member is not willing to get the workers back to work, he obviously must be willing to have the taxpayers in his riding take up these additional and exorbitant costs, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Why is the member not willing to get these workers back to work and let them negotiate the way they want? Why is the member so willing to allow his constituents to pay those high taxes? 
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, we are actually willing to have these workers go back to work. In fact, yesterday we said unlock the doors, they will be back, the fiscal damage will stop, and they can negotiate a collective agreement, freely and without worry of legislation.
This legislation signals to employers that they do not have to negotiate because the government will jump in and rescue their bacon the instant they lock people out.
There is no ongoing labour relations peace here. This union has had 20 labour disputes in the last 46 years and a lot of them have been legislated back to work.
Why does the government continue to do that? Why does the government continue to signal to this employer and the union that they do not really have to bargain because something bad will happen to them at the end of the day?
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member talk about the immense amount of knowledge he has in labour relations. On the one hand, of course, we have the hard hand of Bill C-6, which is a hammer, with legislation full of clauses that will clearly tie the hands of any arbitrator or mediator.
Given the fact that the official opposition had an opportunity to move an amendment last night, with the member's great knowledge and the knowledge of some of the others on his NDP team, why were the amendments not put forward in more of a conciliatory way, actually trying to find solutions and laying those solutions on the table, rather than simply deferring things for six months and letting them work it out? Why were some of those amendments not mapped out so that we could find solutions, rather than a continual debate between the extreme right and the extreme left that could go on for days?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, my leader signalled last night that we were in fact willing to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this dispute with this government. As far as I know, there has been no response from this government.
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have heard some disturbing comments from the other side of the House and also from the second opposition party, but I can understand their frustrations.
With respect to the special legislation and arbitration, what does my colleague trust? Does he trust the partisan interests of the government or the free judgment of the arbitrator?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, we do not know who the arbitrator is, but assuming that it is a good arbitrator, I would certainly trust the judgment of a third-party arbitrator, as did the police services in Toronto in the last few months.
However, the arbitrator's hands are being tied in terms of wages, in terms of working conditions, and in terms of this unknown solvency ratio that the entire collective agreement cannot have the effect of increasing or decreasing. So his hands are completely tied.
 I do not have any doubt that it will be almost impossible for him to find anything other than what Canada Post presents in this particular way of conducting an arbitration.
Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the number one issue during the 2011 federal election campaign in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl was pensions. It was the number one issue for seniors. It was the number one issue for working people.
For seniors, their concern was how to get by on a fixed income. Seniors asked me not to forget them when I went to Ottawa. I have not. I will not.
 There is a lot of talk in Newfoundland and Labrador these days about fog, and not just the type that creeps in off the North Atlantic and shrouds the outports and cities, but F-O-G, the acronym for food, oil, and gas. The cost of necessities like food, oil, and gas continues to rise as fixed incomes remain just that, fixed.
 Seniors struggle with the question of how to pay for the rising cost of living while on fixed incomes like pensions. I could not count the number of seniors I visited in their homes and apartments over the course of the election who came to their doors in hats, mitts, and winter coats. They dressed that way in the middle of the afternoon in their own homes because they could not afford to turn on the heat. They asked me not to forget them. I will not.
Seniors were not the only ones concerned about pensions. We heard the concern from young people, working couples, who spoke to me at their doors about how they are supposed to prepare for their retirement when they can barely get by in the prime of their working lives. They can just manage to pay the bills. In some cases, they cannot.
We heard the concern from middle-aged firemen who questioned how they could afford to retire on modest pensions, given the clawback on the Canada Pension Plan.
I can tell you this. The fog in Newfoundland and Labrador, the fog in Canada, is getting thicker.
 One of the central issues in the dispute between the 48,000 locked out postal workers and Canada Post is pensions. As the New Democrat labour critic said in the House of Commons on Thursday, the pension plan is in danger. As the NDP opposition leader said so eloquently on Thursday, Canada Post wants to create a two-tier wage and benefit package. New workers who join the federal crown corporation would have to work an extra five years to qualify for a pension--five years.
 Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, says:
 ...proposals to institute two-tier wages and benefits for new Canada Post employees [is] unwarranted and unfair to young Canadians, who are already facing unemployment rates. 
They are extremely high as it is.
Here is a direct quote from Paul Moist:
 There are no such things as two-tier rent or mortgages: young and new workers don't get a discount on utility or grocery bills. “It's outrageous to say young workers don't deserve the same wages and benefits for doing the same work.” 
Young people have a hard enough time as it is paying off student loans and incredibly high credit card interest rates, which this Conservative government, as we know, will not do anything about.
If the Conservative government will attack the pensions of 48,000 workers at Canada Post, who will it attack next? Whose pension plan will it go after? We know whose side the Conservative government is on. Canada Post made a net profit of $281 million in 2009 alone. Who will directly benefit from the five extra years that new Canada Post employees will have to work? Not the workers, I can tell you that.
The labour minister stood on the floor of the House of Commons on Thursday and spoke about the damage to the Canadian economy for the Canada Post strike, which she was corrected on--it is not a strike; it is a lockout. The use of the word “strike”, as the opposition leader pointed out, to use his words, “is a brazen example of propaganda”.
The labour minister said the damage to the economy from the lockout could be significant. What about the damage to pensions? Would the minister describe that as significant? Whose pension will be next?
The labour minister says Canadians cannot go on without postal service.
I can say this with authority, the authority of the hundreds of pensioners and working people I spoke to during the campaign in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Canadians cannot go on without pensions. Let me ask again, whose pension will be next?
 Is the ultimate goal of the Conservative government to weaken the voice of workers? Is that part of the strategy? Is that the new Conservative action plan? Is the true goal, as the opposition leader said, to make profit while taking advantage of workers? As has been said before, it is a race to the bottom, except for those on the top.
The Conservative government's back to work legislation gives the employer, Canada Post, the advantage in the labour dispute. The legislation will force employees back to work for less money than Canada Post last offered. Whose side is the Conservative government on? Not the workers of Canada Post, that is obvious.
During the federal election, the MP for St. John's and I met the workers of the Canada Post headquarters in St. John's early one morning. By early, I mean 6 a.m. We shook hands in the parking lot as the workers arrived for their shifts, and it was bitter cold. The workers mentioned how they may be headed toward job action, and as New Democrat candidates we vowed to be there for them.
When I was back in my riding two weeks ago, I visited the workers again outside the Kenmount Road station. They had set up an information line and served lemonade. It was still cold, but the lemonade was good. The workers were generally young. They were fired up. They were concerned about benefits and what they had to lose. They have a lot to lose. 
There was a story Thursday in the news back home about how a Newfoundland Supreme Court judge issued an injunction against locked out Canada Post workers in eastern Newfoundland. Canada Post had complained that workers in St. John's and Mount Pearl were blocking access to the post offices, using vehicles, picnic tables, palllets and what Justice Robert Hall described as vigorous picket lines.
The injunction prohibits workers from blocking access to people walking by and calls for any barricades on picket lines to be removed by Thursday night. I am sure they were. The workers of Canada Post are good, law-abiding citizens, but can we blame the workers for being vigorous in their attempt to secure their future? Can we blame them? Again, if this is allowed to happen to the 48,000 workers of Canada Post, who will be next? Let me ask again so it will sink in, who will be next? 
The Conservative government keeps talking about how Canada led the world in weathering the recession, but the Conservative government also talks about how cuts are on the horizon, billions of dollars in cuts. Who will pay for the savings? The working poor? The young? The old? Pensioners?
When it comes to pensions, six out of ten Canadians rely solely on CPP or QPP, other government assistance or some savings, modest savings, I might add. I got that statistic from the Globe and Mail. Here is a quote from the Globe and Mail:
 Pension experts estimate that about 30 per cent of the population will be poorer in retirement, sometimes significantly, and the share grows every year. 
Here is another quote from John Gordon, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada:
 The agenda of this government is to take on unions and do away with free collective bargaining. This is what this is about, 
I can tell hon. members what the New Democrats are about. They are about working Canadians. We are about Canadian families. The  labour minister made a snarky remark Thursday in this chamber about how labour unions have a hotline to the New Democrats. When Canadians call the New Democrats about issues that are critical to them, issues that are critical to families, issues that are critical to their future, Canadians can call the New Democrats. We do not put them on hold for big business. We do not put them on hold for anyone. We answer the call.
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech I made some notes. I listened quite carefully. He talked about attacking pensions and used a phrase, “the pension plan is in danger”. I would make the argument that of course the biggest danger to the Canada Post pension plan is the NDP platform. The NDP platform, we might remember, proposed raising corporate taxes. Under this government, they would be 15% next year, but the NDP proposes 19.5% so that is 4.5 points difference, representing a 30% increase in corporate taxes.
The NDP talks a lot about banks and oil companies somehow being in opposition to the notion of successful pensions. I pointed out earlier in this debate that the largest equity holdings in the Canada Post pension fund, starting at the top, are listed as: Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources; and I could go on. Out of the top 25 holdings, 15 of them are banks and oil companies.
My question for the member is, how can the member justify a massive 30% tax hike on the pensions of Canadian workers?
[Interjection]
Ryan Cleary: Mr. Speaker, for me it is all about cutting to the chase and getting to the point. What has been proposed here is a two-tier pension plan: one pension plan for existing workers of Canada Post, and another pension for new employees, a pension plan that is not as good. A two-tier pension plan is not good enough.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, here is another illustration of a dialogue of the deaf. We have heard from the hard left in this particular instance.
Clearly, the government has a supervisory jurisdiction with respect to the economy. Whether it is left or right, NDP or Liberal, whatever the level of government it has a supervisory jurisdiction. The rationale for this particular piece of legislation was that the labour dispute was impacting on the economy. I thought that was a rather thin rationalization for the imposition of legislation, particularly at this stage of the negotiations.
Simultaneously, the union and the NDP have yet to come to grips with the notion that Canada Post's role in our economy has significantly declined and therefore there has to be some adjustment to the cost of running Canada Post. Meanwhile, Canadians are saying nothing. Canadians are not really engaged in this debate and it is a bit of a slugfest between the left and the right as they talk and talk to each other, or contrary to each other. Meanwhile, Canadians are finding other alternatives to the actual service that is needed here.
Ironically, the filibuster by the NDP is actually contributing to the decline for the need of the services.
[Interjection]
Ryan Cleary: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned how this is about an adjustment to the cost of running Canada Post. Let me repeat something from my speech. Perhaps the hon. member was not listening.
In 2009, Canada Post made a net profit of $281 million and the hon. member talks about an adjustment to the cost of running Canada Post. This is about drawing a line in the sand. If the Conservatives go after the pension plan of Canada Post employees, let me repeat a question I posed several times in my speech: Who is next?
Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, you may find that I am a bit dishevelled and my eyes are a bit red. I think all of my colleagues here feel the same way as we debate this bill and fight tooth and nail to give workers a voice. 
I listened carefully to my colleagues. They spoke very passionately about their experience with the union movement. Since I became a part of this official opposition team, I have seen that in unity, there is strength. The experience they have shared since we entered the House of Commons has taught me a lot about the qualities of solidarity and the collective rights of workers.
I thank you for giving me time to speak to Bill C-6 in this House and to add my voice to the eloquent voices of my colleagues in the official opposition.
I think that the debate on this bill is very important. I was inspired by our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who addressed the House last night. He spoke about the history of the NDP movement and about the values that NDP members have always defended. I think that this is a debate on the values that we want to defend in this House, but also that we want to defend on the hustings across the country—the values of sharing, social justice and freedom.
 There is increasing talk about economic recession; we are told the economy is doing poorly, that the greater interests of the economy are in jeopardy. And for the sake of the economy, the government is going to undermine the right of workers to negotiate a decent contract, not only for themselves, but also for future generations. 
 I believe the debate we are having in this House is a debate not only for the short term, but also for the long term. What will we provide for future generations?
 I have been sitting in the House of Commons for barely a month now and the present government has already set the stage. First, it introduced a bill to force Air Canada employees back to work. I do not believe the timeline of that file called for that bill, when the bargaining process had just gotten under way.
 As for Canada Post, the timeline has already been elaborated on, but let me remind you that somewhat controversial action is being taken. On June 8, Canada Post announced that it was cancelling mail delivery on Tuesdays and Thursdays, whereas we know all Canadians are entitled to delivery service five days a week. Canada Post was already starting to cut service to which Canadians are entitled, that is to say mail delivery five days a week. 
 On June 14, Canada Post ordered a national lockout; in other words, it shut out employees and prevented them from doing the work that makes it possible to deliver the mail five days a week. Now postal employees are being deprived of their bargaining right and their right to work, while Canadians are being deprived of their mail.
 As a number of you previously noted, this work stoppage, this lockout, means that a number of our constituents and we ourselves are being deprived of mail delivery, in particular the delivery of cheques, as was mentioned: pension cheques and all other cheques. As was also said, seniors are often the hardest hit; they may not be used to using the Internet or simply cannot afford it.
 Once again, my colleagues who live in rural regions have rightly noted that some places in those regions do not have Internet service and that most people are more confident about receiving their cheques through the mail than via the Internet. And yet Canada Post workers had taken steps for cheques to be distributed to the public, but have been unable to make delivery since the lockout. The people affected by this situation are thus in a tenuous financial situation because they still have to pay their bills and rent and buy groceries.
 As the members here have also mentioned, the same is also true of small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on Canada Post's services to place and ship orders. I believe the present government is setting a dangerous precedent by interfering with the legitimate right of workers to negotiate with their employer. This government's priority, which has been clearly and expressly stated, is the greater interests of the economy.
 I rise to speak about the best interests of people, of Canadians, of workers. It is should be remembered that the economy is not an end but rather a means to an end, which helps us organize our society and promote a fair division of our country’s wealth. We must have income security, security for the future, security for retirees, and for our youth as they enter the labour market, so that they too have access to benefits, pensions and programs including disability insurance, and insurance in case of injury or other misfortune.
 I do not understand why this government, which talks about standing up for the best interests of the economy would, alongside Canada Post, lock out workers. The government’s own actions have jeopardized the best interests of the economy that it cares so much about.
 I do not believe that this government interference in a legitimate bargaining process is consistent with the role assigned to us. This legislation is going to favour the employer at the expense of employees, who will be deprived of the opportunity to negotiate. Moreover, the government has taken it upon itself to diminish wage conditions previously proposed by the employer. The vested rights of postal workers are at stake here: retirement plans, disability insurance programs, working conditions and wage conditions.
 Canada is recognized for its quality of life and social values, which make it possible for all Canadians to access programs and benefits that are the envy of many a country. This helped Canada weather the economic turmoil of recent years. This government’s actions are, in our opinion, a “Walmarting” of employment and lead to low wages, job insecurity, and a chipping away of benefits. This government’s actions bring us yet another step closer to the US model. 
 Can we not learn from Americans by not repeating their mistakes? Our Canadian society is based on a system where inequalities are less profound than in the United States where there are glaring disparities including huge gaps between the rich and the poor. As a Canadian and Quebecker, I want to stand up for the values of a fair and just society. I want to stand up for the rights of workers, the right to negotiate to improve conditions, so that each and every one of us may benefit. 
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada does not just represent people who have pension plans, people who are members of unions. We represent all Canadians.
I am hearing from my constituents as well. When Paula Fletcher, who is one of our last remaining pork producers in Renfrew county calls, I know that there is something really amiss. She emailed me a couple of weeks ago, asking:
 What is this ridiculous news I heard this morning that the Government is thinking of legislating the Air Canada workers back to work? And yet they let the Canada Post workers go on strike and shut down the entire country's mail service. Do they not realize that a postal strike negatively affects business? Flying mostly affects people rich enough to travel—though I know some travel for business, most do not. We can certainly see the priority of the Harper Government. I thought Mr. Harper was concerned with the economic recovery of Canada. If companies can't get— 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins-James Bay is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure if she does not understand, or maybe she made a mistake, maybe she is tired, maybe she is trying to slip in the name of the Prime Minister, but I think that she should go back a few steps and remind herself that she cannot use the name of the Prime Minister, nor his government, nor what he is doing, by referring to him personally.
I think it is only fair that we follow the decorum in this House and the long-standing rules that have been established in the Westminster system of Parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Timmins-James Bay is quite correct that members cannot use the names of other members. I appreciate that it happens from time to time, inadvertently. So I will go back for a quick question from the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
[Interjection]
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I meant to say “Prime Minister”.
She asked: “If companies can't get supplies or can't ship product, they will go out of business. Air travel is, for most, a luxury. Postal service is a necessity.”
This is an everyday Canadian. I am calling upon the member opposite to stop holding Canada hostage and let our postal service resume by allowing the legislation to go forward.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 
I would like to emphasize as I begin my point of order that points of order do not come off the five-minute question and comment period, so I would like to have the clock stopped at all times.
I would like to ask the hon. member to withdraw her comments that we are holding Canadians hostage. I think this is beneath the tone of debate that we should have in this House.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has risen on a second point of order. Maybe I will take this opportunity to clarify for all members in the House a couple of issues: one has to do with points order; the second has to do with the clock and whether it continues or stops when a point of order has been raised. This second issue has come up a couple of times in the last half hour.
I would like to remind all hon. members that at any point during proceedings, with the exception of question period, members have the right to stand and raise points of order. This is an important right that all members have, and I think we would all agree that the Speaker needs to respect that right and immediately go to that person.
As all hon. members will know, there are times when a point of order is obviously legitimate, when an issue is raised that clearly needs to be addressed. As an example of a legitimate point of order, I will not use the one just raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I will use the one raised a couple of minutes ago regarding the use of a member's name in the House. It has been my experience that the use of another member's name is usually inadvertent and not deliberate. Nevertheless, this needs to be addressed. Therefore, that point of order is dealt with by the Chair.
It is also often the case that members will rise using the process of a point of order to stop debate for something that the Chair determines is not a legitimate point of order. In this case, I appreciate that the member for Timmins—James Bay has recently provided us with an example of this type of point of order in his second intervention. The Chair is also required to deal with whether something is debate rather than a procedural issue or a point of order.
This brings us to the second point, which is the question of the clock and whether, when a point of order is raised, the clock continues or not. I would point out to all hon. members that it is the Chair who decides how long speeches are and that the clock is a guideline to the Chair. But at the end of the day it is actually the person in the chair who determines when it is the end of someone's speech and whether something can be added or not.
The general practice is that, if the point of order raised is legitimate, made quickly, and pertains to the business before the House, the clock does not stop and the time continues. If, however, in the view of the Chair, the point of order is being raised in an attempt to slow things down, to take away from the presentation, or to deprive another member of the opportunity to raise a point of order, the Chair has the right to add that time.
For example, when a member is making a 10-minute speech and a member from another party raises a point of order and carries on at length on what does not seem to be a legitimate point of order, the member is not punished and time is added to the member's speech. Conversely, if a member of the same party as the person making the presentation uses the same approach, often the clock is not stopped. I am sure all hon. members will agree that the Chair has an incentive not to encourage mischief but to respect the right of members to use the point of order process when it is appropriate. Members, however, must not abuse this process in an attempt to reduce or increase the speaking time of a colleague. 
This is the process that is used. In the last 15 minutes, there have been examples of all these situations. Please let me assure everyone that all chair occupants do their best to do this job fairly. The Chair is charged with making sure that the rights of all hon. members are respected, and that those who have an allotted amount of time to make a presentation are not punished by having their time reduced by the actions of others, particularly when it is determined that this is the entire purpose of the point of order.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should put it on the record that I have incredible respect for your judgment. You have given us a very judicious and wise response. Certainly members of our caucus will take note of that and ensure that any of the points of order we raise will be in the interest of debate and will not be any sort of mischief.
I do respect the Chair and what is happening in this House is an important debate. I want to apologize if I was too enthusiastic earlier.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair respects that intervention from the hon. member and thanks him for having made several examples clear to this House of what we can and cannot do.
I also note the clock has been stopped in this case. I am going to ask that it be started again. We will continue with questions and comments.
It has been pointed out that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard did not have an opportunity to respond to the question posed by the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
She reminded me of something I forgot to mention in my speech, that is, that decent working conditions lead employees to stay where they are because they are content. It is not necessarily only in the public sector where this happens. This also happens in private companies that provide their employees with good working conditions and I find this encouraging.
Canada Post workers simply want to see this continue. They want good working conditions that do not deteriorate. When people have that, they tend to stay put. Other kinds of businesses have higher turnover rates because of instability or because the working conditions are not very good. As my colleague mentioned, this is quite common and I think it is very important to have good working conditions in order to ensure continuity.
Frank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, I received an email last night from a constituent in Guelph. His name is George. He is a CUPW member. He delivers the mail and he is anxious to get back to delivering the mail.
George suggested that the post office simply unlock the doors and let everybody get back to work. They would continue to work. They would continue to negotiate in good faith and would go through the normal mediation and arbitration process. He figures that within 24 hours people would have their mail again.
I'm wondering what the member would say to that suggestion, as opposed to the draconian measures that are found in the bill put forward by the government.
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
That is what we have been defending all along. At present, we have a government that wants to impose its own conditions on a legitimate bargaining process.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, anytime I have spoken in the House over the past seven years, I have usually been able to say that I am pleased to take part in the debate on a particular bill. Today, however, June 24, my pleasure is considerably lessened because I am quite sad that I cannot be in my constituency right now.
In less than an hour from now, I was supposed to take part in an activity, a mass, with some people and then, as in the past, I would have continued celebrating with my constituents until the wee hours of the morning. Basically, I usually celebrate Quebec's nation holiday as a Quebecker, and not just as a member of Parliament. We are always members of Parliament, even when we go grocery shopping. 
It saddens me to be here, especially since my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour tried to seek unanimous consent to interrupt the debate today and resume it again later.
The issue here is not playing the government's game by passing the bill and returning to our ridings to be on vacation for three months, as the media likes to say. Every MP is going to take some vacation, but they will continue to work during the summer period, to receive constituents in their office and take part in all the summer festivities in their riding. In any event, we are here for one reason. We were elected to work, to legislate. There is a bill before us and it is our responsibility to address the matter.
The government's Bill C-6 is an affront to democracy. Everyone has the right to fair and equitable working conditions. The summary of the bill is quite clear as to the government's intention to use a sledgehammer to impose conditions on the postal workers. The summary of the bill states:
 This enactment provides for the resumption and continuation of postal services and imposes a final offer selection process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties. 
On reading the bill we see that an arbitrator, no matter how competent—it will not be his fault if he has to rule on the working conditions—will have no choice but to side with the conditions imposed by the employer. As far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of taking sides. I have always said we must side with the negotiation process, the possibility for both parties to reach an agreement. The government has not seen it that way from the very start. 
I just got a reaction from the Conservative members when I said that Ronald Reagan had acted no differently in the 1980s by straight out dismissing air traffic controllers who had used pressure tactics to get fair working conditions. I even heard someone yell that it worked at least. Perhaps it worked, perhaps it is a right-wing way to impose rules, to be in control of a situation. But when it comes to a social environment, I do not think that this is the right attitude for a responsible government to take. The postal workers will go back to work and, if the conditions set out in the bill are imposed on them until the end of that collective agreement, so until 2015, the environment in the postal offices will be terrible.
At the post office in Victoriaville, during the conflict when the rotating strikes had begun, scabs arrived. The police had to step in because a scuffle broke out. Fortunately, nothing too serious happened.
The same thing happened in Sherbrooke, and some people tried to do the job of the postal workers. There are rules that need to be followed in those cases. That does not mean that all work is prohibited, but the work of postal workers must not be done by scabs.
We must also understand that there were negotiations during this conflict. We were told that the Canada Post Corporation was not too inclined to negotiate because the sword of Damocles, in the form of a special bill, was being held over the heads of employees. All we had to do was wait. When the rotating strikes began, there was some inconvenience to Canadians.
 However, there was no major disruption since the unions had decided against a general strike. Rotating strikes were a way of getting their point across by inconveniencing certain categories of people in a particular sector for a specific period, with a different sector being affected a day or so later. This meant that those affected by the initial round of rotating strikes were no longer inconvenienced. Despite this, the employer reacted immediately by locking out workers, causing great inconvenience.
 So, when I hear the government say that this is hurting the economy, it is important to consider what exactly occurred. The threat of special legislation caused Canada Post to lock out workers because it knew that the legislation would force employees to agree to conditions that were undoubtedly unacceptable to them. The buck therefore stops with the government. The threat of special legislation was looming and precipitated the lockout by Canada Post. Of course, all the employer had to do was wait for the infamous special legislation, for conditions to be set by an arbitrator, and then simply wash its hands of the matter, with no need to negotiate.
 It was the government’s responsibility to ensure that a proper mediation process was in place and certainly not to specify in the special legislation that it would be left up to an arbitrator to choose between the two offers. It was like pouring salt on a wound when the decision was made to include in the special legislation lower wages than previously offered by Canada Post. And then there were the “orphan clauses”. In short, the government went to great lengths to ensure that Canada Post would have the upper hand in the “bargaining process”.
 The Conservative government is largely responsible for the economic consequences it has spoken of today. Considering the government’s approach and its legislation, Bill C-6, it is no surprise to read of “Conservative arrogance”, the title of a Le Soleil editorial. Allow me to quote Brigitte Breton, the author of this article:
 By introducing Bill C-6, the Conservatives have demonstrated that the public interest is by no means the only thing motivating them. The opportunity to show people who is in charge in Ottawa is too good to miss. That much was made abundantly clear by the inclusion in the bill of inferior wage conditions to those offered by Canada Post. 
That summarizes what I have just said. We saw the same thing with Air Canada, when the government immediately said that it would introduce special legislation. They had not even started to use specific pressure tactics, there were no particular hardships, and right away, the government wanted to put a stop to it. It said that people would return to work, regardless of how, regardless of the work climate that would ensue. I think this is important, because all of that has an affect on the service being provided to the public.
I believe that workers at Air Canada, as well as Canada Post, like all workers in the public sector or semi-public sector, whether they are unionized or non-unionized, always want to work as hard as they can to provide the best possible service. However, when they return to work, their tails between their legs, because someone has imposed working conditions that go against what we have always stood for, conditions that the employer had subjected them to and that jeopardized their pension plans, this means that, whether we want it or not, services to the public could be affected because there will be a poor work climate. Obviously, I am once again directly blaming the government for this. 
To sum up, the Bloc Québécois will obviously continue to oppose this bill, which is nothing more than the Conservative government trying to impose its own views.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. We worked together for quite some time on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and I always appreciate his comments. I know he works very hard on behalf of farmers, not only in Quebec, but across Canada, including on the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to thank him.
One thing that is not being talked about here, which I would like to point out again, is that Canada Post made $281 million in profits in 2009 and it must give part of its profits to the government.
Would it not make more sense to allow Canada Post to keep its profits so it can resolve these issues and improve things for its employees, while still earning profits? Is that not robbery? Is the government not stealing that money from the Canada Post workers?
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and I would like to return his compliments. I really enjoyed working with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food these past few years. I have always said that this member is unlike any other member, because he has always been able to set all partisanship aside. Thus, I consider him a friend and I would have liked to continue working with him on that committee, but as a member of a party that is not recognized in this House, I can only sit at the table and have no right to speak. Perhaps those rules need to be changed, but that is not the subject of the current debate.
I agree with him completely, especially considering the statistics he mentioned. The same year, 2009, Canada Post Corporation took in over $7 billion in revenues. That is a lot of money. I agree completely with his suggestion. As for wage cuts, every Canada Post employee will lose $875 because of the provisions of this bill.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his speech.
What message is the government sending to young people with this special legislation? We know from the provisions of the bill that the salary for new employees will be much lower.
What message is the government sending to all young people who are looking for a good, stable job and who want to start a family?
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.
It is a very bad message that is being sent. It is a message that tells young new workers that we consider them to be second-class employees. They are coming into a situation where a collective agreement has been negotiated—or imposed, if the special legislation is being applied—and we are saying that they have the same job, the same workload and the same skills, but that they are at a lower class. That is the message.
We should not be surprised when it comes to the Conservative government. We have always said we needed to fear this and we have always feared that this government would gain a majority. Since Parliament resumed on May 2, we have been faced with work conflicts that were not even conflicts yet, but conflicts in their early stages, with Air Canada and Canada Post. But you are now seeing the imposition of special legislation, it is the gag order, it is censorship, it is a blow, when we could have favoured mediation, real negotiation. This is what we do and what we should be doing in a fair democratic society.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in the debate this morning. It is an important debate for a number of different reasons, not only with regard to a crown corporation but also with regard to where we move as a country and the type of atmosphere in our country. 
There is no doubt we are seeing a more hostile atmosphere with regard to workers. That atmosphere has been transitioning a number of different jurisdictions in North America and it is no longer outside of our border. That is rather unfortunate because it counters what Canadians expect and want.
Canada Post is a successful crown corporation. It has also been successful in creating a dynamic country. Canada stretches from the most remote areas to populace areas along the border, where 80% of Canadians live. Through Canada Post, small, rural areas receive tremendous service that connects them to bigger areas. People like that environment. They like the coast to coast to coast connection. They like the diversity.
Canada Post is part of our infrastructure, just like our railroad system. It goes back to the founding of our country. Communication is important in our country's vast geographical area. It sometimes defies the logic of history with regard to conflict, growing communities and so forth. Our communities have been able to grow in a very healthy environment for the most part. We have had our bad moments, but we have also had our strengths. Canada Post has been a part of that. 
Communication is the art of moving forward. As a result of what the government has done, there is no communication right now. Canada Post has locked its workers out of their jobs and the government has given their employer a mandate to push them down. The government has denied the workers that element of communication, and that is sad.
No matter what comes out of this situation over the next few hours or days, the fact is people will have to go back to work. Most Canadians want to go to work every day, but not enough of them have the opportunity to go to a job they like. The men and women who work in my local post office and serve my community like to go to work. It is not always pleasant. There are always issues, but these people want to be part of a system that Canadians respect.
Our system has been tremendously successful. Canada Post pays its millions of dollars in profits back to the government. At the same time, it has some of the lowest rates and the best service. There are problems here and there, but there is accountability. Private systems around the world have higher costs, less service and less accountability.
Canadian taxpayers own this crown corporation. They have a vested interest in it, and I am not talking about the trucks or the physical structures. I am talking about the people, our fellow Canadian citizens, who deliver the mail and look out for their community when they go door to door every day.
I cannot tell the House the number of times I have heard from citizens about a post office worker who has noted something in the community. Our postal workers are the eyes and ears of our communities. They go beyond their job. They help out people in trouble, because they feel it is their duty. They take pride in the uniform they wear.
One of the things that is really important to acknowledge in this debate and one that I find tremendously offensive is the whole notion of two-tier wages. The two-tier wages being proposed reduce the wages for new employees by 18%. It is really equal work for less pay. 
There used to be times when that was acceptable. Employers were allowed to discriminate based on the colour of one's skin or because the individual was a female or of ethnicity. We stopped that in our country because it was unfair. It does not matter what one looks like or who that person is. If he or she does the same work, then that individual should be entitled to the same wages, benefits and everything else. That is a founding principle of social justice that needs to be looked at here. An 18% reduction in wages is a slap in the face, not only to the new workers who will be hired by Canada Post but also to what we are trying to do. 
As a young father, I want my kids to go to post-secondary school. I want them to graduate. I want them to find a job. Why would I want them to get 18% less at Canada Post or another crown corporation just because they are young and new? Canada Post wants to take advantage of that. It will have a higher turnover rate. That is what happens in these environments. They have higher turnover rates and less pensions to pay out in the future.
We are asking for that. The government is setting up a system and leading it through the public sector to tell the private sector that two-tier waging is okay. What is very important about this is we will pay for it anyway. Those new people will to wait another five years to get a pension. Even if they put up with the two-tier wages, even if they stay there, they will have to wait an additional five years for a pension.
What will happen when they exit Canada Post? They will rely more upon the public sector again, the taxpayers. Instead of having a planned system in place that we can afford and manage and that allows employees to contribute back to the Canadian economy, employees will be shortchanged. They will have less benefits. They will have less money. I see it on the streets every day. I have canvassed so many times over the last number of years during so many different elections. Every time I go out, I get more worried because I see people struggling to provide education for their kids. They are borrowing more. At the same time, they cannot provide food or pay their bills the way they used to. They do not feel they are moving forward.
We see so many community organizations that are growing. They are having to pick up the slack.
The two-tier wage issue is interesting. When the Conservatives came back to power, they did not have any MPs or senators on a two-tier wage plan. They did not ask them to wait another five years for their pensions. They did not take an 18% pay cut because they believed in it. They are not leading by example.
The minister and the government are saying to a crown corporation that it is okay to lock people out of their jobs, that it is okay to put the rest of Canada on hold. Those workers have invested value in the place they work. The government is going to set the example that it is possible to have a two-tier system with less pensions.
Why do the Conservatives not do this for themselves? It is in their legislation. They are supporting a Canada Post contract with wage differences. Why do they not lead by example then, if that is what they believe in?
I believe in equal pay for equal service. I believe it is time to stop burdening our youth. Students across Canada owe around $16 billion right now for federal loans alone.
This is the benefit that we will get out of this. The taxpayers will save a little of money out of this. We will send some new people to work with less money. They have higher debt. The average debt load per person is around $20,000 after two years of post-secondary education. On top of that, they pay interest at a premium above the borrowing rate. Those students are trying to enter the economy. They are coming out later in life. They are going to have their children later in life. They are going to have less pensionable years.
In this situation the government is helping legislate a system that is unsustainable. It is unsustainable as it is, but it is also a poor example. We do not want to tell businesses and other employers that reducing wages is a solution. The government did this for the auto sector. With regard to the recent recession, it was the mismanagement and the greed which caused the collapse in the U.S. and in Canada, with the stockholders and the different money-laundering, yet they never paid for any of it. In fact, they got bonuses. As a solution, they cut the salaries and pensions of auto workers, but that was not the problem. The problem was mismanagement, bad spending and lack of accountability.
I have seen the face of Canada Post and the deception. It tried to close the postal office in Sandwich Towne. The actual document was leaked to me. Canada Post's business case included money for a full-time manager for the area from Windsor to London. It put the entire salary in there to build the case that it was not sustainable. Because we had the information leaked to us, we were able to prove that and stop it from closing down the postal office. It wanted to close it down for ideology reasons.
This is about the ideology to reduce wages and pensions because, for whatever reason, it has come to be seen as a legacy cost. Wages and pensions are not a cost. They are a net benefit to this community. They are a net benefit to our country and that is what we should work for. We can afford them because we have the money.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's characterization of this matter as an ideological debate. When there is a right-wing party and a left-wing party in a chamber such as this, the result is ideological debate and the consequence is stalemate.
Clearly the government is trying to jam the union. If workers' rights are to be suspended, an alternative must be put in place. That is manifestly fair. 
Clearly the NDP has said this process is not manifestly fair. It is the same with our party, but now we have an ideological slanging match between hard right and hard left.
What is interesting to me, and I would be interested in the hon. member's comments, is the near indifference of Canadians to this ideological slanging match. During the course of this debate I have received precisely one email in my office, and no visits whatsoever. That person was particularly unsympathetic to both sides. 
I would be interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to this ideological slanging match. 
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to respond to ideology. 
We are calling for proper process. The Conservatives' ideology is what is doing this. We are calling for the proper process to go through arbitration. We are calling for the law that has been normal practice to unfold here. That is what we are calling for.
If the issue is about indifference, that is the difference between the hon. member and me. I remember the days when the member would call for larger corporate tax cuts. Now the policy in his party has changed. It is quite different. There is a phone book of Hansards in which the hon. member's party called for large corporate tax reductions. 
At some point in time when it comes to my party and where I stand, sometimes it may feel as though there is indifference there, but values of social justice drive us. We know the truth with regard to what is going to happen here. We are going to stand with those who sometimes do not have somebody by their side. 
That is how we got health care in this country. That is how we got pensions. That is how we have a difference between our parties. It is because we will care for and stand with those who sometimes are alone.
Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I can see that my colleague sees all the social groups as complementary. The opposite is the government, which sees all social groups as a potential way to manipulate and turn them one against the other.
I would like to hear my colleague talk a little more about how this bill is again pushing that way of seeing society by the government.
Brian Masse: Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is very germane to what is happening here in terms of the Canada we are potentially moving towards.
The government is quite clear. By using this example, the government is setting the table for the private sector to use these divisive tactics in its negotiations. 
Living on the doorstep of the United States, I have witnessed what has been taking place there with their overall ideology for a number of years. We have seen this happen in the United States, and it is not working. They are not becoming more productive. They are not becoming more effective.
That is why I stand here today to appeal to Canadians who are watching this debate. The workers are locked out. They are good workers. They want to work for a crown corporation that returns a benefit to them and their families. All they are asking for is the simple benefits they have enjoyed in the past and their right to be able to raise their families with dignity and integrity. 
What is happening is an attempt to use the lockout to divide Canadian public opinion. People are taking the position that the workers are on strike. They are not; they are locked out. They want to go to work. They are fighting for the best service they can deliver for people in this country. That is what it is about.
If my neighbour or the person bringing my letters to the box every day is young or new, why should that person be paid 20% less? Why should that person have a smaller pension than anyone else? They are doing the same job. 
It is only right. It is as simple as thinking of social justice.
Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by pointing out that it is now — not technically — but actually June 24, which is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I would like to congratulate all my constituents on this Quebec national holiday. Unfortunately, I cannot be with them today. I would very much liked to have been able to be there. Our leader attempted to negotiate an arrangement with the Prime Minister that would have allowed Quebec MPs to return to their ridings to celebrate such an important holiday with their constituents. Unfortunately, the response from the Prime Minister was a firm no. We can see the true face of the Conservatives today. There is a total lack of respect for Quebec and its people. I will now move on to something else.
The NDP is here to defend the rights of workers. On June 3, letter carriers and all Canada Post employees began rotating strikes to put a little pressure on management. This rotating strike was perfectly legal and allowed the mail to reach its destination within a very reasonable time period.
 They are fighting for better and safer working conditions. Not many people know it, but I am a chiropractor. Not long ago, I had a patient, a woman letter carrier. I cannot go into details, but as the months went by, I was truly able to see that the work of letter carriers is very demanding physically, particularly once I saw how her return to work went. It showed me just how demanding her job was.
 These people wanted to work. In any event, my patient truly wanted to return to work to earn her pay, to be sure, but also to help her community, even though her working environment was unsafe. Winter means ice and icy patches, and they have to do their job even when there are snowstorms. In the summer, when the heat can be oppressive, they have to carry all their mail over their shoulder. This creates a great deal of musculoskeletal pain — that’s just a bit of chiropractor jargon. In short, these people work very hard. They deserve to be treated with dignity, particularly when they ask to have included in their collective agreement a safer working environment.
 These workers also want, through their labour action, to say no to the cuts that management is trying to force upon them. These attacks affect 48,000 workers and their families. That represents many people in Canada. They make the economy run, whether in Canada, Quebec, or Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. That is why the NDP is going to stand up as long as it takes to defend the rights of workers and families.
 Their union opted for highly responsible rotating strikes. This showed respect for the people who wanted to receive their mail. They received it in a timely manner. It also showed respect for their workers, to enable them to put a little pressure on the government.
 On the other hand, Canada Post decided to lock them out. That is why we are here today. As a result of this lockout, the mail has definitely stopped reaching people’s mailboxes. That was a smart move by Canada Post. We have seen over the past few days and will continue to see over the coming days just how this decision has placed Canada and its people in a very complex situation.
The union also proposed to Canada Post that it end the lockout to allow people to continue working and negotiating at the same time. However, for some strange reason, Canada Post refused. The crown corporation has really shot itself in the foot. The Canada Post team has decided to keep up a hard line approach, not unlike the one the Conservative government is trying to impose on the postal workers.
It is important to remember one thing: the media often talks about a postal strike, but this is not a strike; it is a lockout. The main problem lies with the employer, Canada Post. The employees have the right to negotiate their collective agreement in good faith with their employer. It is a right that has been earned over time. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer provided a very interesting history of the union movement in Canada. 
However, this is not a negotiation in good faith. The government is trying to impose a contract on the workers, but it is not the government's role to do so. The bill clearly sides with the employer. It is irresponsible of the government to act in this way. We even see that the bill encroaches on the Canada Post employees' freedom to negotiate. As a result, the two parties in this situation cannot honestly negotiate with one another. What is more, the government is proposing lower salaries than the ones Canada Post was offering a few days ago during the negotiations. What is happening right now truly makes no sense.
In fact, I wonder why the government insisted on offering so little to the workers, even less than Canada Post management wanted to offer their employees. Personally, I think this is a conflict of interest. Just consider where Canada Post's profits end up. This is a corporation that generates millions of dollars every year. Who owns Canada Post? The Government of Canada does. At the end of the day, cutting payroll expenses at Canada Post will boost profits. Where will the profits go? They will go into the government's coffers. What will the government do with this surplus money? During the election campaign, there was talk of investing $35 billion in purchasing fighter jets and there was talk of megaprisons. I do not think it is ethical to cut employees' salaries and benefits to invest more in the Conservative government's ideological program. That is my view as an NDP MP.
What message is the government sending with its approach? It is implying that, if a contract is unfair, it is not a big deal; if employees do not agree with their employer, it is not a big deal—the government will take action, it will impose a framework that will put them at a disadvantage and it will cut everyone's wages. Recently, with the orphan clause, it has been said that there would be a second generation of employees, often young people, who will not have the same benefits as employees with more experience.
I think it is a bit hypocritical of the Conservative government whose ideal is to reduce the size of the government; now that it is in power, it is meddling a lot in the labour relations between employees and their employer.
Since I do not have much time left, I will briefly point out that Canadians have fought over many years and decades to be where they are today, to have decent salaries and benefits. Not all Canadians are privileged to have these benefits. We should not be lowering our standards in Canada. Our society is going through economic recovery. In our society, everyone should be elevated, not cut back and brought down to minimum wage. Like the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, I do not want to see the postal service privatized and I do not want to have to go to Walmart to get my mail. 
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague, another chiropractor, to the House. Perhaps we could work on straightening this thing out by aligning both parties so we can come to some resolution.
 In the big picture of things, this is what the government is trying to do. We have looked at the disagreement between the two parties and we have seen two parties that cannot come to an agreement. We have seen rotating strikes, which has cost Canadians over $100 million. There has been a lockout. Obviously these two sides cannot come to together.
What would the member do with the rest of the workers in Canada? The calls I am getting in my office are from seniors and people on disability who require their cheques, and small businesses that are relying on cheques going back and forth consistently in order to pay their bills. Small business is now responsible for the employment of most Canadians. 
We are trying to end this now as quickly as possible, get everybody back to work and have a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, the NDP want to keep us here. I should be in Oshawa today for 11 o'clock. We are celebrating Saint Jean Baptiste Day too. I find it very disrespectful. 
We need to work together and help continue this recovery. What would the member say to those--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
[Interjection]
Dany Morin: Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the Conservative member, who is also of the same profession as I am. We in the NDP also want workers to get back to work as quickly as possible. The workers and their union are calling for an end to the lockout, and rightly so, so they can resume work and start delivering the mail again every day, and so they can negotiate their collective agreement at their own pace. 
 My colleague wants the postal workers to return to work and so do we. The NDP does not believe however that a collective agreement should be imposed that penalizes them and that is not as generous as what Canada Post had already offered.
Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his remarks today. 
 I would also like to wish a wonderful Fête nationale to all my colleagues from Quebec who are present. Like them, I would have liked to be in my riding today to celebrate with those dear to me. 
 I would like to ask a question about the “orphan clause” in the bill. One of the concerns raised by constituents in my vast riding relates to young people and the message we should be sending them. My fellow citizens of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are very proud to see so many young people and women in our party. I would like to ask my colleague’s opinion as to the message the government is sending in this regard. 
[Interjection]
Dany Morin:  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the NDP for his question. 
 As a young person of the age of 25, I am fortunate to be in a job where I am my own boss. At least I was before I became a full-time MP. Many young people have difficulty finding work as we are coming out of an economic recession. 
 Young people who are looking for work would love to find a job with decent wages and good working conditions so they can start a family and stay in their home region, whether that is Abitibi or Lac-Saint-Jean. 
 Yet with the focus on cutting wages and benefits, there will be a generation of young people with little job security or who do not make enough money to make a proper start in life. This is not the right message that the Conservatives are sending. 
  [For continuation of proceedings see part C] 
 [Continuation of proceedings from part B] 
Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would have preferred to make my first speech in the House under more positive circumstances, but the government chose otherwise.
As the saying goes, it helps to sleep on it. But in my case, sleeping on it has raised some questions. I was anxious to return to the House to share my concerns. I must admit that after the election, I was worried about our country's progressive values. I was worried that we take a step backwards with the social gains that Canadian society worked brilliantly at great cost to earn over the course of our history.
I never thought that the Conservative government could threaten the structures of Canada's economic success themselves. I must admit that I was surprised about that. I see that this is the reality today, and I wonder why and what the government's goal is.
The public must understand that the Conservative government is trying to create a precedent. The Conservative government never hid its intentions. The Minister of Labour recently reiterated that the government's priority was to support economic growth, and that it would intervene in any labour dispute that could jeopardize that.
Any labour dispute? What does that mean? It is now very clear that the government will jump in indiscriminately. It is one thing to support development, to support businesses that create jobs, but it is an entirely different thing to systematically attack workers.
The New Democratic Party is in an interesting position, since we must remind the Conservative government of some fundamental principles of our economy. Simple principles. In our economy, the workers are also consumers. They are customers who use their incomes to keep the economy rolling.
One concept is fundamental to our economy: offer better wages to employees and they will buy more cars; offer better wages to employees and they will buy houses, consumer goods and services. But if you lower wages and cut employee benefits, you are attacking the very foundation of the modern economy.
The Conservative government is proposing a single formula: support economic development by reducing the purchasing power of workers. The government is adding insult to injury by simultaneously suggesting that Canadians reduce their debt levels. Workers who have supported Canada's economic growth for years, by going into debt of over 140% of their income, are now forced to accept that the government is making their debt level even worse by decreasing their disposable income. In what economic dream world is the government living?
The Conservative government is getting all worked up about the economic impact of the delays in mail delivery. It is condemning the temporary pressure tactics used by the workers, who are trying to preserve their purchasing power. And what does it do to resolve this temporary problem? It permanently reduces the income available to workers to support economic growth. What are we to take from this lack of logic? Do we just accept the excuse that the government continues to repeat, that its intervention is necessary to ensure economic development?
The answer is no. Instead, we need to unmask this government, which claims to be a champion of the economy but is flouting economic principles for ideological reasons. The Conservative government is interfering in the market economy and in the bargaining process between workers and their employer. Let the government suffer the consequences of its own lack of rigour.
If the NDP has to remind the government, citizens and especially the Minister of Labour that the Canadian economy is based on principles that have made us member of the G20 and an economic success worldwide, they can count on us. We will not allow the Conservatives to attack our economic prosperity. We will not allow the Conservatives to reduce the purchasing power of Canadians and further increase their level of debt. But above all, if the government insists on systematically interfering in negotiations between workers and employers, the NDP will systematically stand up to protect the Canadian economy and the principles that have made it so strong.
Now let us talk about the sense of urgency we see in the government. Not only has it rushed into this matter, not only has it gotten involved in a process that is none of its business, but it is also trying to force the adoption of a bill that will create a precedent that the government intends to systematically repeat, according to the very words of the Minister of Labour.
What is the urgency the government is referring to? Let us be clear. It was never the intention of Canada Post employees to undermine Canada's economic stability. This accusation on the part of the Conservative government, this bugaboo that it has been unleashing on the House for several days now, is not convincing anyone. Canada Post workers are much more sensitive to the importance of the service they provide than the Conservatives are letting on. The government is forgetting that Canada Post's clients are the neighbours, family members, colleagues and friends of the crown corporations's employees. Accusing them of taking Canadians hostage is absurd. 
Under an agreement reached before the dispute, Canada Post workers had already committed to delivering government cheques, such as welfare, old age security and family support payments. According to the union, nearly 9,000 members would have helped sort and deliver over 2 million cheques a month. But the lockout changed everything. That excessive measure is what interrupted mail service to Canadians. The scolding emails only started coming in after the lockout was imposed, the same emails that the government is now citing to justify its bill. I hope the government will keep those emails as a reminder of the harmful effects of its precipitous action. We will also send them all the emails from citizens who are disappointed by this government's actions. 
Lastly, I would like to send greetings to all of my friends and constituents in the riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert who were expecting me today for our national holiday celebrations. Since moving to Quebec, I have come to enjoy this beautiful celebration. The national holiday has allowed me not only to celebrate the history of my new home province, but also to develop a sense of belonging. How I would have liked to be among my constituents to thank them for the incredible welcome they have extended to me. I would have liked to show my profound gratitude for the honour they have bestowed upon me by voting for change in Ottawa. I will simply have to put it off to another time.
In the meantime, I am here to do the job entrusted to me. I will remain here to represent the interests of the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. And, if need be, I will stay here with my colleagues until Canada Day.
Mr. Greg Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to touch on the sort of revenge factor that the member has built into at least her strategy, if not the entire party's.
I have been talking with constituents this morning. The great Kenora riding covers 326,760 square kilometres. There is no road access to 25 communities. The mail lies at the heart and soul and the ebb and flow of a lot of the business activity and social economic activity. We have an opportunity here to put these folks back to work which is what my constituents are overwhelmingly asking for. They are saying put back to work legislation in place so that we can get our regional economy and Canada's economy back on track. 
I know the angles that the NDP is working here. Its members are saying that we could have had rotating strikes, or some sort of hybrid response, so that not too many things would be affected. But at the end of the day, seniors are not getting certain important pieces of mail. First Nations communities are not getting essential pieces of mail. Small businesses are suffering.
My question is quite simple. Does the member not believe at this point that putting an end to this by using back to work legislation is the most effective way for us to move forward? 
[Interjection]
Djaouida Sellah: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the other side for his question.
First, I would like to say that the situation has gotten worse since the lockout. The rotating strikes did not disrupt mail distribution for seniors and for all members of society. I want to point out that this happened when Canada Post locked out its employees. There is no point trying to blame the workers. The workers are proud of what they do. The workers are prepared to return to work if we unlock the doors at Canada Post.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for her speech. It was very informative. At the same time, it seems as though it addressed a number of points I have been hearing since this morning, that NDP members are just talking for the sake of talking, that we just want to stall the debate and prevent people from doing all kinds of things, when that is not the case.
There are fundamental principles at stake. I will not allow our colleagues from the other side or from the second opposition party imply that our right to speak means nothing in this wonderful chamber. I was pleased to hear the member refer to that, because, even if we would have rather had the day off like everyone else, I think that the best interests of Canadians are at stake. When I say “Canadians,” that includes workers and other people.
I would like the member to answer a question that we often hear from the other side about the fact that the union did not transmit the employer's offers, even though the union received its mandate from the employees at the start of negotiations and it is not obligated to return—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to give her colleague the chance to answer. 
[Interjection]
Djaouida Sellah: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. 
 I think Canada Post has been posturing since the beginning so the government would introduce this bill that we have been debating since yesterday. Canada Post had started making offers to the union but now the Conservative government is interfering and coming between the employer and its employees
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. 
 First of all, as a Quebecker, let me begin by wishing all Quebeckers a wonderful Fête nationale. 
 Unfortunately we cannot join in the celebrations today. This is distressing for me. It is very important to me to be a Quebecker and a Canadian. So the Fête nationale is extremely important to me. To all my fellow citizens of Alfred-Pellan, to all my family and friends, and to all of Quebec, happy Saint-Jean! 
 A whole generation of new workers entering the labour market will be affected by the bill the Conservative government has introduced. Why? First of all because young people are the next ones who will enter the labour market and who will become the next postal workers at Canada Post. 
 Allow me to point out just a few features of the bill we are debating. First of all, wages will be lower for the next workers hired. They will make $875.50 less over four years than what was planned. 
 As for their pensions, the new employees will have to wait five years longer than others to be eligible for their pension. 
 That is not to mention the dangerous working conditions that Canada Post workers could face. 
 Because this bill affects the next generation of workers, I thought it very useful for all members of the House of Commons to hear what young people had to say on this subject. So I asked them, through various social media, what they thought about this subject, the lockout at Canada Post and the bill the government is bringing to the table.
 Today, I want to give them a voice. I will let you hear what they had to say about this subject.
 To start with, the first person, Daniel Carette, a young father, 26 years old, says that bargaining should proceed in the usual way, there should be no government intervention, and in addition, important government cheques are sent by mail in any event. So he suggests that the employees be allowed to bargain their agreement in peace. He adds that he is not very keen on unions, but he is on side with what was won in the old agreement, and it should not be eliminated from the new agreements, particularly when the employer is not having problems.
 Philippe Long writes that he thinks the lockout is pointless, and that for the managers who are criticizing the employees because of their rotating strike to impose a general lockout and paralyze the country is no better.
 A master’s student at Laval University in Quebec City, Caroline Roy-Blais, wrote that Canada Post employees had decided not to take the public hostage, by organizing rotating strikes and continuing to deliver government cheques and other papers. She adds that the employers decided to impose a lockout so the government would get involved in the bargaining and compel the employees to “agree to” dangerous working conditions and lower wages for people hired in future. 
 She also says that she is against government intervention. First, she writes that although the government says it is a fan of the free market and is not interventionist, it is unabashedly intervening in the dispute. Second, she asks why two classes of employees are being created. Equal pay for equal work, she writes. Third, she says that employees’ right of free association in a union is important, and employees should not be prevented from organizing to get better working conditions, based on the entrepreneurial right to make money.
 She also adds that we must not forget that the “orphan clause” is intended to give higher wages to postal workers who are already employed, but freezes wages for future employees. She suggests that this means that if someone is hired after the agreement is signed, they would not be entitled to the same wage for the same work! She concludes by saying that this is not fair at all. 
Jean-François Paradis, a young father in the Montreal region, said that Canada Post was trying to impose a new distribution method that has tripled occupational injuries, which is not acceptable. This is a lockout. It is not a strike. There is no mail distribution because of Canada Post. If it goes on any longer, it is the fault of Canada Post, which was waiting for special legislation instead of negotiating.
I also received a short comment from Patrick Allard. He thinks this is a real shame.
This morning, another citizen, Eric Jacques, wrote to me. He said that Canada Post has been earning a profit every year for 16 years, yet managers say that they need to cut costs. Where is the logic there? Letter carriers were carrying out a rotating strike to maintain service, and the government said that it would not intervene as long as mail was being delivered. So Canada Post imposed a lockout, so that the government would take action and the corporation would not have to negotiate in good faith. If we truly want to improve the health of the economy, we need a plan with good wages, like those of mail carriers.
Those are just a few of the comments I received. That is what the next generation has to say about this labour dispute. These are engaged people who understand the problem. They do not understand what the Conservative government is trying to do.
I sincerely hope that the comments from these few Canadian citizens will be taken into consideration by members on the other side of the House, so that we can reach a better consensus for the sake of the workers.
Colin Carrie: Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech and I find some of it very misleading. She seems to want to portray the action the government is taking as unusual.
I would like to recount to her a bit of the recent history. In 1978, there was back to work legislation. In 1987, there was back to work legislation. In 1991, there was back to work legislation. In 1997, there was back to work legislation.
The reason is we have two parties that have a history of not settling. These are two opposite sides that have had over eight months to come up with some type of agreement. They have had numerous meetings with the minister. They have been given every opportunity to come up with an agreement.
The real question that Canadians want answered is, how long is the NDP going to allow these two parties, together, to hold Canadians hostage?
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
First of all, the NDP, like the workers, would be happy to see a return to work. It would be very simple to get workers back to work immediately, because all we have to do is unlock the doors. It is as simple as that.
Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her wonderful comments this morning. It has been so amazing to hear the very passionate speeches taking place about the principles that are at stake here and how people tackle these different principles. I notice that she spoke about the two tiers of salaries that were tabled by the employer and she also spoke about the next generation.
I wonder if the member could comment more about what a living wage or a decent wage is for a family. It seems unfair that the employer could tell employees because they are new and younger, they would therefore get less money. As someone who represents the younger generation, how does she feel about the fact that because a person is a new employee or is younger, he or she would get a lower wage?
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question.
It is easy for me to imagine what it would be like for someone who went to work at Canada Post after the labour dispute and was subject to this two tier system. There are two people who do the exact same job, but do not have the same salary or benefits. Someone who was hired one month before me could retire five years earlier and would have more money in his pockets to support his family. That is completely unacceptable. We are doing exactly the same job. Equal pay for equal working conditions. That is all I have to say. 
Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that it was a certain member who said, in Montreal in 1997, “In terms of the unemployed of which we have over 1.5 million, don't feel particularly bad for these people”. Who said that? It was our present Prime Minister who quit his job as a member of this House because he felt he would better serve at the National Citizens Coalition where he ran the campaign to deunionize Canadian workforces.
We see the Conservatives today pretending they have the interests of the workers in hand. We have the old crocodile who has dressed himself as Little Bo Peep, and he has his bonnet pulled down over his snout to try to hide his true intention. However, if we pull the bonnet back, we will see the same dismissive attitude and the same arrogance against common working people on these benches today that we heard in 1997.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about the Prime Minister's dismissive attitude towards working people.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan has roughly 40 seconds to answer that question.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, there is currently a real lack of respect for the workers, first with the lockout and now with this back-to-work legislation. It is absolutely unacceptable. There are other ways to handle this.
We truly advocate teamwork. We are prepared to negotiate with the government in order to come up with a better way to settle the current dispute at Canada Post.
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, like many of the MPs in the government, I too have been inundated, not with complaints, but with words of encouragement to continue our opposition to this interventionist bill.
Do the members opposite realize that their party is interventionist? The party that advocates individual and economic free enterprise at the expense of everything else is being interventionist, but not just anywhere. It is being interventionist for the sake of personal and political interests. The government is controlling workers, not companies. We are not naive. There have been other special bills like this before, but not when the Internet was in every home. Today, we can make payments by phone or by Internet. If anyone is left out, they can call their MP and people who can help them out. As others mentioned earlier, the most important cheques were being delivered. As I was saying, we are not naive. An agreement was reached between senior government officials and Canada Post to impose a lockout in order to introduce a special bill to reduce working conditions and force Canada Post employees back to work under lesser conditions.
I was listening to the radio this morning. Economists and sociologists were unanimous on this. I hope that certain people realize that their position is increasingly being challenged. The government can admit its mistake. We are prepared to work with the government to come up with a special bill that will suit all Canadians. The government would come under less criticism than if it continues on its current course. Once again, I am reaching out. I hope the government will listen to us and take our considerations and public opinion into account.
People back home fear that the current government's attitude will become more widespread and that the government will take away the fundamental rights of workers in Canada who contribute to the economy, which would not be viable if 75% of the population did not contribute to the tax base. I would like the minister to explain how she plans to deal with the potential loss of many high-quality jobs in our regions.
What do I tell the people in the various towns in my riding? They are fighting to keep their post office. The post offices are in part the heart of these villages. What do I tell people at Château Mont Ste-Anne who are currently locked out? Do I tell them to go back to minimum wage? What do I tell the AbitibiBowater retirees and workers who are worried about their pension funds? Do I tell them to go back to work until they are 70? They have paid into their pension all their life.
What do I tell the young workers in my riding and young Canadian workers? I myself am a young man. Do I tell them that they will have to work until the end of their days without security? Canadians have rights.
Is the government prepared to change its mind to suggest negotiation opportunities without flouting the workers' rights? Could this interventionist government work with us and listen to us to help Canadian workers? Could this interventionist government step back, reflect and admit its mistake?
I am reaching out. The entire NDP is reaching out. We can make other proposals for the good of the workers.
Colin Carrie: Madam Speaker, my colleague said they are not naive on his side. After listening to his speech, I would put forward they are very naive. I would ask any member of the NDP who has run a business, met a payroll, and had to work with the postal service to run their business to stand up and let us know.
I am sitting next to my colleague, the newly elected member for Brampton. He runs a manufacturing business and needs cheques to come in before he can put cheques out to pay his employees. This is the type of small Canadian business that is being affected by this.
These two parties cannot make an agreement. They have to get this resolved. We are trying to get it resolved in the best way for both parties.
How long is the NDP going to allow these two parties to hold Canadians hostage? How long are they going to let that happen?
[Interjection]
Jonathan Tremblay: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I do not think that he understood my message.
I have another proposal to make: remove the locks. That way, our colleague will have his cheque, and all the entrepreneurs will have their cheques and their papers.
Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member indicated the New Democrats are reaching out to the government. He is not the first one to make reference to the fact that they apparently have a series of amendments they would like to bring forward. I know the member is concerned about the postal workers and wants to see what it is they are referring to.
Can you explain to me why there is a need to hold back on sharing that information with members of the chamber? What is it the NDP are in fact looking at that could possibly assist us in trying to draw this thing to a conclusion in which we would find more people being able to have a discussion?
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is well meaning in his question. What concerns me is if we are going to have fair bargaining, and we are attempting to bargain with the government, then we would be undermining our ability to build trust with the government by asking our members to reveal what those negotiations are.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe this is a question of debate.
I will ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to complete his question very quickly.
Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, based on that point of order, I can assure the member that stood on the point of order that I likely have more confidence in the new member than I do in the member who has the experience.
Why not share with Canadians what it is the New Democrats are talking about so that we could actually have an engagement on that discussion? We might be able then to—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I would like to give the hon. member time to respond.
[Interjection]
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that there are a great many possibilities. For example, we can keep the current collective agreement.
With the unanimous consent of the House, we can do what we want. If we decided together to amend the special bill with the unanimous consent of the House, we could leave in two hours, and it would be done.
Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the comment by the member on the opposite side.
I am a small-business person. I have three successful small businesses. They are all profitable. I understand small businesses. I am a lefty capitalist; I believe in profits, but I believe in sharing them equitably with the other people in our society.
Madam Speaker, thanks for this opportunity to speak to the government's legislation. The Conservative government is attempting to ram Bill C-6 through Parliament within hours of suspending the regular rules of the House, just as it did with the HST implementation bill. 
Labour disputes happen in any modern market-based economy. They are a fact of life and a result of the competitive dichotomy set up between profit-centred companies and workers who push for living wages and safe working conditions. That is a normal situation for market-based economies, which you allegedly believe in. 
Normally, disputes work themselves out without a lot of government interference. I am surprised by the current government. Before the Conservatives were in office, and afterwards, they always talked about how they were all for smaller government and hands-off government that lets markets work things out for themselves. That is the claim.
Instead, though, we see a very interventionist government. This is a heavy-handed government that is now egregiously interfering in the collective bargaining process we have developed over many decades. For a party that claims a hands-off philosophy, this is the most meddlesome federal government in a very long time. 
This is just another symptom of the fundamental changes happening within the Conservative Party. Conservatives in this government have wandered far from their roots. Their forefathers must be turning over in their graves. 
Whatever happened to Conservative claims for small government? The first things they did after getting a phony majority was stack the Senate and appoint a huge ministry, one of the largest ministries in the history of Canada. There are more ministers, more limos for ministers, more perks, and more staff. All that was after they bulked up spending on the Prime Minister's Office. We have never had a PMO that is so large or that has spent so much. 
The current government has always talked about fiscal responsibility, but its track record shows that it does not understand the concept. It is blowing billions on fighter jets, mega-prisons, and indiscriminate corporate tax handouts. It is opening military bases everywhere across the globe. In the process, it is racking up a record deficit, the largest deficit since Brian Mulroney. 
Now it is interfering in labour market negotiations in a way that is nothing less than a violation of Canadians' Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If it does this now, where will it end? Will the government step in every time there is a dispute in the marketplace? Is it going to legislate every time two sides do not agree on something?
Let us be very clear. We have no postal service right now, because Canada Post shut down service completely. It locked its workers out. 
I was disappointed to hear on the CBC this morning at 5 a.m, quoting the minister on that side, that this is a strike. There was no countervailing force on the news to indicate that it really is, as we know, a lockout, not a strike.
Let us start at the beginning. The workers had concerns about their contract. They went on rotating strikes a few weeks ago, on June 2, and there were some service slowdowns. Their attempts were measured, and they were responsible. It is true that it was not an ideal situation, but I did not hear any hue and cry from the people in my riding, including small businesses. Life went on during those rotating strikes.
After the workers started the rotating strikes, they even offered to end the strike action if the company would agree to keep the old contract in place during negotiations, but Canada Post refused. Then on June 15, Canada Post decided to lock everyone out and shut down Canada's mail service completely. That was irrational, and it was unreasonable. That is when I started to hear about it from my constituents. People rightly complained. Small businesses were being affected. Canada Post management should have taken that into consideration before taking that irresponsible action.
However, instead of introducing legislation to end the lockout, to resume rotating service, and to get both sides back to the bargaining table, the government decided just a few days later to interfere with the right to collective bargaining and to impose a settlement below even what management had demanded. Therefore, Canada Post is being rewarded for shutting down the mail service that so many of our constituents rely on. This is a dangerous precedent, regardless of the particulars of this or any labour dispute. 
Can any large corporation here in Canada, from now on, knowing the government's ideology, simply refuse to negotiate and then wait for the government to interfere and legislate people back to work? Will Canada Post be encouraged in the future to hold our postal service hostage anytime it does not feel like bargaining?
This is a dangerous path the Conservatives are leading the country down. It is one that would lead us to more entrenched positions, more, not less, labour unrest, and more, not less, interruption of the services Canadians rely on. What incentive will there be in the future for corporations to bargain in good faith or settle?
The government should not be in the business of imposing labour contracts for businesses and workers. That is not free or fair collective bargaining. That is not letting the process work. It is not letting the marketplace work. The Conservative government must stop interfering. 
This is an extraordinary level of intervention for a government that says that it prefers to let the market sort things out. I am left wondering if this may have something to do with the government's desire to privatize Canada Post service and to reduce service to Canadians.
The government has been moving towards privatization for our postal service for a long time, and we know it. Canadians living in rural and remote areas, such as much of Thunder Bay—Superior North, will suffer most from this privatization. They are greatly impacted by these losses of service.
 I have rural postal services in my own riding that are threatened. For example, the community of Dorion, in my riding, is about to lose its postal outlet this summer. This outlet is currently located in Canyon Country Service on Highway 11, and they are having to close permanently for circumstances beyond their control. However, Canada Post has found no local alternative. It has not let anyone know about any progress in finding one. This is not a good sign. It is one of our more worrisome examples of a worrisome Tory ideological obsession.
Canada Post insists that it is still respecting its so-called policy of not shutting down rural services themselves, because they can throw up their hands and say that there is no alternative.
 Despite a fat salary for the CEO and bonuses for its executives, Canada Post is profitable. It does not need to shut rural services any more than it needs to privatize or to walk away from the bargaining table in these labour negotiations. The company made $281 million in profit last year. The CEO is making more than $650,000 a year, and his salary is going up by a lot more than the rate of inflation and by a lot more than what the workers are requesting in these negotiations. Why take the desperate move to shut down all postal services across Canada?
I want to talk a little about the people who are impacted by the Canada Post lockout. As I said before, I am a small-business person. Of course, my business, like so many across the country, relies on post offices for service. Lots of businesses rely on that. Many send their payments by mail. The Canada Post lockout and shutdown of the service has negatively impacted them, and Canadians will carry the can for it, not the poor posties who want to do a good job for a reasonable rate of pay. This service is important to them. This is impacting the workers who want to work and have been locked out of their jobs in the same way Canadians have been locked out of their postal service.
I would like to read a quote: 
 Nobody knows how much the population of Canada still relies on the Post Office more than postal workers. We see the medication, the card$ of $upport to out-of-town students, the food being sent to the far north. We see the frustration of our co-workers when they see all that they have fought for over the years being stripped away in one fell swoop of a pen by [our] Communist [Prime Minister]. It's maddening and frankly quite sad that a government would invite this sort of turmoil and suppression on its own people. 

Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment first and then ask a brief question. 
I am glad that the member opposite talked about owning three successful businesses, which makes him management, in my view. I wonder how his customers would feel if every other day some people in his shops did not show up for work because they were on a rotating strike. How long would he put up with rotating strikes while his successful businesses suffered? 
I have heard from the hon. member and other members that the Canadian people are going to suffer. What percentage of the 30-plus million Canadian public are supporting this government in making sure that Canada Post gets back to work? What number do they need before they understand that Canadians want this Parliament to work? They want us to move this legislation forward and get Canada Post back to the activity of serving all Canadians. Is it 70% or 80%? What number do they need to hear before they finally take action?
Bruce Hyer: Madam Speaker, I heard an implied question, and I heard a secondary question. I will answer the implied question first. 
In my three businesses, if I had employees who went on rotating strikes against me, I would look in the mirror. I would assume responsibility for my mismanagement. I do not have those problems in my businesses. My businesses are run fairly, with fair benefits and fair pay for my employees. They appreciate that, and therefore they are loyal, so I do not have those problems. 
Look in the mirror. 
The answer to the second question is that yes, 33 million Canadians want to have their postal service restored. Everyone on my side of the aisle wants to see those services restored. We know that it is up to 167 members of the House on that side, although we know that it is really up to one or two or three. Allegedly it is up to 167 members who can unlock those post offices tomorrow if they decide to do that. 
Nycole Turmel: Madam Speaker, we talk a lot about the services of Canada Post. The opposition talks a lot about the lack of services or the economic impact of this strike or this lockout. 
I want to know from my colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North what happened in the past with the lack of service and the reduction of services by Canada Post? I want to know the impact on rural communities and his constituency of Canada Post's decisions? 
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Madam Speaker, we have serious problems in Thunder Bay—Superior North in many of our rural areas. My riding is 100,000 square kilometres. There are 31 communities and nine first nations communities. The communities are not getting mail delivery every day. There has been a backlog due to cutbacks of staff and the use of part-time supplementary workers when needed. Small mom and pop operations that service the communities have been regularly closing, and they are being replaced by more affluent service centres, often operating out of one of our Shoppers Drug Marts at less convenient locations that are not close to those people. 
It has been very clear for a long time that service is going down. It is time for the government to not only settle this labour dispute but to go about making the investments and making the commitments to make sure that rural delivery is enhanced and restored. 
Ryan Cleary: Madam Speaker, I heard the member opposite ask the hon. New Democrat member how he would feel about people not showing up for work. I would remind the member opposite that the post office workers did show up for work. They were actually locked out. 
I have a question for the New Democrat member. Would you, as a small-business owner, cut the guts out of your employees' pension plan?
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Madam Speaker, as I said before, we have a growing problem in this country as we emulate the United States Republican model. We have growing gaps in income. We have a loss of the middle class. We have people who are the working poor.
I urge all members opposite to read The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, by Wilkinson and Pickett, to read real hard science on why the Scandinavian countries are way ahead of us in terms of happy, healthy societies that benefit all people and have a reasonable balance between big business, small business, and workers. 
Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Madam Speaker, as all of my colleagues have said today, we are sitting in the House of Commons on Quebec's national holiday. I apologize to my constituents. This shows that the Conservatives care more about opposing the rights of workers than they do about respecting the national holiday of a nation of Canada. The Conservatives were the ones to accept the validity of the Quebec nation and now they are putting their anti-labour ideology ahead of respect for Quebeckers.
On June 3, 2011, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes that demonstrated the workers' willingness to exert pressure, while still remaining in good faith and keeping the mail service running. The union offered to end the strikes if Canada Post would agree to reinstate the old contract during negotiations. But Canada Post refused.
On June 15, Canada Post, with the Conservative government's approval, decided to lock out its employees, force them into a work stoppage and shut down the mail service in order to allow the government to intervene.
As my hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was saying earlier, the government certainly must have approved the lockout. This allowed it to then introduce back-to-work legislation. Locking out the employees this way does not seem very fair to me in a collective bargaining situation. It shows the government's tendency to set restrictive parameters that prevent the parties from talking. Canada has laws to protect workers, but the Conservative Party seems to be telling the workers that it is going to take away their right to negotiate a collective agreement, impose conditions inferior to what Canada Post was offering and force arbitration. Will the arbitrator be neutral? We do not know. Will the arbitrator follow the government's lead and side with the employer?
 Mail service continues to be essential to Canadians’ lives and to our economy. In my riding, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Dorval, people are angry because of this lockout, because their business depends on that service. But my constituents still realize that the dispute is much broader. They also realize that this is not a strike, it is a lockout. And they know that the dispute goes beyond what is happening at Canada Post; it is an unbelievable precedent. 
 The government is not just moving toward privatization, as several of my colleagues have pointed out. It wants to impose a climate of fear, to make workers who want to negotiate proper working conditions wary. The workers at Canada Post have been the victims of a huge machine that wants to violate the rights of workers everywhere in Canada. Before long, Canada will be doing what the state of Wisconsin did as recently as March 2011, when it passed a bill limiting the rights of public service unions and stripping government employees’ unions of nearly all their collective bargaining rights, with the exception of bargaining about wages. That is repression.
 The letter carriers I have talked to in my riding say it is not even wages that upset them in this case. As my colleagues have pointed out, the pension plan is in danger, the “orphan clauses” are unacceptable, and management is imposing frustrating conditions in which employees are going to have to work. What upsets my constituents the most are the terms that affect occupational health and safety. I spoke with Michel St-Pierre, a letter carrier who has lived in my riding for several years. The postal workers are asking their employer for good working conditions in terms of safety, among other things.
 At present, a letter carrier has to carry two bags, one on each side of the body, plus circulars. We all get millions of circulars in our mailboxes every day. So we can imagine the weight they have to carry. With the new special bill, they are being required to carry a third bag. Canada Post wants to force them to carry a bag in front that completely blocks their view of the ground. Well, that is intelligent. It is going to save money by making workers carry more bags, but workers’ compensation is going to have to pay out a lot of money because workers will be injured and file complaints. In a case involving backache, it is very difficult to prove to the compensation board that it is attributable to the job. Canada Post is going to lose a lot of money because of those injuries. 
 And that is not all. The union stood by its position that every postal worker must have access to the same pension plan and be entitled to the same benefits. Should we agree to Canada Post’s proposal to eliminate the option of early retirement for future employees, it will only be a matter of time before an attempt is made to tighten the eligibility criteria for early retirement for current employees. We remain optimistic about resolving the dispute, but there must be a show of goodwill on both sides. 
 The government has to stop interfering in the negotiations. Locking out employees and then forcing them back to work is certainly not a fair way of negotiating. I now have trouble believing that the two parties will be able to negotiate a fair contract. 
 For there to be a fair contract, the Conservatives need to put an end to their interventionist style of government and prevent a precedent from being set, which will be the case if this legislation passes. 
 It is true that the multinational courier companies regularly lobby to have Canada Post deregulated. These companies want the government to open up the letter mail market to competition so that they can increase their profits and market share.
 Finally, some right-wing media outlets and economic institutes have called for the privatization and deregulation of Canada Post. However, almost everybody is opposed to this.
 In 2008, the federal government commissioned a review of Canada Post Corporation and the report was published in 2009. This report is very clear. It appears that the public is no way favours the privatization or deregulation of Canada Post.
 Furthermore, every major federal political party is officially opposed to privatizing the postal service, and most parties also reject deregulation.
I would also like to add that another one of my constituents contacted me this morning. She is a letter carrier and has been working for a very long time. She is currently having difficulty carrying all this weight. She told me that the new bags that are going to be imposed will mean that she will be required to carry more than 30 kilograms.
That is not all because, with that 30 kilograms, letter carriers currently have four hours to prepare their mail and four hours to deliver it. Now Canada Post wants to impose six continuous hours of delivery, six hours of walking the streets with three bags, plus flyers, to deliver the mail.
On top of that, with the new special legislation, they would be prohibited from collecting overtime. If my constituent finds it too heavy, if she has difficulty walking, if she has stairs to climb, if there is black ice in the winter and she has difficulty and takes half an hour longer, she cannot claim a half-hour of overtime. I think that is truly ridiculous.
We are asking the government to change this special legislation and let workers get back on the job so that small businesses can have their mail service. We need to let the parties discuss the collective agreement together so that these workers can determine what they need and they can ask for what they need for workplace health and safety, for the orphan clauses and for pensions and wages.
Colin Carrie: Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the NDP members' speeches, and it is so obvious, the lack of respect they have for small businesses and Canadians who are relying on the post office.
It is quite obvious to everybody who has followed this disagreement that these are two parties that have a history of not agreeing. As I said earlier, 1978, 1987, 1991, 1997--each of those times they required back-to-work legislation. That is what we are talking about here.
They have had since October to come up with an agreement. The minister has met with them numerous times. She has bent over backwards to try to come up with an agreement. This is an essential service for small businesses. They need the cheques to come in and they need the cheques to go out.
These two parties, not one side or the other but both of them, cannot come up with an agreement. Businesses are suffering. I am asking the members on the other side, how long will they allow that to occur?
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from across the floor for his question.
It is certainly true that small businesses need postal services to resume as soon as possible. My husband has a retail business on eBay and everything has been shut down for two weeks because he cannot send any parcels. However, he understands that this is a lockout that the employer decided to impose on the employees. The employer locked the doors and prohibited them from delivering the mail.
In my riding, the employees even decided to continue the service. An elderly man wanted his pension cheque and could not get it because his street was under construction and letter carriers could not get to his house. He went to the Canada Post office and still has not been able to get his cheque.
We want the workers to be allowed to go back to work, but they must be allowed to discuss the conditions themselves with an impartial arbitrator who will listen to both sides.
Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite spoke of two parties with a history of not agreeing, and it seems to me that what we need to do in this chamber is to move beyond disagreeing and make some progress. We have a problem because we have a bill that is unfair and a dangerous precedent and we have a firm opposition on this side. On the other hand, we have a majority on the other side. So how do we make progress?
I think the way we make progress is something that the leader of the opposition mentioned, which is to look at some amendments where we can meet in the middle somewhere. Unfortunately, we are standing here debating a hoist amendment, which is simply to get rid of the bill. It is not talking about where we can meet in the middle. I have great hopes, because I trust the leader of the opposition that maybe some helpful amendments will be raised.
Does the hon. member know when we will start talking about those amendments to help us make progress so we could make this unfair bill more just and make this dangerous precedent not that way?
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
After our leader's speech yesterday, someone on the other side of the House asked him what the amendments were. We are talking about pensions. We are talking about wages that are lower in the proposed legislation than what the employer was offering. We are talking about orphan clauses. In fact, the amendments are simple. We have been talking about them for several hours and we will continue talking about them for the next few days. The rights of workers must be respected and some sort of common ground must be reached.
[The hon. member spoke in Cree.]
Romeo Saganash: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this august chamber to speak on behalf of the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and on behalf of all Quebeckers on this national holiday. Of course, like all of us, I would have preferred for us to celebrate this day in our ridings with our constituents, but we have decided to take this time for workers today.
I want to talk about the speech we heard last evening by the leader of the opposition and the many proposals the leader had to offer in his speech. In my opinion, it was one of the best speeches I have heard in the House of Commons in a very long time. We should be grateful to him because it was truly an honour for those who were here to listen to the leader yesterday.
A number of points raised in his speech are essential and fundamental to this debate. A number of my colleagues have been raising a number of those points over the past several hours. I want to come back to one point in particular and that is the cavalier way in which this government is unilaterally imposing draconian conditions on the workers involved in this dispute. This creates a dangerous precedent. It seems that the hon. members across the way are having fun and like dangerous things. Just look at how they feel about chrysotile asbestos.
Tabling this type of draconian measure would create a dangerous precedent. It would very certainly open the door to other measures in other sectors in the future. In my riding, many people are increasingly wondering who will be the government's next victims and what this government will do next. Rest assured, what we are seeing right now is just the beginning.
Good labour relations require respect for workers' rights. That is a fundamental aspect of bargaining and labour relations. That is not the case when this government introduces draconian measures that violate their rights, as is happening with the bill before us. This bill is shameful, outrageous, unacceptable and unsustainable. There are so many negative adjectives I could use. It is unfair and even propagandist in some respects, since it is nothing but propaganda to keep calling this a strike. The Minister of Labour should know that this is not a strike; it is a lockout. Even my constituents are writing to me to ask me to remind the Minister of Labour that this is not a strike, that it is a lockout. It is rather shocking to see that the Minister of Labour was not distinguishing between the two yesterday. A young person who wrote to me even counted, as did we, that the minister said it three times in her reply.
I come from a culture of negotiations. I am a first nations man, from the Cree Nation, to be exact. I can provide examples of negotiations I have been making for the past 25 years on behalf of my people, such as the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. That was the first modern agreement signed in Canada between a government and aboriginal peoples. In this case, it was the first modern agreement signed by a provincial government. That had never happened before 1975. It was the first agreement signed by aboriginals that involved a province.
 The difficulty in this case was getting the provisions of the agreement implemented. It took 30 years for an agreement to be reached. 
 I am proud to have taken part in the negotiation process in 2002 for the Paix des Braves, an agreement with the Government of Quebec. I also participated in the agreement to help establish a new relationship between the federal government and the Cree nation, which was settled in 2007 after a delay of several years. Furthermore, I am proud to speak about the new, recently signed framework agreement for the civic and public governance of James Bay. We may end up with a public government in the James Bay area, which is good news for everybody. This would spell an end to the exclusion of aboriginal peoples in the management of their natural resources.
 I have given these examples because I know that relationships are at the core of any negotiation process, and that these relationships must be based on mutual respect and cooperation. Relations between management and workers must be harmonious, too. These relationships are the key to any negotiation. In my opinion, there are very serious implications to what is being currently proposed in this bill. These are not solutions; they are draconian measures being foisted upon the workers of this sector. 
 I also want to talk about the signals this government has sent out throughout this affair. It concerns and troubles me to see how negotiations will be run for years to come should there be further labour disputes. There needs to be a very close eye kept on this process. All Canadians, and indeed certainly every resident in my riding, are watching what is happening very closely. It will be an indication of the arrogant approach this government, this majority government, will take in the years to come.
 The right to negotiate, which incidentally has been a fundamental right for a very long time in this country, has no place under this approach. This right is as fundamental as the right to go to court, which this government also disregards. This approach in no way promotes an environment of trust between management and workers, nor by any means a responsible culture of negotiation and compromise, which is fundamental to all labour relations.
 We have been labeled ideologues a number of times this morning. The ideologues are on the other side of this House. We are fighting for social justice in Canada.
 There is no shame in standing up for the rights and interests of aboriginals in this country. There is no shame in standing up for the rights and interests of women in this country. There is no shame in standing up for the rights and interests of immigrants in this country. There is no shame in standing up for the rights, interests and freedoms of people in this country. And there is certainly no shame in standing up for the rights and interests of seniors, let alone workers, in this country.
 I have been involved in negotiations for the past 25 years and I intend to continue my involvement in this particular matter for as long as it takes, and throughout my term in office.
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Madam Speaker, I must say that this moment is a little sad for me. The hon. member who has just spoken talked about social justice and about the fact that the Aboriginals in the north cannot be forgotten.
The hon. member represents a constituency in the north of Quebec where elderly Aboriginals need things like eyeglasses or medications. They need the Nutrition North Canada program. Vital food is sent to our Aboriginals through the mail. But he says that he wants to support workers who earn between $21 and $37 per hour and who want to negotiate. He wants to represent them more than those who need the representation, the Aboriginals in the north.
I am asking him clearly if he is going to decide to support those who elected him, those in need in the north of his riding, the Aboriginals in the north.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Madam Speaker, first of all, let me correct the references to the Aboriginals in the north. They are not our Aboriginals, they are peoples and nations.
Second, I would like to emphasize that the Aboriginal people whom she mentions so proudly are not naïve. They understand perfectly. The young Cree man whom I mentioned just now, the one who sent me an email and counted the times that the Minister of Labour used the word “strike” in her speech yesterday, he understood that the minister was spreading propaganda. 
People understand perfectly that this is a lockout. All the Prime Minister has to do is call the head of Canada Post and get him to unlock the doors at Canada Post.
Dany Morin: Madam Speaker, the member just mentioned the CEO of Canada Post.
I am putting myself in the Conservatives' shoes. We are coming out of a recession, so everyone is tightening their belts. I understand that. The NDP stands in solidarity with everyone. 
Should the CEO of Canada Post who, I believe, earns $497,000 a year, plus a 33% bonus, also have to tighten his belt to help resolve this dispute?
That question is for my NDP colleague, if he has an answer.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Madam Speaker, I do not think that the CEO of Canada Post intends on doing what the member suggested. However, for the good of all the citizens who currently need postal services, I think it would be smart for him to put an end to the lockout. 
The members on the other side seem to be fond of locks. We must unlock the doors of Canada Post. When the Prime Minister was not happy with how things were going here, he locked the doors of Parliament. When my leader, the leader of the official opposition, suggested meetings to find solutions together, what did the Prime Minister do? He suggested another lock.
Ted Hsu: Madam Speaker, we are currently debating the hoist amendment to this unfair and dangerous bill.
I would like to know whether there are any negotiations.
I know that In a few hours the amendment will be defeated by the majority over there, and I would like to know if there are negotiations going on for what is going to happen next and how we are going to make progress. 
I am not aboriginal, but I know I share with aboriginals and other Canadians the feeling that we want to see progress. We have to make progress at some point. We cannot let this unjust, unfair and dangerous law--
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Madam Speaker, we have raised a number of questions from this side of the House. I think we have a very good idea of the amendments being proposed to this unfair bill. It would be great if there were an opening, but there is not. Everything is locked up. 
Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP): Madam Speaker, honourable members, brothers and sisters: lockout, lockout. It hurts to hear those words. I don't know whether the Speaker can see it from her Chair, but I have a bump here that dates back to the first lockout I took part in at Commonwealth Plywood some 30 years ago. The workers had been locked out, and the scabs were escorted in and out by police officers and private security services. Those security guards and police officers took billy clubs to the workers there and to the people who had come to support them. To my mind, a lockout is a violent measure. I see a member laughing over there, but that does not prevent it from being very violent. There is political violence in this kind of legislation.
For the Conservatives, when citizens demonstrate, it is often violent. Cutting jobs, imposing legislation, putting people out on the street, cutting $11 billion from public services: that is not violent for them. Making seniors wait in hospitals for 16 hours is not violent, no.
Lockout, lockout. This government loves locks; we should have suspected that. It also likes big fences around cities to protect them from dangerous and violent demonstrators. The summits of the powerful are protected from the legitimate demands of citizens.
This government really likes borders. It is putting a lot of money into border infrastructure, even in the backyard of the minister responsible for the Treasury Board. This government also likes prisons, lots of prisons with lots of locks.
To justify investing in prisons, the Prime Minister says there is a lot of unreported crime. Do workers who refuse to go back to work in response to a sorry piece of legislation commit that kind of unreported crime? Perhaps.
Touching their fences is another unreported crime that could help fill those prisons. That is dangerous. They arrested 1,200 individuals who dared to touch their fences; that is a major crime.
This government wants to lock the Canadian people into a system of logic, the logic of law and order. If things do not work the way it wants, it will put locks on our freedoms: the freedom to negotiate, the freedom to exercise pressure and eventually freedom of association perhaps. The only thing it will not put locks on is its privileges. No one puts a lock on the freedom to mine anywhere without the consent of the local communities. They have the right to operate a two-kilometre mine near a lake or near 62 rivers in the name of freedom of trade. They have the freedom to drill shale gas wells anywhere they want. They are free to dig a well in my backyard. No one is putting a lock on that kind of freedom.
They have the freedom to pollute the water, the air and the vast expanses of the Canadian Prairies with mining and oil residues. They have a firm grip on their freedoms. They have the freedom to exercise control to benefit the oil market, to raise prices. They have the freedom to concentrate communications businesses in order to send a message. We cannot put a lock on that. They concentrate businesses. They are good at that.
 They have the freedom to speculate with the savings of small investors, without regulation or penalty. They gamble with our savings. They are free to do that. 
 They have the freedom to charge usurious interest rates of 20, 22, 23 per cent. There is nothing to it. Families are going into debt, young people in particular. They put them at the bottom of a well so they have to pay for 100 years. They have the freedom to avoid taxes.
 We have nice little tax havens. We are free to go and put our money there. That is how we launder our money. It is fun. We make money. No one looks into that. Those are the freedoms they defend on the other side of the House. It is true. However, they do not respect the freedom of workers to organize, to negotiate. What about negotiating, exercising pressure or establishing a power relationship? No. We are talking about negotiations. All week long, I have heard the Minister of Labour say they negotiated for eight months. What kind of negotiations are we talking about? Negotiations designed to divide workers into two groups: one group for which they want to cut wages, undermine pensions and increase the retirement age. What are those false negotiations? False negotiations! You would think Canada Post Corporation was a bankrupt business asking its workers to make an effort to save the company. We know that workers, even unionized ones, often make those efforts. But we are talking about a business that makes a profit of about $281 million a year. It is not the case: Canada Post Corporation is not bankrupt.
 To understand the offers made by Canada Post Corporation and, indirectly, the government, you have to understand that there is a political agenda behind this. The first item on that political agenda is to prove to everyone that the Conservatives will not make an issue of workers' rights. The second item is to prove that they are in power and that they are strong. It is true! One need only consider the ministers' condescending attitude in the past three weeks in their answers to the questions put to them. I am thinking of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who systematically repeats the same sentence to us. The Minister of Industry does the same thing when it comes to asbestos. They are not answering questions; their patting themselves on the back; and they are not meeting the expectations of the members of this House, not at all, any more than those of the public who would like to have answers to certain questions such as: What was done with the $50 million? How is it that no one has any documents on the matter regarding the decision-making processes that led to those investments? Those documents have simply disappeared.
 The fundamental objective of the Conservative government's political agenda is to scuttle public services, to carve up the government, to make cuts to public services and, lastly—the ultimate objective—to privatize and eliminate government, contracting everything out to the market. It would be good if there was no more government and everything was private. That is the Conservative credo. We know that. We should privatize the hospitals, prisons, public services, police, water, the land, our land. In the collective psychosis of privatization, why not privatize the government itself, the government of the people? Let it be replaced by a board of directors! That would be a lot easier.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Pierre Dionne Labelle:  Let us remove the government and establish a vast board of directors made up of businessmen who will decide what is good for the people. That is the vision, the collective psychosis of the Conservatives, the reform ideal.
 If you are engaging in social “desolidarization”, you will need a lot of locks. You would better buy locks! You will also need a lot of prisons. You will have to put a lot of officers on the border. We will not let the speculators, the usurers, the predators of the common good destroy the social and political progress of the last 100 years without reacting. No, it is out of the question!
The NDP members will stand up with workers and Canadians to defend something that cannot be locked up, put between four walls, fenced in, put behind barbed wire, something that you cannot leave at the border, something we cannot lock up. This thing that we will always stand up to defend is our freedom, our freedom of speech, our freedom of association, our freedom of organization, our freedom to get organized to live in a fairer society, enriched by all its members.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that in this debate the NDP continues to ignore the origin of this work stoppage.
It is clear that the rotating strikes had a negative impact on the volume of mail that was being delivered. Everybody who has ever had a business knows that they cannot continue to pay 100% of the expenses when they only have 50% of the income. It was an obvious fact that the work stoppages had led to a decrease in the volume of the mail. Canada Post locked them out, of course.
I have an email here that I just received in the last half hour from a constituent who says, “I just wanted to drop you a quick note of support on the Canada Post issue. Our company relies heavily on Canada Post and we are losing customers daily”.
What about the companies that are going to shut down? They are losing business, laying off workers and firing them. When is the party across the way going to start standing up for the working families of Canada?
[Interjection]
Pierre Dionne Labelle: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond, just like the Minister of Foreign Affairs, by saying that the Auditor General made recommendations and that we are going to follow them, and that 32 projects benefited from these investments, and so on.
If someone asks me another question, this is what I am going to say.
Honestly, and to answer my colleague's question, I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is June 24, Quebec's national holiday. So I invite all the members to sing along: “Si j'avais les ailes d'un ange, je partirais pour Québec! Si j'avais des lumières sur mon bike...”
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the member's speech and I noted, on a number of occasions, that he used the words “lock” and “locked” as part of his way of expressing what has happened with respect to Canada Post. He also used the word “union”.
Back in St. Catharines, I have a union with the people of the community that sent me here to represent them. I take that union with them very seriously. I also know that every mailbox in the city of St. Catharines and in this country has a lock on it. I have 120,000 people in my community who deserve to get their mail on a daily basis, for whatever important reason it is.
The member opposite was just elected, and there are 100,000 locks on the mailboxes in—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
[Interjection]
Pierre Dionne Labelle: Madam Speaker, what was the question?
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to raise one point. My colleague outlined the origins of the impasse here as being the ultimate goal of the government to privatize Canada Post as part of a neo-Conservative agenda that would include a multitude of changes; to recreate Canada in the image of George Bush's United States or Johnny Howard's Australia.
Are we seeing the first glimpse, the first insight, the first shot across the bow of the attack of the neo-Conservatives to throw some red meat to their base and finally do the things they were put here to do, which is to devastate the country as we know it, that our fathers built in the post—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
[Interjection]
Pierre Dionne Labelle: Madam Speaker, this desire for privatization has been expressed for years in the neo-conservative discourse in Ottawa and in Quebec City. That is their vision of the market. The NDP wants to keep public services universal and free for the population, so that the wealth is shared and we live in a society of social justice. The government should not forget that. In four years, we will still be here to remind the government that social justice will climb its way to power in Canada.
François Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say something about the Fête nationale. Since 1964, no government in this House found a way to prevent the adjournment of proceedings for June 24, Saint-Jean Baptiste Day, which is Quebeckers’ national holiday
 To hear the Prime Minister say yesterday that we simply had to vote for the bill if we wanted to go home to celebrate is one of the worst things that I can imagine hearing in this House. This image will stay with me for a long time, and I will make sure that my fellow citizens also remember it in four years’ time. 
 On the other hand, it was an honour to hear the Leader of the Opposition give such an inspiring speech here yesterday. He gave a rousing retrospective of everything the labour movement has done to achieve a quality of life that is beyond comparison with that of our ancestors. The members opposite need to remember this. 
 I would like to set the record straight on a a few points. Canada Post is a crown corporation that has posted a profit of $281 million. Just to be clear, this is a profitable crown corporation that has locked out its employees. The last time I closed an small business it was because it was not profitable. When a business is profitable, usually things can be worked out and an agreement can be reached. I have to wonder about the skill of our friends opposite as managers. 
 Despite what a number of our colleagues opposite have stated, the union’s position is not the result of vicious organizers who are pressuring others. I met with the group of letter carriers in Montmagny, along with their organizer. When I asked who among them was their spokesperson, the organizer did not speak up; the others pointed him out. A woman said they had chosen him because he speaks well. He humbly asked to meet with me. I had just met a monster, a monster of kindness. He was definitely not pressuring these workers. 
 The 55,000 workers who will be affected by this bill are not temperamental. They are above all parents, citizens and consumers. These 55,000 workers are not being unreasonable. 
 Consider the fact that they are also consumers. Consider the impact of this decision concerning a crown corporation that is making a profit. Wages will be cut by $800 per year or more for 55,000 consumers. How will this decision help what the members opposite call the economic recovery that they have been talking about since the beginning of this Parliament? As far as the economic recovery goes, if a crown corporation is profitable, it should share its good fortune with its workers in order to really get the economic recovery going. 
 These workers are also citizens. I am not so sure that our friends opposite remember that. One of our colleagues made the argument that the rotating strikes are affecting public health and safety. Is this some kind of cynicism or desensitization? We are talking about 55,000 workers who will be losing insurance coverage for their prescriptions. They are citizens who also deserve assurances for their health and their future. 
 They are also parents. Think about the young parents especially who are just starting out with the crown corporation and who are told from the outset that they will have to make do with 18% less, a less generous wage package and more difficult working conditions and that they will have to work longer. These decisions are leaving the parents tired, worn out. That is the impact when a group of workers is seen as simply being temperamental. 
 I come from the regions. I hope that the broader objective is not to privatize postal services. In the regions, people already have to make do with a small postal outlet very far from home. If the goal is to set up a big postal outlet as you enter Montmagny for 14,000 residents, I hope it does not come to that. If postal services are privatized, it will lead to scenarios just as ridiculous as that. So please let us back off on that. 
 Contempt and provocation are a way of using events that our friends opposite resort to regularly. Unfortunately, they are practising this kind of politics at the expense of our national holiday. 
 Canadians and Quebeckers are smart enough to see the strings the government is pulling. They know it is a lockout. They know that this House could have adjourned so we could go home to our ridings for the national holiday. In four years, people will remember. If the government respects people, aboriginal people, seniors and those who need medicines, they should unlock the lockout. 
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party have spoken often about the issue of the pension for Canada Post workers. I have in my hands the equity holdings, greater than $25 million, for that very same pension fund. It includes, in order of largest investment, Toronto Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources, Potash Corp., Canadian National Railway, Talisman Energy, Research in Motion, Barrick Gold, Manulife Financial, and I could go on. 
The Leader of the Opposition has called for an increase in taxes on these very same enterprises from 15% to 19.5%. That means that the after-tax profits, which come from these companies and go directly into the pension fund of the workers the member purports to defend, would be reduced. In other words, the tax increase on enterprises that is proposed by the NDP is actually a tax on the Canada Post workers' pension fund.
I am wondering if the hon. member would explain to the workers of CUPW why he wants to increase taxes on their already stretched pension fund.
[Interjection]
François Lapointe: Let me begin by correcting something my colleague opposite said. The solution we put forward was to ensure that big companies duly pay their taxes, which are lower than what companies pay in the United States, in order to be competitive, and to make huge investments in SMEs. That is what was suggested and what is needed to create as many jobs as possible in Canada. 
 To be fair, I suggest that the government move to impose an 18% salary cut for all new Conservative members for the next eight years. 
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to clarify something for the hon. member for Oshawa, who does not seem to understand the situation. He put both parties on the same footing. He said that both parties are guilty, which is why the government needed to take action. I would remind our colleague that the union fully intended to keep the postal services as flexible as possible. Therefore, it chose rotating strikes as low-pressure tactics, so that seniors, aboriginal people and Canadians in remote areas could keep receiving mail. Management responded with a lockout, which put a stop to mail delivery. The two parties are not on the same footing and they are not equally guilty, which is why we are demanding an end to the lookout.
My question about orphan clauses is for my colleague and riding neighbour. These clauses are detrimental, since workers doing the same work as their colleagues will be paid less. Could the member comment on that?
[Interjection]
François Lapointe: A friend of mine, who worked in a different crown corporation, could not become a permanent employee because of such an “orphan clause”. He had been head researcher in his division for eight years, but he was still waiting to become a permanent employee. That is how ludicrous the situation was. In the end, the workers went on strike and the issue was settled. These orphan clauses lead to absurd situations, like wage reductions for new employees. How do you explain that, for 20 years, a worker hired three years before me will get paid more than me for doing the same job? That would be a two-tier system, as my colleague pointed out. Such a ridiculous situation should never occur. A responsible government should always try to avoid this kind of thing.
Jean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my best wishes to all Quebeckers on the national holiday. It warms my heart to learn that all francophones, everywhere in Canada, are also celebrating this national holiday. Let us continue the struggle. We will succeed.
I would also like to say to all my colleagues that I am extremely proud of all the speeches they have made up to now. They are speaking from their hearts. They are speaking from their experience, unlike this government, which seems to speak like a machine, an answering machine, constantly repeating the same message. I am concerned, since I myself have experienced special legislation in Quebec that had a horrible effect, not just on me but on a lot of people in Quebec. 
I am going to talk about the history of Quebec, particularly because today is the national holiday. Let us recall the very early days of Quebec. The people who brought prosperity to Quebec and to Canada are the workers. They are the people who cleared the land with their hands. They are the people who built the roads. They are the people who set up local businesses. And later in our history, they are the people who came together to create Hydro-Québec so it became a people’s project. They are the volunteers who continue to work with and help people still today.
 All these workers sacrificed their time and their energy. This is the people as a whole, let us not forget. This is a shared history, and the connection with the postal service is very important in that history. It is thanks to the postal service, thanks to that connection, that people were able to communicate. And still today, it is the most reliable service there is, and all Canadians know it. Everyone uses computers, but we still have the postal service. It provides us with unbelievable services. 
 Everyone in my riding is affected by the postal strike. Everyone realizes that the strike has to end, but there is a way to do it, and this government is not doing it the right way. This is absolutely unacceptable. 
 We are heading toward an historic event. We are a part of history, of a new millennium. Where is this government’s new vision? Where is its ability to go beyond the old methods?
 In my own work experience, I have worked in unionized workplaces since I was 14 years old, in large and small businesses. I have even been the boss. I have also bargained positions. I have handled all aspects of bargaining. There is a common thread that connects all private and public enterprises, and that is that the proceeds are shared, the success is shared. Canada Post has absolutely no excuse. The corporation had revenue of over $281 million and it is continuing to prosper, but it is not sharing those proceeds at all. Canada Post absolutely did not want to bargain with the workers, who acted in complete good faith. They were even prepared to go back on the same terms, terms that provided for survival, for continuity.
 This government’s pretext for the lockout is that the workers were acting in bad faith and are causing the corporation to lose money, when it just keeps making more.
 Let us come back to history now, since it seems that this government always operates in the past. All governments that have acted like this, that have created a false situation, like the lockout, and that have then come forward with a special bill, have engaged in dictatorship. That is what I call it, and I will say it today.
 Yes, that is where we are heading. It is a right-wing position that runs counter to all the rights of working people, without exception.
 By the government’s definition, an essential service is one that is profitable. That is a very broad meaning, and if I look at all the workers there are, all occupations are profitable. 
 This government claims to be creating jobs. I hope that is true, but it remains to be seen. When workers use their right of expression, they are literally gagged, because it costs money. If I understand the government’s reasoning, no matter who the workers are, if it costs the employer money to settle an internal dispute, the workers will be gagged. That is the message being sent now, with this special bill. We have a problem.
 There are all kinds of workers at present: agronomists, nurses, office clerks, restaurant owners, customs officers, security guards, painters, journalists, bakers, dentists, consultants, accountants, movers, electricians, mechanics, cabinetmakers, telemarketers, translators, sociologists, airline pilots, musicians, engineers, peace officers, bailiffs, guides, convenience store clerks, servers, school principals, and so on. What is their agenda? What influence will they have on the multinationals? What message are they sending? What influence will they have on the provincial labour codes?
 If people cost even the slightest bit of money, they have the perfect excuse. Strip people of their right of expression, lock them out, fabricate a scenario and decide to bring in a special bill. Congratulations. We are truly heading in the right direction.
 Employment contracts continue to decline. If I understand this reasoning properly, to be profitable, people have to work 60 hours a week and draw a pension at the age of 105. We are heading in an excellent direction.
 Myself, I do not believe in any way in a society where the economy controls the people. The opposite is true: the economy serves the people. It is not the 2% who should be in control, it is the 98% of people who live ordinary lives, who want to see solutions with a vision.
 I invite the government opposite to sit down with us. Instead of making decisions on its own, with a narrow vision, I invite it to take the time to sit down with us to see the broader picture, one that is widely representative of what people want. 
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the NDP continue to ignore the source of this conflict in terms of work stoppages. The initial problem was rotating strikes. 
I have an email here. I know the NDP members do not like to hear from their constituents, but maybe they will listen to one of mine. I received this email on June 3. This person starts off by telling me that he did not vote Conservative but voted NDP. He goes on to state: “This greediness for more money and job security has to stop. No agency or organization in this day and age has job security and better pensions, while many organizations are cutting back on their pensions and laying off staff because they cannot make ends meet.”
My question is very simple. Small businesses have been threatened by this work stoppage. Their volume of business has been reduced, which has resulted in layoffs or, even worse, business closures. Considering the number of small businesses affected, when will that party start standing up for average Canadian workers?
[Interjection]
Jean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The solution is very simple: for the postal service to get back up and running again, the lockout has to end. The union agrees to return to work on the same terms. There will be no strike; the employees will go back. They have to end the lockout.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. He has spoken at length about this lockout by Canada Post and the heavy-handed action of the government in reaction to the lockout. It is very simple to end the lockout by simply unlocking Canada Post and allowing the workers to go back to work, as they have offered to do.
In my city of Toronto, the government put locks on almost the entire city and instigated a massive violation of civil liberties during the G20. Many of our local businesses are still waiting to be compensated for that particular lockout and loss of business to our community.
Does the hon. member see a parallel between the lockout of Canada Post and the denial of postal services to Canadians and the lockdown of the city of Toronto in the G20 negotiations, with its denial of civil liberties and denial of business opportunities for Toronto businesses?
[Interjection]
Jean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. 
This is in fact a pattern on the part of the government. I think it feels a bit threatened. When something threatens people's very existence, the government takes a hard line, when it could just take the time to meet with people, as it has the gall to say it does, and understand the situation. I imagine that communication is not its strong point.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I feel like I am on the floor of the convention in Vancouver for the NDP, a socialist party. I keep hearing over and over how profits are bad at Canada Post. I remind the member that the chief shareholder is in fact Canadian taxpayers, at the end of the day, as funds get reinvested in, for example, roads, public infrastructure, health care, and education.
Apart from that, I wonder if the member does not feel confident that the union can win final offer selection arbitration. I do not know if the member has read the bill, all seven pages of it, but the workers will be going back under the recently expired agreement. All settled matters will continue to be settled. They will not be reopened or up for grabs again. 
There is a guiding principle about an improved pension solvency trajectory. That is a good thing. That has to improve, not get worse. There are guaranteed pay raises for four years. Who else is getting guaranteed pay raises for four years? The final offer selection is for only the outstanding items that have yet to be agreed upon. 
Does the member not believe that the union can put together a competitive package that can win final offer selection?
[Interjection]
Jean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, there have been amendments proposed. I am happy to hear that this government is open to amendments. I think it is important to be open.
The door is open, and it is now up to the government to act.
Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate. I have been extremely excited to listen to my colleagues over the last number of hours that I have been here. 
Let me take a different tack in this debate and talk about the terminology that we interchange among ourselves. Sometimes we need a hand in understanding what it is. We do not use it in a wilful way. We simply repeat it over and over again. We think we are actually using it in an appropriate way or are helping to clarify.
In her remarks last evening, the Minister continually talked about a strike, when actually that strike ended when the lockout started. I think she came to recognize that. 
We on this side recognize that indeed there was a rotational strike. There is no doubt about that. There was a rotational strike. That is a fact. No one denies that. We have to use the proper language and recognize that this has ended and we now have a lockout. 
A lockout is a totally different thing altogether in labour relations. It is a different thing altogether. We now have to recognize that it is no longer a rotational strike that went from place to place, some small places and some large, and then moved on. We are in a full-scale lockout. The entire system is shut down.
In the Canadian labour act, only one side can do a lockout. That is the employer. Workers can never lock out themselves. They can withdraw their labour, but they can never actually go and put a padlock on the gate. They cannot do that.
The other piece that has gone back and forth over the morning is this term “union boss”. Let us explore who is a union boss and what a union boss really looks like. The terminology of “union boss” suggests that somehow that person is the boss of the workers represented by this particular individual. 
Actually, the pyramid needs to be inverted. It is those workers who hire the union boss. They democratically elect the union boss. Every three or four years, or in some cases five years depending on the organization, the workers can get rid of their so-called union boss if he or she did not do what they asked him or her to do. 
The same thing happens to us. Some of us are back from the 40th Parliament to the 41st Parliament and some of us are not. Clearly their bosses, their constituents, said, “Thank you for your time. I no longer wish to have you here. Please move away. I'm choosing someone else.” In the labour movement, that is indeed what we do in many circumstances.
Let me put a face to the union boss. The members who are sitting here today and looking at me are looking at an ex-union boss. I do not have two heads. I did not grow horns. I represented workers who elected me to do a specific task on their behalf, which was to bargain collective agreements, and that is what I did.
When we were finished bargaining collective agreements, I brought it back to them and said, “Here is the best that we have done. We think this is good. Would you like to vote on it? Tell me yes or no.”
Sometimes they said yes and occasionally they said no. What did it mean when they said no? It meant the union boss went back to work. He or she works for the workers. The workers do not work for the union boss.
The terminology we use can sometimes start to impinge upon people's reputations and give a connotation that is not necessarily true. I would ask the members, when we talk about and use interchangeable terms, to actually use the terms in an appropriate way.
 There is a boss at Canada Post, and that is the CEO. Workers do not elect the CEO. The CEO comes to them. The workers do not get an opportunity to say, “You have done a rotten job. It is time to move on.” They do not have that democratic right. However, inside their union they have a democratic right to get rid of their “boss” simply through the electoral process.
I would simply say that sometimes we all use improper terminology. I am not suggesting that we all are not guilty of it. From time to time on this side of the House we are guilty of using terminology that maybe we should think about when we are actually doing those sorts of things.
 Let us get past the terminology and talk about the fact that these new workers are about to receive less than the present-day workers under this agreement and the offer that comes from management. Who are they? In my community, they are actually not young people. Many of my colleagues here are younger, and have expressed the sense of what it would be like to be young workers who end up making less than those they work beside. 
In my community, a lot of these workers are over at John Deere. They are at Atlas. They are workers who are in the midpoint or sometimes late point of their careers who have to find other work because the places they work for have closed.
Those places are gone. John Deere packed up a little over 18 months ago and is gone. Atlas closed down a number of years ago. We have seen the literal gutting of the manufacturing sector in my riding, just as we have seen across this country. 
Here is what happens. When people get a job at Canada Post, they do not start as full-time employees. They start as casual employees. They are told to stay home, that they will be called if somebody calls in sick. Stay by the phone, they are told. So there they are, workers hoping to finally get a job at Canada Post, and they stick by their phones in case a fellow worker calls in sick and they are needed for the day. They get a call and are told, “Come on in today.” Then, if they stay there long enough, they might become part-timers.
 Meanwhile, they still have all the responsibilities they had before. Young people have responsibilities, but I am talking about folks who look more like me and less like the young folks we know out there, like my children, who are in their mid-twenties. These folks still have mortgages to pay and children to raise, and yet they find that they are still casual employees or maybe, finally, part-timers. Then, when they are about to take that final step and become full-time employees, they are told, under this collective agreement, to just take less. They will work beside others who are doing exactly the same job, but they are told to take less.
So if they are taking less, why would we allow folks to work side by side doing the same thing? Is the corporation saying that it values one employee more than another as far as rewards are concerned? Whether that will be through the pay scale, because the pay scale is going to be reduced for new hires, talking about the sense that somehow--
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Essex is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring to a collective agreement with postal workers that includes two-tier wages. Could he table that in the House?
The Speaker: That is not really a point of order.
The hon. member for Welland.
[Interjection]
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, when I talk about a collective agreement, I am talking about the proposed collective agreement with Canada Post. I thank my colleague for the non-point of order and for at least giving me the opportunity to clarify the terminology we talked about earlier.
The proposal from Canada Post would lessen the amount of money, so the proposal then becomes a proposal for two types of workers, but not workers who are doing different jobs. The letter carrier who gets less money doesn't get to carry less mail. He or she gets to carry the same amount of mail. These people get to do the same amount of work. They have to work the same number of hours. They have to do all of the things that the others do; they just do it for less. It seems to me that there is an injustice in telling folks to do the job for less. 
I have heard Canada Post argue that it is not going to be as profitable in the future as it has been in the past. I wish I had that crystal ball. I think all of us wish we had that crystal ball. It would be wonderful for elections; we would know if we were going to win the next one. It would be wonderful for our RRSPs or investments because we would know how much we could make or lose in the future; we would know what to do with our investments. That would be a wonderful crystal ball. 
So what did the union say to the company? The union said it had some ideas about how the company might indeed make itself more profitable. The company is not really saying no, but it is not really jumping at the bit to do it. 
Here's one thing the union is suggesting. I would like the government side to get this, because that side has portrayed the TD bank and others as being highly profitable enterprises with low taxes. The union is suggesting that Canada Post ought to do what it did before and go back into financial services. It is fully capable of doing that. It can do it, and if it did, it could make money.
In fact, as a youngster growing up in Glasgow in the U.K., I remember buying savings stamps at the post office. If I bought a savings stamp, it would be put in a book that I actually had in my hand. If I went back at the end of the month, I got whatever the interest was for that month, and I received another little stamp, a real stamp, not one of those ink stamps. If I wanted my money back, I would take out the stamps and hand them back to the post office, which gave me money. 
That was quite some time ago, of course. We can do things much differently now. With all the wonderful electronics we have, we can do all those wonderful things. We can do interbanking and all the things in that wonderful world.
Here is a golden opportunity for Canada Post, a crown corporation that benefits Canadians when it makes money. Here is a golden opportunity to make money, to return it to Canadians as a dividend and to reward its employees equally and fairly. Yet it is not saying that it wants to rush in to do this. I find it astounding that a business would not want to make money. I find it astounding that my colleagues on the government side are not pushing Canada Post to make more money. The profit motive is not a bad thing. I am willing to say that in the House. One would think that Canada Post would want to do that.
Let me just say that this is an opportunity for the government to say, “Yes, we want Canada Post and the postal workers to get back to work.” It is as simple as ordering the CEO to take the locks off the boxes and saying, “Let the workers go back to work and we will figure out a negotiated settlement, because that is what we have done in the past, and we can do that in the future.”
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
LaVar Payne: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some of the speeches, or maybe I should call them “the pollutants”, from the socialist Marxist party called the NDP--
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think people would agree that was a really low-class statement that is not befitting of the kind of debate we have in the House. If the member wants to engage—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I did not hear any of that point of order because of all the noise.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was not allowed to finish because of the interruptions.
I would ask my hon. colleague to do the right thing and retract that rather low-class comment. If he wants to make derogatory comments, he can go out to the washroom or get on the bus. He can use many places to make derogatory comments, but this is the House of Commons. He needs to have a certain decorum in debate.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. We are not going to get into a big back and forth on the point of order. I would ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat to think about the types of words he is using. We are trying to elevate the level of decorum here.
[Interjection]
LaVar Payne: Mr. Speaker, I will continue, because I am going to use some of the language that was used by NDP members. They are very socialist and we know that. They talked about dangerous precedents and draconian measures. We understand, of course, that this is exactly what they are doing in terms of hoisting our fragile economic recovery by not supporting this motion to try to stop the postal workers and by not joining us in trying to get postal workers back to work and delivering mail. 
I had another call today from one of my small business constituents, who said he is now going to have to lay off employees because he is not getting postal service. He cannot get his invoices out. He has no income coming in and is virtually going broke. New Democrats purport to support small business. I would ask them if they are going to join us in helping to get postal workers back to work and the mail delivered.
[Interjection]
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the power rests with the CEO and with the government, which actually has oversight over the crown corporation. The government simply has to give the CEO the key, tell him to put in the lock, turn it to the left, and open it. 
The government could have done this yesterday before it introduced the legislation. This would be over with, the workers would be back at work, and the small business owner the member is talking about would be mailing his invoices and getting his remittances, and he would not have had to lay off his employees. That could have been done.
 In fact, the government could have done it last week. As soon as Canada Post indicated to the minister that it intended to lock out workers, the minister could have said no, not to go there, not to threaten to lock them out. The minister could have said that if they were going to go back to work not to lock them out, to let them get back to work, and they would try to figure this out. That did not happen and there was a lockout.
The bottom line is that the CEO should be given the key to open the locks and unlock the doors. The workers will show up tomorrow morning to get back to work and we will indeed go forward. It is just that simple.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I am probably one of those people who worked in labour and was never involved in union leadership; I was one who would say yes or no to an agreement when I worked as a lumber worker and a teacher.
Let me take it back to the school system. When I was working in the school system, the tone and morale of the school always depended on the direction the principal was taking. In my talks with postal workers, I've found that the morale in our postal service has deteriorated and had deteriorated since the last CEO was in charge. Prior to that, after the late 1990s, things were moving along smoothly. There was good consultation with the workers and the company was making money, but suddenly it went down. There are more grievances now than there have ever been.
Would the member agree that perhaps this is the reason we are in this situation now, that it is because of the fact that we have not had a good labour relations climate in Canada Post?
[Interjection]
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. My colleague from down Windsor way will understand this, because he and I were both in the same union at one point in time. If there is not a good industrial relationship between the union and management, the shop floor is poison and productivity goes down, and the company suffers and so do workers. That is clearly what has happened at Canada Post.
As has been pointed out in the debate today, 1997 was the last time that we saw workers being forced back to work. There has been a period of time when we've had basic peace. It is important—
The Speaker: I'll stop the hon. member there.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver East.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say right off that I think this has actually been a very good debate overall. I guess now we are into about our sixteenth hour. I have been looking at this beautiful calendar on the table in front of us that is still showing Thursday, June 23. I f feel like we are in that movie Groundhog Day, where the day just keeps going around. I guess we might be in Thursday for a while.
Overall I think it has been a good debate. So much of what we do in Parliament seems to be pro forma. There is a bill, we debate it, it goes to committee, and we know what each side is going to say. I do feel that on this occasion, with this debate on a matter that is so serious, we actually do not know what the outcome is going to be. We do not know how long the debate is going to go on. I think that is an open question.
We do not know what the outcome will be although there is certainly pressure building. For all of the New Democrats who have spoken, I can say that, contrary to what the Conservatives say, we do want to see the postal service resume, absolutely. We support those small businesses. We support and understand the need for that service to resume.
But the reality is that we are faced with a lockout and with dreadful legislation in this House that we are determined to oppose. I think that is the only honourable and principled thing we can do, while at the same time seeking changes in amendments that will help resolve this situation. I do think it presents a very interesting scenario in the House and it makes the discussion and the debate all the more meaningful.
I have heard some of the pretty amazing speeches that have taken place and the stories that people have told, whether they are about labour history, women's rights, or the impact of the labour movement. Again, the Conservative members really cannot bear to hear that, but it is a side of society that is really coming out and is rarely debated or aired thoroughly in this House.
 I am appreciative that we at least are able to have that kind of discussion and get underneath this legislation to examine the principles and issues of why we in this party feel so strongly that we are opposed to this back to work legislation.
Yesterday, in his incredible speech, the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, talked about the relationship that he and his family have with their letter carrier. I have the same experience. I think we all do.
 I know my letter carrier, who usually comes every day at about 9:15 in east Vancouver. A couple of years ago, he noticed that my front door was open. I was not there. I was in Ottawa. He left, thinking that maybe someone was in the garden or in another room. He went on his way. He came back the next day and the door was still open. 
Someone who was staying there had inadvertently left the door unlocked, so the letter carrier, my postal worker, took the time to phone the police and report it. The police came down and contacted my office and I was able to then get someone to lock the door. To me, that was a great example of how letter carriers and postal workers are so much a part of our community.
I have been down to the main depot on West Georgia Street year after year to talk to letter carriers, and also in my own community. We see them there at 6 o'clock in the morning sorting the mail, and then out in the community no matter what the weather, be it icy or snowing or raining, or whether one's stairs are broken down. No matter what, they are out there delivering the mail, so we do have a very special relationship with these folks in our community, and that is mirrored right across this country.
 To me, it adds insult to injury that we are facing this legislation in the House that is forcing these folks back to work when they have been locked out, when all they want is to get to the bargaining table to negotiate a fair settlement and a fair deal. Come on, this is reasonable, and this is what labour relations are meant to be about in this country.
I am so sick and tired of hearing the Conservatives say over and over that they do not intervene in the marketplace, as that is not the role of government. So what do they do? As soon as they are faced with their buddies at Canada Post who do not like what they are facing at the bargaining table, they rush out and bring in legislation that makes it even worse. What incentive is there for Canada Post to do anything, to bargain anything, when they know that their friends here are producing legislation they could only have dreamed of and that now is a reality?
Yes, we are pretty opposed to all of that, on the grounds of it not just affecting postal workers but also, and I want to stress this, because of its implications for all workers in this country.
We can see the writing on the wall. This is about a race to the bottom. This is about establishing two tiers of wages: If an employee is new, he or she will get a different wage from some who is already there, and maybe a different pension and maybe different work and safety provisions at some point.
 We understand that the government is setting a direction with this legislation by siding with the employer in a completely unilateral way that has enormous implications for labour relations in this country for all workers. We just have to look at pensions. Many of us have spoken through the night and through the day of our concerns about the pension system. It does not matter whether one is unionized or not, because everyone wants to have a sense of security for their retirement. Heaven knows, we have been raising this issue year in and year out in this House, before and after the election.
The issue of what happens to people's pensions, whether they are based on defined benefit plans or defined contribution plans, with the latter really having no security, is of critical importance not only for postal workers but for all workers in this country.
Yes, we are onto that. We recognize that the legislation is setting the direction and tone for what is going to take place in this country in terms of labour relations.
I heard one of the Conservative members say earlier that the NDP is opposed to Canada Post because it makes a profit. In fact, we are very happy that Canada Post generates profits; it shows that it is a very viable crown corporation. It is providing an essential Canadian service to all parts of this country. We just want to make sure that those profits are shared in a way that the employees get a fair deal. Again, to us that seems a very reasonable proposition. The fact that Canada Post makes a profit is not a bad thing; we just want to make sure that the workers do not get the short end of the stick.
We have all been quoting the emails we have received. To hear the Conservatives, one would think that they are only hearing from people who support their back to work legislation. However, I want to add to the record that I have heard from a number of people in my community. 
I have an email I received from a small business owner, who states that:
 Canada Post is running a profit. It is a Crown corporation why not share the profit. Yes I would like the mail to resume but why not focus on Canada Post listening to our postal workers and give them their due rights. 
I have another letter from a constituent, who is a postal worker, who wrote to the minister, I guess a couple of days ago. This constituent says:
 I know that if we are legislated back with a poor contract that does not address the many issues, especially Health and Safety, this act will do immeasurable damage to the working environment which already is a highly stressful environment. High injury rates, burn-out from extremely long routes and, believe it or not, high mail volumes coupled with extreme levels of under-staffing have made this job unmanageable. 
This postal worker went on to say that we should maybe invite representatives of the parties to go on a mail route to actually see what it was like.
I am very proud of the New Democrats in this House and the fact that we understand what this legislation is about and that we are determined to expose the implications and consequences of this legislation, not only for postal workers but for all Canadians. We want to see the postal service resume and we call again, in this House, on the government to take the locks off the door, allow that service to resume and allow collective bargaining to happen. That is the way things should be.
Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Scarborough--Agincourt last night never really got an answer from the New Democrats to a question he posed. It is important that we get an answer because it is important that we walk the walk in this House.
All that we do in this place is to talk, so it is important to match our talk with action. We and the Liberal members are hearing that the NDP's staff in the House have no collective bargaining agreement and that the Office of the Leader of the Opposition is ignoring the seniority of union staff and new hires in that office are being classified as management to avoid union rules.
Is this true, and if so, when will the NDP put a collective bargaining agreement in place? When will they start respecting the seniority of their union staff? When will they stop classifying new hires as management to avoid union rules? In other words, Mr. Speaker, when will the NDP talk the talk and walk the walk?
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I would actually be very happy to answer that question. I do find it a bizarre question because the NDP is the only political party on this hill that stands by its principles and actually has a collective agreement negotiated with the people who work for our MPs and our overall operation. Many other parties lay people off in the summer, some of whom have very low wages. We have a very standardized approach and I'm proud to say that we operate in a very honourable way in terms of our collective agreement.
It is the party across the way that has denied for so many decades having health and safety provisions as rights here on the Hill. Those are things we have fought for. We will take no lessons from that member or the Conservative Party about collective bargaining and labour rights.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that in the last few hours we have heard many wonderful speeches in this chamber, especially on this side of the House. I also agree that what we are doing here reminds us of the movie Groundhog Day. Yet I remember that progress was made in that movie: Bill Murray's character decided he just could not live the same day over and over again and he tried to do something to improve himself.
I am wondering how we can do the same. I am wondering when we can start talking about amendments to this bill to further show Canadians how unreasonable and unjust Bill C-6 is and what a dangerous precedent it is.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, of course we want to see progress. I do not want to be stuck in that movie. 
We are here debating this legislation, but we have said all along there is a very efficient and easy way to resolve this situation, and that is to remove the lockout.
Our leader made it very clear last night in his speech that the NDP will offer amendments and, in fact, has already been in the process of trying to offer resolution to this dispute. However, the response from the Conservative government has been rigid and unilateral. 
I would ask the members opposite, are they not willing to recognize that this legislation is extremely harmful and that they need to embark on a sensible and responsible course of labour relations?
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my colleague's point in response to a Conservative member that we do not even have health and safety provisions here on the hill. That issue has been outstanding for years. If the members opposite want to talk about fairness, how about the people on the Hill who do not have the same health and safety provisions workers across Bank Street have? That is hypocrisy. This government is engaged in that hypocrisy when it brings in closure.
I would like my colleague to talk about closure, because if we go back to when the Conservatives were in opposition and criticizing the then Liberal government on closure, they said they would never invoke it. Here we not only have had closure invoked but it has been brought in before the legislation was even tabled. So we now have new heights of hypocrisy and I wonder if the member could comment on that.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa Centre is entirely right. Not only are we debating really regressive legislation but the whole process by which this came forward from the government. It really is the first piece of legislation that has come forward after the budget, and it is a very telling story that the government used its majority to invoke closure on a bill that we had not even debated. How is that democratic?
Unfortunately, we have come to expect that of this Conservative government. Even so, we are opposing the legislation and will fight it all the way.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House representing the people of Timmins—James Bay who, over the last century, have fought many of the key labour battles that have allowed us the standard of living we enjoy today and who are watching with great concern. I have received emails from people across the region who have been watching a concerted attack against a way of life that has been built in this country thanks to working people standing together.
What we need to do here today is to deconstruct the stage play that has been set up by the PMO and the Conservative Party. This is one of their careful little stage plays were the world is in black and white and there is good versus evil, and Captain Canada over on the Conservative benches is going to rise up and squash the union bosses and the socialists. We hear such language from the back benches of the Conservative Party.
How was this stage play created? There was an ongoing labour dispute with Canada Post and CUPW. Certainly in the Conservative mind, beating up on posties is probably an okay because they think there is a collective memory of a time of great labour conflict. They keeping saying that the sides have never been able to get together. In fact, look at the last time: It was in 1997 when we had to order them back to work. Then my wonderful daughter, Margaret Lola, was not even born and now she is in high school. So this is not an ongoing crisis; it is a breakdown of discussions. Then the government intervened and locked out Canada Post. 
We have an unprecedented situation where, in a fragile economy, the government is working with Canada Post to shut down the mail service of the country. That has allowed them to stand up and to say that we have a crisis and that they have been forced to act. It is a manufactured crisis. It is an old tactic of the Conservatives. John Snobelen, the leader of the Mike Harris gang, used to speak about how one has to manufacture a crisis in order to shake things up.
They shut down the postal service across the country. Then the Conservatives have come into this House dressed as Captain Canada, vowing they are going to defend the interests of the senior citizens they have cut off, that they are going to defend the small businesses they have cut off. They create this as an us versus them battle.
It was interesting last night to listen to the Minister of Labour, because she kept trying to confuse the Canadian public that the Conservatives had to intervene because it was a strike. She said the word again and again. It is a misrepresentation, because it is a lockout.
She said the government was not taking sides. Of course, we know what side the government has been on.
When the leader of our party said that we could settle this, that we were speaking with the union and that we were willing to bring forward amendments to make this work, there was laugher and ridicule from the Conservative benches that we would have a phone line to the union workers of this country. Of course, we have a phone line to them because that is how one gets things done in the country. In the New Democratic Party, we believe one should talk and not demonize.
I find it astounding that the Minister of Labour would ridicule the idea of actually talking to the other side. That is what we have been doing. We have offered amendments and offered to work with this government. We have not heard anything back from them except vitriol.
The Minister of Labour defended this. Wearing her Captain Canada logo, the minister said that the Conservatives represented 33 million people. It is an absurd claim that the Conservatives make that they represent all Canadians versus only 40,000 union members. What does that attitude represent, but a narrow mentality that the big get to crush the small. 
If we went by that theory, we could undermine all manner of things in this country. That is the Conservative mentality. That is the stage play they are creating, whereas New Democrats do not believe in pitting people against each other or using the politics of division.
Unfortunately, it is not all that surprising, because we need to see the author of this stage play. I would like to quote the voice of someone who is well-known in this House, who said:
 In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. 
Who was that? That was the Prime Minister of our country.
He said that when he decided he did not like federal politics. He had better things to do. He quit his job as a member of Parliament, which some people might not remember, and he went to work for the National Citizens Coalition. He thought they had a better agenda than could be achieved in the House of Commons.
 I was looking at the platform the current Prime Minister ran on in 1997 with the National Citizens Coalition. One point was to start attacking the interest groups such as women's organizations and human rights organizations. We sure saw how the Conservatives put the boots to KAIROS. It goes right back to the original plan. Another one was to launch a media attack against unions. We could hear it from the backbenchers. They would go on about those big bad union bosses. That was there in 1997 when the Prime Minister was running the rabble at the National Citizens Coalition. 
There are some other interesting things he ran on. These are the key reasons he left Parliament. One was to set up a lobby campaign to bring in right to work legislation in Alberta. The second was the privatization and elimination of the public service. The third and most crucial one which he ran on with some of his now elected buddies was a campaign to de-unionize the workforce. 
When Conservatives say they are not picking sides, we know exactly what they are doing. This has been a manufactured stage play by the extreme right in this country and a Prime Minister who said that he did not care about the fate of the unemployed. He said that in 1997. We know that a leopard never changes its spots.
I would like to indicate how this demonization has occurred under the Conservative government.
I heard the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound yesterday. The Conservatives are creating all these emails and saying that they are talking to the common people, madam and monsieur citizen. The member said his people back home say that if people starting in the workforce get $12 an hour and three days a week, they should be tickled pink.
I have talked to many people in my riding and across the country. I have never had senior citizens come up to me and say they are ticked pink that their adult son or daughter was getting $12 an hour with no pension and three days of work a week. They are lucky to have a job; that is the attitude. I have never heard that.
What I have heard is people asking about what has happened to our country. The pension and workforce that have been built up are being eroded. The workforce is being turned into a temp service. By intervening and creating this lockout, the government is creating a two-tiered workforce. It says that the new workers do not deserve pensions, that they deserve lower wages. My hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound said they should be lucky to have a job. 
I know what it is like to see communities fight to get basic wages. My grandmother told me that when she was a little girl she saw the first form of lockout and back to work legislation. It was called the army. My grandmother was a young girl when Winston Churchill sent in the army against the dockworkers of Dundee. She never forgot that.
 Of course, they moved into the velvet over the brass knuckles. When my family came to Canada my grandmother was in the Hollinger mine strike that went on for six months. At that time the average life expectancy of a Timmins miner was 41 years because minders were dying of silicosis. At that time there was no eight-hour workday. They fought for the eight-hour workday. It was not given to anyone. This is something they built up.
I remember the stories of men like “Big” Jim McGuire of the Western Federation of Miners. He said that when a man gets injured in the mines, there should be compensation. The records show that the Conservatives at Queen's Park at the time laughed and ridiculed him. Their grandsons and granddaughters are here today laughing at us because we have said there is a fundamental principle here. If the Conservatives want to make this a stage play, well this is their play.
The New Democrats have said again and again that we want the locks off Canada Post. We want people back to work. We want a fair negotiated agreement. This takes good will. We have offered to work with the government. We have offered to help bring the union to the table if the government is willing to listen. However, it is not going to happen if the government ridicules the notion of actually talking to the union, if it tries to demonize them as union bosses, and if the members of the government believe that people making 12 bucks an hour for three days a week should be happy to have a job. That might be the Conservative ideology, but it is not ours. 
The Conservatives say they will not take sides, but look at Nortel. Look at the Nortel workers who lost their jobs and their pensions. Look at the sick workers whose benefits were cut off and the government did nothing. Every other western nation that was involved in Nortel stood up for their workers. The government did nothing, but--
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member's time has expired. 
Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of State for Transport.
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments. We are here today to talk about resuming mail service for Canadians. 
After eight months of negotiations, the negotiations broke down. There were rotating strikes which led to a lockout, which led to a complete mail stoppage, which has had a huge detrimental impact not only on the postal workers and the financial viability of Canada Post, but most important on the people of Canada. That is why we are here as the Government of Canada and members in the House of Commons, to represent the stakeholders, the people of Canada. Would the member acknowledge that?
We recognize that the member and his party have strong ties to organized labour. However, would they put aside those biases and support the Canadian government in bringing workers back to work so that Canadians can get their mail in a timely manner? Will the member's party support the Government of Canada in supporting the people of Canada?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the minister's argument and it seemed to get rather convoluted. At one point he said that great stress has been caused to business. Yes, of course. That was caused by his government's decision to lock out the workers.
How much more direct do we have to be? Do we in the New Democratic Party want the workers back at work? We want them back now. This is why we have said let us just sit down and deal with these amendments, but the government does not want to do that.
Then the minister presented a circular Conservative argument saying that they, as in Captain Canada and the Conservative Party, represent Canada. They do not represent Canada. He accused the New Democratic Party of not representing Canada. Why do the Conservatives not do the right thing? 
I say to the member that I do represent Canadians. I represent the people of Timmins—James Bay and I will be in this House for as long as it will take to ensure that people get a fair deal.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to the debate. I very much appreciate the fact that there are many people who are also listening to what is taking place in this chamber. There is a great deal of sympathy in terms of the hassles and the bother that the Canada Post workers have had to endure because of being locked out.
Earlier in his speech the member made reference to the fact that the NDP have provided amendments to the government as to what could be done on this legislation. It would be extremely helpful if the NDP could provide that information to the Liberal Party. It would be great to end the lockout and let the workers get back to work.
Having said that, I understood from his comments that there are some amendments which the NDP has shared with the government. Would the NDP object to sharing them with all Canadians and members of the chamber?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, we have made an offer to the government to settle this. I am not trying to freeze the Liberal Party out of this whatsoever. We are trying to act in good faith with the government. We have offered the amendments. We have offered not to go public with them. We want to see if the government will sit down and negotiate. That is how it is done. 
We are serious about getting this situation settled. We know everybody wants their mail service back. This manufactured crisis by the Conservative Party has an impact on Canadians across the country. We think it is completely unacceptable that the government has held senior citizens hostage when the mail servers said that they would ensure that any cheques for seniors would be delivered. They made that offer. Once again, the Conservatives are not talking to the people on the lines. We have been talking to them. We know what their offers are. We know what the issues are. We are offering as the official opposition to make this happen. We just need to see that the government is actually willing to stop holding the Canadian public hostage.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my constituents for their support. And I also want to wish them a wonderful Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
My riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges is quite awesome. From the top of Rigaud Mountain, we can see farmland, the Ottawa River and Lac des Deux Montagnes on the north side. My constituents know the south shore of the St. Lawrence quite well. Some say that Rigaud Mountain is but a hill, but the landscape tells quite a story. Today's sand plains were once the shores of Champlain Sea, which was created by the melting of ice sheets after the ice age.
Our crucial waterways were shaped by melting ice. Watersheds are an integral part of our lives. The forests, rivers and wetlands in my riding are part of the creation myths of the Mohawks who live on the other side of Lac des Deux-Montagnes.
We also have the Haudenosaunee nation, known as the Iroquois, and Turtle Island, for the turtle coming out of the water. These were among the first communities to be established in the region. There is a long history of fine communities made up of good people looking after each other and rising to every challenge. This is the region where my father decided to settle. It is the region where the father of my party leader also settled with his family. They wanted their children to grow up surrounded by nature, in a healthy environment among warm people who were always willing to lend a helping hand, and in a place where they could attend good schools. They wanted us to grow up in a better world.
They wanted us to grow up in a better world. My father, William Nicholls, was a working man. He worked in a non-union job for a company called Control Data. That was a company that delivered computer paper to all the departments of the federal government in the 1970s and 1980s. That was my introduction to Ottawa, at the age of eight. As we drove into Ottawa in his truck, we would bring boxes through the back doors. He delivered an essential service. He kept the databanks of the government going.
Sometimes he was treated with disdain when he entered through the wrong door. His work was taken for granted. Other times, he was greeted warmly. As a child watching the reactions of these people to my working father, I realized how manual labourers in this country were perceived. 
I find it unfortunate that the government is trying to place blame on the working people of this country by confusing for Canadians the difference between a strike and a lockout.
It is not surprising, though. The government is happy to discourage the voting population into thinking that public service and government does not work. It would have them believe that people working in a union have cushy lives and that they are spoiled. I am sure the Conservatives' Minister of Labour will set them straight on that.
Once upon a time there was a young girl of eight years old. Her name was Lisa MacCormack. Her father was a union organizer in Nova Scotia. This girl grew up to be a minister in Canada's government. Through struggle, hard-working values and respect for work, her family was able to prosper. Through her union family's upbringing, she was able to prosper.
My father wanted a better life for me too. That is what I also want for my daughter. I am here for Pera Nicholls, age six. I want her to know that in my short life I struggled to make a better world for her, a world where she will not be worked so hard that her body breaks down before its time like so many workers' bodies in this country do.
My father died at 62 years old of lung cancer. He smoked because it was a psychological crutch for him. All the weight, worries and stresses of the world were channelled into those cigarettes. My father did not like his work. He did it with pride and the knowledge that his sons would have a better life and that they would have benefits, pensions, respect, low stress and an easier life than his was. 
Our time on this earth is limited. We have maybe 100 years each, and in a hundred years all of us in this room will be gone. Is it not our calling on earth to alleviate the suffering of all of our fellow citizens? 
What I see from the government is a mean-spirited 19th century attitude; that is, survival of the fittest. And I find that echoed in the words of Stockwell Day in his address to the Conservative convention that was held a couple of weeks ago. He said, “The official opposition will bring out the saddest cases, the most hard done by. They will present to Canadians stories of the most hard done by”. 
Do members know what his advice was to them? He said, “Don't listen to them. They are the exception. We are here to promote Canada's prosperity”. That sums up the Conservative spirit for me. The Conservatives are for the prosperity of the few.
 The Conservatives throw the label “socialist” at us. I would ask Canadians why Conservatives took the word “progressive” out of their party name. Its absence implies that they are the regressive Conservatives. That name would certainly be apt, since they want to take us back to jolly old Victorian times when there were fewer workers' rights, sexuality was repressed and people lived in fear of God. It was easier to control people and easier for monopolies to form. The term “regressive” always implies rolling back rights and measures that were put into place to make workers' lives less stressful.
I cannot say that the Conservatives are deliberately misleading Canadians when they continually refer to the crisis before us as a strike; that would be unparliamentary to imply that. I will let Canadians be the judge of that.
It is a lockout. It is a lockout that has been done with the approval of the government. The Conservatives are the ones who are keeping hardworking Canadians from working. Why? That is in order to demonize them in an attempt to turn Canadians against working people.
I would like to read an email from Jack Coyne from the Yukon:
 Thank you for the telephone call this evening in regards to the Canadian postal...[lockout]. It is heart-warming to know there are those in our nation's capital who are working hard to resolve this dispute. 
 I believe the fabric of our country is being damaged with the halt of Canada Post. Certainly we all know there are other ways of communicating during this lock-out, but what of the elderly who are unable to send each other birthday cards? What of those who depend on mail-order catalogues? I personally know of dozens of artists who are unable to ship their wares worldwide. I have a farmer friend who was lucky to receive his chicks (chickens) before this...[lockout]. 
 I know of people who are waiting for this conflict to end and are desperate for their cheque in the mail. The lack of Canada Post is a missing link in our lives and I feel people do not understand the significance of this void and perhaps will not understand until perhaps it is too late. 
 Obviously, the longer the...[lockout] continues, the less faith the public will have in the system, translating into less mail volume; This reduction will result in the inability to support our current level of service and will ultimately spell the demise of our current world-class postal system. 
 I believe in the importance of our Canadian Postal System. It is part of our culture and it is part of our heritage. Please do not allow it to perish. 
 I am grateful for your obvious concern and diligence; I appreciate your getting in touch with me. 
I believe these sentiments from Mr. Coyne are shared by many, so I would say to the Prime Minister, “Take off the locks, Mr. Prime Minister”. Welcome the workers back and let them do their jobs. One phone call and you can stop this lockout. Take off the locks, Mr. Prime Minister. 
Kellie Leitch: 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?
[Interjection]
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this government is committed to maintaining this lockout. This approach has deliberately caused division and conflict among Canadians. I find it unfortunate that the Prime Minister and his ministers have chosen ideology over allowing Canadians to receive their mail.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post entered contract talks determined to create a two-tier system of pensions, meaning that existing employees would continue to get a guaranteed income at retirement, but new hires would be put on a defined contribution plan. The employer makes regular payments into employees' pension funds but offers no commitment to what the payout will be. 
Meanwhile, census figures from Statistics Canada show that younger workers were earning less in 2005 than their parents were a generation earlier. 
I am wondering if my hon. colleague could tell the House about the kind of precedent this back to work legislation sets for future generations of workers entering the workforce, many of whom will be young Canadians who already fall within the lowest income brackets of our country.
[Interjection]
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. 
I believe that what is being done right now is trying to sell out future generations and their right to the benefits and pay and working conditions that our ancestors have enjoyed. I see this as a mean-spirited approach on the part of the government to sell out the rights of future generations that have been established in this country.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question in regard to the opposition member's views on the people who live in the remote and isolated communities of Canada's Arctic.
The member for the Northwest Territories is very silent. The people from the Arctic depend on Canada Post for their daily livelihood needs, including milk, diapers and food.
Why are the members from northern Quebec not speaking on behalf of the people who live in those isolated communities and who depend on Canada Post for their daily basic necessities, the people from Nunavut, and the people from the Northwest Territories: Tuktoyaktuk, Aklavik, Paulatuk?
Where are the members from the NDP to speak out for aboriginal people who depend on Canada Post for their daily livelihood?
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, everyone knows that the member from our party for the Northwest Territories spoke in this House, and he spoke very fervently and definitely to this issue. 
I wonder if the minister could clarify and apologize for her comments.
The Speaker: That is clearly not a point of order. 
The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
[Interjection]
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, it is sad that cuts were made in the past to postal service in northern Canada. The Conservatives' lack of respect not only for workers, but also for the people of Quebec who are celebrating their national holiday is also sad.
Unfortunately, the government wants to maintain the lockout. This is a deliberate attempt to cause dissension and division among Canadians, to divide the northerners and the southerners. I think it is a shame that the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet have opted for this ideology instead of letting Canadians—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order, please.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Surrey North.
Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want start by thanking the people of Surrey North for giving me the opportunity and privilege to be their voice in this House today. 
I also want to wish a joyous day to my friends from Quebec on this national day for Quebec. 
I want to commend my colleagues for working so hard in the last 24 hours and being here around the clock. They have done a wonderful job of standing up for the hard-working people of Canada. 
I have been hearing from government members across the aisle that owners of small businesses have been calling them. Small business owners have also been calling me. They are telling me they want the government to unlock those doors, let the workers go back to work and get our postal service working. 
I stand here as a new MP for Surrey North. As the owner of a small business and as a person who believes in our charter rights to collective bargaining, I also believe in good-paying jobs that support our local economies and the small businesses in our communities. 
I had a chance to meet a couple of postal workers during the election. In the conversation I had with them, they said they were worried about their pensions and about their wages being clawed back. They were afraid. They wondered what they were going to do. 
Lowering wages is basically a race to the bottom that the government seems to support. It will hurt us all in the long run. 
When I moved to this beautiful country 31 years ago, my brother had a very good-paying job. He worked in the sawmills. He was a unionized worker and he helped me to go to university because he had that good-paying job. 
I have talked to many people in the last years and months who are working in the sawmills. I am mindful that the government and the Government of British Columbia do not want to support secondary manufacturing. They would rather ship raw logs abroad. That is a discussion for another day. 
With this lowering of wages, I bet there are people earning $12 an hour now, working in the same sawmills my brother worked in as he helped to support me. What are these people going to do? How are they going to be able to afford an education for their children? 
The extra money that is earned in good-paying jobs is spent in our communities, in small businesses. In this House we talk about small businesses being at the heart of our economic engine. If we are not supporting our small businesses, how can the economy prosper?
I own a small restaurant in Surrey and I know how this impacts our communities. This money is being taken out of our local businesses, out of the pockets of small businesses that are already being hurt by the HST that was introduced by the Conservative government and by the B.C. Liberal government. I know how it hurt the small businesses in British Columbia when it was introduced by the Conservative government and the B.C. Liberal government. 
I read this in the paper yesterday. The Prime Minister and the former premier of British Columbia had cooked up this deal in secret. Can we guess who has been appointed high commissioner to Britain? It is the former premier of British Columbia. That is for another day.
We need good jobs in our communities. The Conservative government does not believe in this idea. 
The government has a choice. It can unlock those doors and let the workers go back to work. 
I am speaking today in the House under very difficult circumstances. The government has introduced a piece of legislation that will take away the right of workers to bargain in good faith. That to me is unacceptable. It is impossible for me or for any person who values the legal right to strike, a right that is in our constitution, to support this legislation. 
The government has chosen to violate the rights of the workers to negotiate a fair agreement. It is highly unusual for a government to force back-to-work legislation on locked-out employees. It is highly unusual because it seems to most people to be completely unreasonable. It is clear to most reasonable people that locking out workers is not fair collective bargaining. 
Again, collective bargaining is our charter right. I wonder what the government is trying to say to Canadian workers by taking this unreasonable course of action. What is the government trying to say to hard-working families? Is it that the right to collective bargaining does not really exist in Canada? It does not seem to exist under this government.
This intervention by the Conservative government, this imposition by the Conservative government, is something I simply cannot support. I find it very troubling that the government would throw out our rights with such ease. It does not seem to be the Canada that I came to 31 years ago. In my Canada, hard-working people are respected. Their rights are respected, not ignored or trampled upon by government.
I am disappointed by the actions of the Conservative government. These actions are not acceptable to me or to the people of my riding of Surrey North. 
The proposed back-to-work legislation to end the postal dispute sets out a wage settlement that is actually lower than Canada Post's last offer. We know that. We have talked about it in the last day or two. The legislation outlines a wage settlement of 1.75% in the first year, 1.5% in the second year and 2% in each of the final two years. However, at the bargaining table Canada Post had offered 1.9% in each of the first three years, followed by 2% in the final year.
Basically, this legislation offers the postal workers lower wages than what they had bargained for in good faith before the Conservative government locked them out. The difference works out to about $860 to $870 for a full-time employee over the course of the agreement.
Yesterday we heard our labour minister talk about 45,000 people against 33 million people. Let us remember that those 45,000 people who work in the postal service have families behind them. They have many small businesses behind them. 
The Conservative government has made it clear that it is opposed to workers trying to improve their working conditions and to families making a living wage in our country.
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, clearly the NDP members have not thought through the impact this is having on many of the people who live in Canada's remote and isolated communities of northern Labrador, Makivik regions of Quebec, Nunavut regions or Northwest Territories.
Where are the individuals from that party who support the interests of the aboriginal people who depend on Canada Post for every product that is shipped to their communities? There are no highways. They depend on Canada Post for milk, for diapers, for prescription drugs.
 Who is speaking out on behalf of those individuals in Canada's Arctic regions of Labrador, northern Quebec, Nunavut and Northwest Territories? Where is the member from the Northwest Territories? Why is he not speaking on behalf of people from Tuktoyaktuk, Aklavik, Ulukhaktok, Kuujjuaq? 
Who is speaking on---
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Surrey North. 
Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, the member from the Northwest Territories spoke here last night. I believe the member from the Conservative side was probably not here. I think she needs to check Hansard to see that the member for the Northwest Territories was here.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey North should know that it is unparliamentary to refer to the absence or presence of other members.
I should just remind all members that when these points of order keep coming up, going back and forth, it takes away time from members or it adds to their time, depending on who is raising the point of order and whether it is provoked or unprovoked.
Let us try to keep that in mind.
The hon. member for Surrey North.
[Interjection]
Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, the government could start the mail in two hours.
All the Prime Minister has to do is pick up the phone and unlock those doors.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we all know that this is a lockout, even though the other side wants to make Canadians believe it is a strike.
In reference to the member from the other side who was talking about people being hurt because of this lockout, could the member let her or the government know that if it were to unlock the doors, the problems would be solved? Small businesses would get their cheques and could rehire their employees. 
Could the member remind government members that this is not a strike, but a lockout caused by the government? Can the member please tell the hon. members from the opposite side the hardships the government is causing to people from the north?
[Interjection]
Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this is a lockout.
The government has a choice. It can unlock the doors and get the postal workers back to work and get those cheques to the seniors.
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question to this member is this: just when should the government act?
This process has been going on for months. Then we had the rotating strikes. Then we had a lockout. It was over a week ago that the government gave notice that this legislation would be front of Parliament, and they are still not talking, either the union to Canada Post or vice versa.
We have the NDP filibustering the passage of this important legislation. How many months or years of negotiations should take place before the member would take some action on this matter?
[Interjection]
Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, again, the government is not listening to the people.
The government has a choice. The government can unlock those doors and the postal workers would be back at work within hours.
It is also my understanding that the union had proposed that they would continue to work under the old agreement, but the government chose to lock them out.
Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to send greetings to the people of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
Today is the national holiday of Quebec. Of course, I should be in my riding, touring the municipalities, going from one celebration to another and meeting my constituents in Matane, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Cap-Chat, Mont-Joli, Amqui, Causapscal, Saint-Gabriel and Sainte-Flavie. Nonetheless, here I am. It is important to be here and that is why my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have been on duty all night to speak and intervene in this important debate.
My skin is not pale and greenish today because I was partying all night, but because I stayed up late. It is not that the Green Party's colour has rubbed off on me, it is that we fought hard all night with the opposition members to make the government listen to reason.
Yesterday, there was a chance of getting unanimous consent to a motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, in order to suspend the sitting of the House. Even though the government formally recognized the nation of Quebec, in practice it does not. It would have been nice if the government had given unanimous consent and allowed all my colleagues from Quebec, regardless of their party, to be in their riding to celebrate with their family and friends.
Today, I am sad not to be in my riding, but I know that my comments and today's debate are right. Most of all, I am sad for the postal workers. From the start, we have been hearing the government blame the postal workers. It claims that these workers are exercising a right to strike or are engaged in a strike that is not fair and is undermining all workers in Quebec and Canada who have obligations. We understand that the postal service is a very important service, but do we need to remind the government that we are not talking about a strike, but a lockout? A lockout is not remotely the same as a strike.
The postal workers' decision to go on rotating strikes was completely legitimate. A union has every right to apply pressure. The pressure tactics chosen by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers were considered appropriate and were not overly disruptive to Canada's postal services. On the one hand, rotating strikes allowed postal workers to get their point across, while on the other hand, they did not unduly penalize other Canadians who also had commitments, who wanted to get their mail and send letters and so on. 
The source of the conflict is not the rotating strikes; it is the lockout imposed by Canada Post with the—dare I say it?—complicity of the government. This lockout was imposed too fast and is an inappropriate government strategy to try to move things too quickly. The bill is completely inappropriate, too hasty and too coercive. In my opinion, the government's strategy is completely unreasonable.
Postal workers play an important role. I am from a rural community. We were talking about isolated areas earlier. Mail plays a very important part in our lives. In our communities, our municipalities and our villages, post offices serve as beacons. In addition to getting their mail and using the postal services, people get together there. Post offices are a meeting point, a focus point. 
As you know, local services in our communities are extremely important. When services are undermined through proposed legislation, as the government is doing here today, this generally lowers the quality of service. Canada Post is in the process of conducting a strategic review to examine postal services in rural areas. Some of our country roads have rural mailboxes.
 These mailboxes allow people to have their mail delivered to their home. However, rural communities are increasingly being undermined whether due to privatization of some sort, or a reduction in services. I know many Canada Post employees who work out in the field and are disappointed right now by the way the Government of Canada is treating them. It is treating them like pariahs, and as if they have failed to negotiate in good faith, when in fact the methods used by the postal union were entirely legitimate.
 The difficulties our regions are facing in terms of regional development are primarily due to government decisions like this one, which weaken our communities. 
 Earlier, I listened to the Honourable Minister of Health speak about what has been done for northern Canada, and of the difficulties currently faced by northerners. I am fully aware that the existing situation affects them terribly. However, the blame cannot directly be laid upon postal workers. The lock out is obviously to blame for this situation.
 Earlier, the minister bemoaned the reduction in services to northerners, but was it not the very same government that reduced government subsidies lowering the cost of foodstuffs, and then reversed tack and reinstated the program to help northern communities? This government is engaging in doublespeak.
 The government needs to see reason. It should consider the proposals brought forward by the opposition, take a step back, and acknowledge that it acted too hastily. It might agree to a number of motions or amendments and see them as being for the greater good. It is not a question of interfering in the current negotiation process, but rather of finding some common ground upon which both the postal union and employer could agree. 
 In closing, I would ask the government to take note of the opposition’s unanimous condemnation of the deplorable manner in which the government is treating postal workers. I call on the government to adopt the amendments, when proposed. 
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I just want to read into the record an e-mail I received this morning from a business owner:
 The postal interruption has dried up cash flow to my small business. We, like many other small businesses, receive most of our remittances by cheque from across North America. Our customers are not paying any bills. This week we still had to pay our workers for payroll, still had the lease payments for our trucks and trailers, still had to pay repair bills, and trucks needed fuel. With very little money coming in, we are in an increasingly tight spot. Every other business in our industry that I have spoken to is in the same bind. 
Then in bold underline he said:
 We need the postal service to get back to work. All I can say is a humble thank you to you as our MP and to your fellow Conservative members who care about small businesses across Canada who are badly suffering. Thank you for the back-to-work legislation and for your perseverance in making sure that it will pass. I will make sure everybody I have contact with knows which political party cares about businesses in this country that employ millions of workers, versus the opposition party, who are only concerned with their narrow, self-serving interest. 
Why is the member not standing up for ordinary Canadians whose jobs are at risk because of this postal interruption?
[Interjection]
Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side of the House for his question.
We basically agree on the effect that the current lockout imposed by Canada Post is having. Indeed, the impact on small- and medium-sized businesses is notable. But the solution does not lie in imposing special legislation that flouts the workers' rights. The solution to this problem lies basically in the understanding that the government must have of the situation on the ground and that the workers must have a fair agreement with their employer.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the labour movement as president of my local union and president of our local labour council for close to 30 years, and I have never seen a piece of back-to-work legislation so draconian as this. I have a word for it. It seems the Conservatives have just caused the race to the bottom to shift into high gear.
I am really concerned, and I will ask the member from the Bloc, why would the minister not trust her experienced arbitrators to settle the actual parts of the dispute, as opposed to legislating it and destroying people's faith in the system?
[Interjection]
Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
The government's strategy is a serious political mistake. Perhaps I consider it that way because I teach political science. This strategy, as it is being taught, is an unreasonable strategy that would show that the government is creating an entirely new precedent and a type of jurisprudence for future conflicts. It is important that the government change its mind, that it realize the impact of the choice it has made with this special legislation and that it humbly support the proposals presented by the opposition.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member, after the vote on the order of reference, which I am looking forward to, what do we need to do to make progress for Canadians?
[Interjection]
Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we have to allow politics to be much more democratic. We have to allow citizens to regain political leverage. Participatory democracy has to become a new approach to politics. We currently have a patent example of an archaic approach to politics. It is time to change things and take other approaches that will ensure that parties, regardless of what side of the House they are on, will truly be able to co-operate to listen to reason and consider solutions that will benefit everyone.
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to thank people. Since this morning, we have been receiving dozens of emails supporting us and telling us we need to rise in the House to defend the rights of workers. I am proud to be here with all my colleagues taking turns to defend those rights. I would like to wish all my constituents, those from Beauharnois—Salaberry in particular, an excellent national holiday of Quebec. 
The Conservative government is acting in bad faith by wanting to impose an unacceptable labour contract on Canada Post employees and opting for an authoritarian response to the labour dispute, as it did with Air Canada.
Yesterday, I met with a union representative who came to Ottawa to tell me that workers need us and they cannot wait to go back to work and for the lockout to end so that they can continue to work and deliver the mail.
 A few days ago, intensive discussions were held to try to find a solution to the dispute, but management shut the door and called a lockout. I know that I have repeated this several times, but what we have here is a lockout and not a strike. And yet, all the employees did was use a reasonable way to draw attention to their demands, a rotating strike that did not have much of an impact on basic services. It affected only one municipality at a time for a 24-hour period. Now, as we speak here today, all negotiations have been broken off. Clearly, it is in the employer’s interest to take a hard line now that the government is on its side.
 After all these hours of discussion, I can’t believe that the Conservative government has not had second thoughts about its decision and asked Canada Post to lift its lockout. Postal employees continued to provide services during negotiations and all Canadians were receiving their mail. What bothers me most is that the government would have people believe that the problem stems from the employees, when what they are claiming is a legitimate and basic right, the right to properly bargain for a collective agreement that is fair and just.
 Furthermore, this same government is making incoherent statements to which I strongly object. Instead of sticking to the facts, the Conservatives are twisting them and trying to scare people, as evidenced by the fact that they keep repeating that we are in a crisis and that they feel they have to intervene. What a deceiving and misleading attitude! Their disgusting intervention, rather than improving conditions for employees, is harmful to the bargaining process. It is harmful because the government, through the use of its special disrespectful act, is making a wage offer that is below what was put forward by management. Shame on them!
 Why would Canada Post return to the bargaining table when the government is getting involved in the dispute in favour of management? There would be no advantage for them to do so. This inappropriate intervention by the government is prolonging the dispute, effectively holding Canadians hostage. Clearly, those who are no longer receiving their mail or their pay cheque are increasingly unhappy, and rightly so. But the employees are also no longer receiving any pay cheque.
 It is therefore important to remember that it is the insidious strategy of the Conservatives that has plunged us into this difficult situation. Employees are waiting to return to work. Why would the government not encourage Canada Post, which had profits of $281 million last year, to reinvest in working conditions that would be beneficial to its employees?
 Is it not obvious that a healthy working environment in which workers are treated well and acknowledged for their valuable contribution, whether in terms of personal relations between management and employees, or in terms of fair and equitable working conditions, would promote increased employee efficiency and productivity? The more people feel happy and proud to go to work, the more they do their work conscientiously. While this strikes me as elementary logic, management and the government apparently disagree.
 And yet, Canada Post workers put body and soul into ensuring that their fellow citizens receive their mail. Some suffer physically from having to walk in storms, lift parcels and repeat the same movements each day. They don’t complain because they love what they do, are well paid and look forward to a happy retirement. Is this something that is now in the past?
 Will the government set a precedent? It is important to realize that the key issue here is the health and safety of workers. Letter carriers and postal employees are among those workers who are most seriously affected by occupational injuries. Canada Post loses four days of work per person per year because of injury or illness. Employees spend more time standing in front of machines and this increases the risk of a back injury. Letter carriers must walk 12 to 15 kilometres per day with considerable weight on their shoulders. Not only that, but the new lettermail sorting machines require them to carry more envelopes in their arms and hands, thereby increasing the risk of injury.
 By forcefully imposing a labour contract that is disparaging to employees, how does the government hope to restore a positive and productive work climate? Relations between management and employees will be very tense and the morale of workers will be at its lowest ebb. And yet, the Conservative government boasts that it is promoting the economy, creating quality jobs and fighting poverty. These are nothing but empty words. My last school principal told me to be careful of those who talk a lot, and to concentrate instead on people’s actions.
 I realize that the government is making cost reductions an objective at the expense of its own employees. Because just in case they have not realized it yet, Canada Post employees are also citizens of Canada, from coast to coast, and they contribute to the country’s economy. On every post office is written “A Mari usque ad Mare ”. They are full Canadian citizens. There are 48,000 of them, not to mention their families.
 Perhaps the government’s goal is precisely to sow division among people in order to reign more effectively. By imposing its back-to-work legislation, which causes a decline in working conditions, young people, the next generation, will no longer be interested in this kind of work, the workload will become too heavy and the other employees will become inefficient. And once that happens, the Conservatives will be able to suggest privatization. Is this really the beginning of the end for public services?
 We therefore would do well to allow the two parties to settle this dispute. Our public postal service is one of the most cost-effective in the world. In 2009, Canada Post generated millions of dollars in profits and stamps are not very expensive here compared to other countries. For example, a stamp in Canada costs 59¢, compared to 78¢ in Germany and 88¢ in Austria. It is true however that the industry is currently facing many challenges. The emergence of new technologies such as the digitization of communications, is transforming postal services.
 Traditional postal services have probably reached their peak. However, the post office is not likely to disappear. It will always remain important, particularly in rural areas. Workers understand the need to modernize services and the importance of looking towards changes for the future. The collective agreement between Canada Post and the union already allows it to adjust levels of workers, and Canada Post Corporation has reduced hours of work to a level that is proportionately higher than the decline in mail volume.
 Other countries have managed to meet the challenge of modernizing postal services while keeping them universal. How? They provide services that focus on new public needs that are more lucrative and then using the profits to finance basic services in all regions. Some people seem to believe that no one sends letters anymore and that postal service is doomed to disappear. That is false. The volume of lettermail is 10% higher than it was in 1997.
 Despite the many challenges facing our postal service, it is important not to forget that most Canadians support maintaining universal services and are against privatization, as was pointed out by a postal service consultative committee. Canadians want quality, universal and affordable service for all urban and rural communities. Furthermore, the postal service is important for small and medium-sized businesses.
 What is happening now is extremely important for all Canadians. The special bill to force through a regulation that attacks the most basic rights of workers is a Conservative government strategy to use force to settle a dispute, and it risks creating a dangerous precedent.
 What kind of society do we really want? Do we want a fairer and more democratic society, one in which disputes are settled by means of negotiations, or a country that attacks the rights of workers and forces them to return to work without being consulted? I stand proudly beside my colleagues…
The Speaker: Order, please. We must now move on to questions and comments.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans has the floor.
Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the new member for Beauharnois—Salaberry and to congratulate her for her spirit and drive. She represents a very lovely region that I have been visiting for a long time, ever since the old regattas in Valleyfield.
We have been hearing from many different people today discordant opinions that would appear to be leading to political polarization, with people laying blame right and left. To be sure, a lockout is no fun. On the other hand, random strikes anywhere in Canada, when we do not know from one day to the next when we will be the next victims, can also paralyze the economy.
I would like to ask my new colleague how long we should have waited before making a decision, a decision that we made a week ago now.
[Interjection]
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the other side of the House for his question. But I find that the question is inaccurate. The strikes do not happen randomly. They are a right. They were organized. And strikes do not create victims. There were rotating strikes organized 24 hours at a time in one municipality at a time, in order to apply a small amount of pressure to make people aware of the conditions faced by employees who wanted to negotiate and to exert some power over the bargaining that was underway.
We are also not attempting to place the blame on anyone. All we are doing is reporting the facts. Bargaining had begun and is not yet over. Then, there was a lockout that prevented the continuation of the bargaining. All we want is to find a solution that would enable the two parties to resume bargaining process so that everyone can have their mail delivered to them.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate the new member of Parliament for giving a very powerful presentation.
After these many hours, everyone has been present but some of us have not slept. I have observed and listened to all the speeches. 
At this point, I feel so frustrated. I feel like a mom who wants to call time out. I feel that all the members on all sides of the House have good intentions but we cannot seem to meet in the middle. I honestly believe we could get people back to work. We could open those doors if we reduced the partisanship of the discussion and started trying to figure out where we could come together because we want the mail to move and we want the workers to be respected.
What does my friend, the new member, say?
[Interjection]
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the Green Party.
The goal is in fact for all the employees to go back to work. That is what the employees are writing to us every minute of every day. All these people are just asking to return to work, to earn a living and to continue building a future for their families. The goal here is not to take sides; the goal is to really try to help people return to work in a dignified workplace that is mindful of their working conditions.
We are defending working conditions here. We do not want to take a step back to when everything was dangerous, when safety and salary conditions were precarious, and when the living conditions of families were poor. What we really want is to return towards conditions that are more fair and humane.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to do so, I would like to say thank you very much to the constituents of Hochelaga and wish them a happy national holiday, this June 24. It is not by chance that I am wearing a blue shirt today.
I have a large constituency. It is diverse but, at the same time, it is very much like a village. The name actually comes from an Iroquois village, Hochelaga. I see a lot of neighbours helping each other in the village. There is a lot of imagination. As I was saying, it is diverse. There are middle-class people, but there are also very many people living in poverty, unfortunately.
I firmly intend to listen to them, to address the situations they bring to me as best as I can and to protect their rights. What are the rights of ordinary people? We talk a lot about ordinary people. The following are some examples: decent housing, that goes without saying; access to healthy food, that is where it all starts. In short, they have the right to a decent life. 
The government is saying that it wants to protect ordinary people—that same term again—by forcing the Canada Post workers to go back to work. It seems to exclude postal workers from the ordinary people category. 
The government is also accusing the opposition of wanting to protect these workers, Canada Post workers. These people are cousins, sisters and neighbours. Everyone here knows people who work at Canada Post. These are ordinary people. They are no different from the rest of the population, except for the fact that they are lucky enough not to have to go alone before their boss to ask for a day off to, for example, accompany their child on a school trip. Indeed, it can be intimidating to have to meet one's boss alone to ask him for things like that. 
Why do postal workers enjoy that benefit? It is because they got together and they have a body to represent them, namely their union. What do those bad union people do on a day to day basis? We, workers, spend 33% of our time at work. Come to think of it, that is a lot of time. One third of our day is spent at work. The union is there to ensure that the environment in which we spend all that time is adequate.
What do union people do when a new collective agreement must be negotiated? First, union members democratically appoint a negotiating committee. A vote is held. So, a choice is already being made by members. The committee then makes inquiries, asks questions to members and sends questionnaires. It does all these sorts of things to see what improvements could be made. Then, it prepares a document listing all the demands and submits it to members. Again, there is a vote. This is a democratic process. Moreover, and this is important, members are asked to set priorities. They are asked what is most important to them and how they will react if the committee does not succeed in getting one thing or another. So, when the committee enters into negotiations, it already knows what the members' priorities are. It then sets out to negotiate those priorities, while knowing what members are prepared to accept or not.
The Conservatives also often accuse us of hurting ordinary people and small businesses by opposing the back-to-work legislation. Let us clarify things once again. Some workers were engaged in rotating strikes. The mail was still being delivered. Some employees were prepared to deliver cheques to retirees and to people on welfare. Again, the mail would have been delivered. However, the employer ordered a lockout and the mail could no longer be delivered. It is not workers who are preventing the mail from being delivered, it is the employer. The employees even said they will return to work if the employer puts an end to the lockout. 
I am now going to deal with a few demands. Canada Post wants different working conditions to apply to new employees. For example, someone who is hired next month will earn 18% less than someone who was hired last month.
Let us say that I work at a job and the person next to me does exactly the same work.
I was hired in July, while the other person was hired in May or June. I will earn 82% of the other person's salary for doing exactly the same work, even though he has held his job for just a month or two less than I have. That is discriminatory and unfair.
Moreover, new employees are often young people who are joining the labour force. It is already hard for young people to support their families, but it is going to be even more difficult.
Let us now talk about salary increases. Canada Post has offered 1.9%, 1.9%, 1.9% and 2%. The government has lowered these increases to 1.75%, 1.5%, 2% and 2%. Meanwhile, between 1997 and 2010, the CEO's salary increased by a yearly average of 2.2%. If we include performance bonuses, we get 3.8% on a $600,000 salary. That is significantly more money than 1.5% or 2% on an annual salary of $35,000 or $40,000. So there is a great injustice here. 
This is a government that, in my opinion, uses its majority for disgraceful purposes. That is why NDP members have decided to spend the night in this House, and that is why those who are from Quebec are not with their constituents to celebrate the national holiday. We have principles and we are going to stand up for them to the very end. 
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga for the almost perfect speech that she delivered here today.
We often hear government members say that small businesses are suffering because of the lockout. I wonder if the hon. member for Hochelaga could tell us what the government can do to prevent small businesses from suffering because of this lockout. 
[Interjection]
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The answer is very simple, and that is the answer that I am going to give to any government member who puts that question to me. 
We have to end the lockout immediately. Cheques and bills can be delivered. People can receive the documents they need and everything will be fine. That is how we could help small businesses: by ending this lockout immediately.
Leona Aglukkaq:  Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to ordinary people who live at the poverty line. The member should know that this lockout and the delay in passing the back-to-work legislation are causing personal hardship to many people in remote, isolated communities of Labrador, Makivik region of Quebec, Kuujjuaq, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories. There are many seniors who wait for their pension cheques. They live cheque to cheque to buy food. There are other people in the communities who depend on Canada Post to ship their products like milk or diapers or what not.
What does the member say to those individuals who depend on Canada Post for their daily livelihood about the delay in passing the back-to-work legislation?
What does the member say to those individuals in those communities in Canada?
[Interjection]
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I already said it and I will say it again. When the rotating strikes were going on, some mail was being distributed. Despite being involved in rotating strikes and considering other action, postal workers were still prepared to deliver cheques to pensioners and to social assistance recipients.
Now, because of the lockout, there is no mail at all. Therefore, I would tell people living in the north to ask the government to put an end to the lockout, as I just said. That is very simple. 
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first of all I have to thank my staff in the office who are getting many telephone calls and emails from people who are very concerned. I think the opposition is really trying to belittle the impact these rolling strikes have had. I do have an email and it is quite lengthy and I will not actually read it into the record, but I think you need to recognize that when there is a threat of mail not being delivered, it changes what is happening with businesses, with invoices and with charitable returns, so a rolling strike is essentially the same as a complete strike. 
I think I would like the member to acknowledge that perhaps rolling strikes do have a very significant impact on the business of this country, on small businesses and on our charities, and that rolling strikes are not something we can say were not important and were not impactful.
[Interjection]
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Postal workers have already said that if the employer ends the lockout, they will immediately go back to work. So that would be the solution. It is always the same answer to the same questions.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if the Prime Minister is being disrespectful by choosing to be in Thetford Mines to celebrate our national holiday and asbestos today—a clearly partisan choice—instead of being here in Ottawa to defend his own bill. 
[Interjection]
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: I just heard that. It is very surprising. It is quite shocking, especially since I cannot be in my riding, through which the Montreal Saint-Jean-Baptiste parade will pass today. I find it very, very unfortunate. 
Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by wishing all Quebeckers a wonderful Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Like my colleagues, I was supposed to celebrate with my constituents today. However, I am pleased to say than a good number of my constituents are happy that I am here today to stand up for them.
The right to associate and to bargain collectively is the first right young workers learn about. I am disappointed to see that the government is not respecting this fundamental right in its bill.
Instead of promoting collective bargaining, the bill undemocratically provides for lower wages than what was on the table. A democracy, and especially a democracy like ours, should not tolerate such unfair conditions.
Before I had the honour to sit in this House, I worked hard to uphold the rights of young workers. One of the first things I learned as a labour relations officer was that both parties must negotiate in good faith. The government is not negotiating in good faith. Most of the young workers I defended were fresh out of university and many were in debt. These young people choose to go into debt in the hope of getting a good job and earning more that the minimum wage.
The bill before the House has young workers very worried. They worry because they are already having trouble finding a job with fair wages and fringe benefits. The bill suggests that jobs with good benefits are no longer available and will eventually disappear. It also suggests that my generation will no longer have the right to fight for the wages and pensions they need to live a decent life now and in the future.
As our party leader pointed out yesterday, workers at Canada Post are fighting against a divide being created between younger workers and older workers. Under the bill, new workers would have to wait five years before getting the same wages and benefits as their colleagues.
I understand why this bill has young workers so worried. With this bill, the government is telling the workers of tomorrow that they cannot expect the same good wages and fringe benefits as today's workers.
I would like to take a moment to describe the Canada this government is in the process of creating for my generation with bills like Bill C-6. Such a Canada would be a country that does not recognize the workers' right to a collective bargaining process, a country that does not believe that Canadians who work 40 hours or more a week deserve decent wages and a pension that will allow them to retire with dignity.
We will vote against this bill because we will never support the Canada this government is trying to create. Canada Post workers acted reasonably. They continued delivering the mail because they believe it is important to serve Canadians well. They also expect their government to act reasonably too. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, the government imposed a lockout and is now trying to force the employees back to work with lower wages than what was already offered. 
I would like to take a moment to read an email I received yesterday. This email, from a Canada Post employee, explains and demonstrates the Canada Post workers' desire to go back to work. Unfortunately, this government put a lock on the doors. Here is what the employee wrote.
Here is what an employee says:
 I (along with my fellow workers) would like to be working right now, processing and delivering the mail, as our customers deserve. 
 Since Canada Post, with the government as its employer, has locked out the workers and thus stopped mail service in Canada creating hardship on business and families, does it seem just for the Government of Canada (our employer) to punish the workers with Bill C-6. 
Indeed, since the full mail stoppage was caused by the government itself.
Personally, I think the message is clear: it is unfair for this government to accuse the workers of shutting down the mail service, and even more unfair to force them back to work at such a wage, without going through the bargaining process. The Conservatives are quick to blame our party for not protecting the interests of businesses, but the Conservatives are the ones who shut down the mail service with the lockout. As one of the postal employees said, the employees want to go back to work but they cannot, because the government put a lock on the door.
In closing, this legislation must be opposed. We must oppose it for the workers of the past who fought for the right to negotiate collectively, for the workers of the present who are exercising that right, and for the workers of the future who want to keep that right.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to remind my hon. colleagues that tens of millions of Canadians are affected by what is going on in the House, and they are not part of the negotiations between Canada Post and the union. Canadians are hurting.
It is also worth pointing out that these are the types of Canadians who elected the member to this chamber. These are the Canadians who are suffering because of the postal situation that exists today. We are trying to rectify the situation and we are being blocked and obstructed by the NDP.
I would like the member to explain to her constituents, the ones who are being materially affected by this strike and by this situation, why it is she is prolonging this very deplorable situation that exists right now regarding our postal situation.
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
I would like him to know that Canadians are hurting because of the lockout. Canadians want the government to unlock the doors.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague.
I have a very simple question to ask her. How important are negotiations in collective bargaining? Is the principle of negotiation at risk because of the decisions made by the government?
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
The bill will create a dangerous and, frankly, terrible precedent. It will remove the right to bargain collectively for all Canadian employees and workers. If the government is allowed to do so this time, who knows, it might do it again when the next strike or lockout of its own doing occurs.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the people who are really punished in this serious situation right now.
They are not only small businesses but small weekly newspapers, which are a very fundamental and important part of our country. This letter talks about their business being small, but it says it “has grown by leaps and bounds over the past three years since it was established as a start-up...”. It says:
 ...the labour disruption at Canada Post is taking a toll on our company. Our newspaper, The Clark's Crossing Gazette, is the largest independently owned community newspaper in Central Saskatchewan with a weekly circulation of 15,100. The company employs four full-time and three part-time people in addition to providing a few hours of work each week for as many as a dozen high school students. The Gazette operates in a highly competitive environment and each day this labour disruption continues, it costs our business money. 
 If the Official Opposition was serious about protecting “average Canadians” as it preaches it exists to do, then it should step aside and allow quick passage of legislation to put the postal system back into operation. If the NDP refuse to co-operate, our company—like many others—will be forced to re-examine our relationship with Canada Post.... 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, we do have very little time remaining.
The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I would tell my hon. colleague that it is workers like the one who sent me the email who want to get back to work. They carried out rotating strikes so that mail could still be delivered to Canadians who deserve it. It was the decision of the government, who imposed the lockout, to stop the delivery of the newspapers she talked about.
Mrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to take a moment to address a short message to my constituents in the riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes. I know that I was expected to attend the festivities on the occasion of our national holiday but, unfortunately, I am not going to be able to be with my fellow citizens.
However, I want to say that I am with them in spirit. I am here today to protect not only the interests of Canada Post workers, but the interests of all Canadians and all workers. I do feel strongly about what is going on, and it is my duty to be in this House with all my colleagues to stand up for Canadian workers and families.
Like many of my colleagues, I keep receiving emails and calls in support of workers and of the NDP stand. Despite the fact that, with this lockout, Canadians are being held hostage by the government, people are still prepared to defend the rights and the benefits for which their parents and grandparents fought.
By targeting workers and families, this government seems not to know that social justice is now an indisputable gain that we will defend to the very end. So, I salute the courage of our 55,000 fellow citizens and I invite them to keep fighting for their universal rights, which the government is trying to trample. The fight of postal workers is also the fight of all Canadians. I wonder what message the Conservative government is trying to send to Canadians with this legislation.
Following the May 2 general election, this government promised to govern for all Canadians. However, it has already deprived Canadians of a service as essential as mail delivery for ideological reasons and to show management that it can be even harsher with the employees. 
 As Nancy Snow put it: “The government should spend less time promoting itself and distracting the public's attention, and spend more time serving and protecting its fellow citizens”.
It is also important to point out that the government is trying to discredit postal workers by claiming that this is a strike. In fact, what we have here is a plot, a lockout imposed by the employer, despite all the attempts made by the unions to get workers back on the job and to restart negotiations.
The government has to show responsibility and stop intervening in this dispute. It has to acknowledge that workers have the right to negotiate with their employer as equals.
I would also like to share a story about Richard, a 54-year old Canadian who has been providing his employer with good and loyal service for almost 30 years. Richard gets up every morning and delivers letters and packages in good weather and bad. Richard loves his work and over all these years he has developed special ties with all the people in his neighbourhood. He is the one who delivers long awaited cheques, letters that sometimes come from the other side of the world, or even packages. Richard always takes the time to say hello or smile at people, or offer a few words of comfort to those who receive bad news. His work is his life and he puts his heart and soul into it. 
Today, Richard is not happy about the current situation and that of his colleagues. Richard has always been a good employee and he is wondering why his employer is trying to trample his rights. Richard is thinking of himself, but mostly of his son who, following in his father's footsteps, has also been delivering letters and packages for four years now. What future is being offered to his son? One in which he will have to wait much longer to retire? One in which he will not have enough pension benefits to allow his family to live in dignity?
He thinks about it and believes that his union has acted very responsibly. It offered to end the strike if Canada Post agreed to maintain the former contract during the negotiations. Canada Post refused and decided to lock out the employees and stop the mail service.
This decision is the only reason why Canadians are no longer receiving their mail. It is important to remember that Canada Post employees have been locked out by their employer and are not on strike. Workers have the right to negotiate in good faith with their employer and that right is currently being denied.
The government interfered and decided to impose an employment contract on the employees of Canada Post. This contract is simply unfair. Not only does it not meet the demands of the employees, but it also provides for wages that are lower than what was offered by the employer. What kind of world are we living in? It is not the role nor the responsibility of government to impose such contracts. What the government is proposing is, quite simply, unilateral and irresponsible legislation. It violates workers' rights. The government's actions do not enable the two parties to properly negotiate an agreement.
The government must not interfere in this dispute or in any other similar dispute. This debate is not just about resolving the issue at Canada Post; it is about the right of workers to negotiate. Canadians fought too long to create a fair and equitable work environment. They fought with all their might for fair wages and suitable benefits to help them meet their families' needs.
These employees are being locked out and are being forced into a contract that would take back the gains they fought hard for. This would set us back years and creates a dangerous precedent.
 I would like to remind the members opposite that instead of deceiving Canadians, insulting their intelligence and violating their right to have accurate information by talking about a strike, they should be talking about a lockout.
The government interfered between the union and Canada Post, claiming that the postal employees, by no longer working, were jeopardizing the Canadian economy. But I want to remind the members opposite that the employees of Canada Post want to return to work and serve the public as they have always done.
On June 3, Canada Post workers started a rotating strike. This shows their willingness to continue their job. This strike movement was just a way for them to fight for better job security and fair wages.
They refuse to be the victims of tactics to unfairly take back their money. They refuse to allow their rights, and also the rights of employees of any large employer associated with the government, to be subject to this abuse in the future and have to suffer the consequences.
Today's debate is not only about postal workers' rights, but rather about the interests of all Canadian workers. What will become of their rights? What message is the government sending to the heads of Canada's large corporations? It seems to be saying, “Do not worry, my friends; do as you please; impose whatever conditions you like on your employees; hire other employees for lower wages; do whatever you like and do not worry for a moment about the consequences. The government is here to support you and protect your interests, and not those of your employees. Whatever happens, we will legislate in your favour and we can even cancel your previous agreements and lower your employees' wages”.
Things should not have happened this way. The government had several options to get out of this crisis. I will not bother listing all of them, since my colleagues have already talked about some of them, but I would like to mention one such option: lift the lockout to allow Canada Post employees to return to work, and above all, to resume negotiations.
The postal workers have said this on many occasions: they want to get back to work. By lifting the lockout, Canada Post could give its employees the opportunity to go back on strike, yes, but more importantly, to get back to work and start delivering the mail. Negotiations between the two parties could resume, with the wishes of both sides being respected, and perhaps an agreement could then be reached.
This could all be done without hurting the Canadian economy, without violating the rights of citizens and SMEs, which, let us face it, have suffered from this lockout. Indeed, while they were still able to enjoy Canada Post services during the rotating strikes, that was not the case during the lockout. Whose fault is that? 
We are all victims of this lockout. Our seniors are no longer receiving their cheques. Small businesses can no longer send their invoices. And although we are in the digital age and many services can be carried out online, Canada Post nevertheless remains a vital service to all Canadians. Our duty is to stand up for the people who deliver this essential service. The government is imposing restraint measures by directly attacking the rights of citizens to have a decent income and pension plan.
Collective agreements are used to get what workers deserve, to support families and help them pay their bills, work in a safe environment and retire in dignity. That is precisely what we are fighting for today, but the government does not seem to understand that or it is simply turning a deaf ear. The government is supposed to protect workers' rights, not legislate against them.
We are here today, on June 24, on Quebec's national holiday, trying to come up with a solution. The fate of our constituents is in our hands and we will not abandon them. We will fight day and night to defend their rights. As our leader says, we are prepared to work together day and night to restore workers' rights.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue with Terry Jenson, the business person who said:
 If there is any indication back to work legislation will be delayed—as the NDP have said it will do—we will act swiftly to move our newspapers to readers via carrier or other means instead of relying on the unionized workers at Canada Post to handle all our distribution. Perhaps the Official Opposition is more interested in our company creating 125 new carrier jobs for high school students instead of paying postal employees to deliver our newspapers. 
 ...our company spends approximately $100,000 with Canada Post and that business is now being put in jeopardy.... 
This Canada Post strike costs $25 million per day. I would ask the member this. How much more will it cost Canadians if companies like this have to find alternative routes?
[Interjection]
Sana Hassainia: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question, even though I do not really see a question in what she just said.
I would simply like to reiterate what I said earlier. Workers have the right to strike. A lockout is something that is imposed and that is what is hurting Canada's economy. It was not the strike, since the workers were on a rotating strike that allowed the public to continue to receive mail.
Today, because of the lockout, people can no longer receive their mail.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the government side believes, we are here today to talk about more than just the delivery of the mail. We are here to talk about the value of collective bargaining and fairness. Those are Canadian values. 
We have some things to balance here and I am waiting, with good expectations, for the amendments mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech. I am wondering when they might be forthcoming and whether the hon. member has any ideas about what we might discussing in the hours to come.
[Interjection]
Sana Hassainia: Mr. Speaker, we are working on that and should be able to come back to you on that shortly.
Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the constituents of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and wish them a wonderful Fête nationale. I am missing the celebrations today and it is the first time that I have been outside Quebec for Saint-Jean Baptiste Day.
I have a question for the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. As she knows, the cost of living is very high. A loaf of bread is $3, and gasoline costs $1.30 or more per litre. Small and medium-sized businesses are very important to the NDP. We have even proposed, in our platform, to reduce their tax rate from 11% to 9%. We support employers.
I would like the hon. member to explain to the House how the lockout and the current situation will harm the Canadian economy.
[Interjection]
Sana Hassainia: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
Indeed, workers at Canada Post were carrying out rotating strikes. As most municipalities continued to received mail, the economy was moving forward. We now have a lockout. Mail is no longer being delivered. Small and medium-sized businesses cannot send bills or receive cheques, which is not right.
Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on some of her comments, but she did say a few words, such as “imposing a collective agreement” and “the union has been responsible”.
I received an email from a postal clerk who said that they were excluded from any discussion on the last offer that was made by Canada Post. In fact, they felt that the offer was more than reasonable and more than fair. So, if the union was responsible, does that not suggest that the union has locked out its members from participating in this decision?
[Interjection]
Sana Hassainia: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
The member is shifting the blame somewhat. The lockout was in fact imposed by Canada Post, and not the union.
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I am rising in the House, after asking my first question last week. First, I want to thank my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé for placing their trust in me. I am honoured to rise in this House to represent them. I will represent their interests every day.
I would also like to highlight the work of Guy André who worked for seven years for the people of Berthier—Maskinongé. Although we have differing opinions on the type of country we want to build, we share the same passion for our community and the same commitment to helping our fellow citizens.
Communities like mine did not simply choose a new member of Parliament. On May 2 they sent a clear message: we want a new way of doing politics; we can change things; we can do better. That is the message sent by 1.5 million Quebeckers. They rallied behind the NDP's vision for a better Canada, a Canada where families are a priority and where no one is left behind, a country Quebeckers can identify with, that reflects their progressive values. I humbly accept the mandate they have given me. That is why we are here today instead of in our ridings. I wish the people of Berthier—Maskinongé a happy national holiday, even if the calendar in the House shows that it is still June 23.
On this Quebec national holiday, I would like to wish my constituents, the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, a very happy holiday, surrounded by family and friends. I had in fact planned to join the people of my riding to take part in activities organized for the national holiday. This morning I was supposed to attend celebrations in Lanoraie for the first time as a member of Parliament. I had hoped to say a few words there during the flag raising. I wanted to thank Dominique Bellemare for all his efforts in organizing the events for the national holiday, even though it is raining cats and dogs there.
I would also like to thank Céline Bastien, the people of Sainte-Ursule who invited me to attend the festivities for the 175th anniversary of the canonization of Sainte-Ursule. I hope to be able to join everyone on Saturday to celebrate the pride that the people of Sainte-Ursule feel towards their municipality. Once again, I thank them for their invitation and I wish them a happy holiday.
Instead of being with them, I am here in the House of Commons to stand up for the rights of Canada Post employees, and we are proud to be here. As we discuss this situation, it is important to understand it and to know why we are here. After the Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes, the union offered to put an end to its strike action if the corporation would agree to reinstate the previous contract during negotiations, but Canada Post Corporation refused.
On June 15, Canada Post decided to lock out its employees and shut down services. On June 20, the Prime Minister introduced regressive legislation in order to impose a contract on Canada Post employees that actually includes wages that are lower than what the employer was offering.
This is not a strike, but a lockout.
Let us turn to Bill C-6, the back-to-work legislation introduced by the federal government to penalize postal workers and to reward Canada Post for locking out employees and stopping mail delivery nationwide.
The bill legislates wage increases below what Canada Post had put on the table. The final offer mentioned a 1.9% increase for 2011, 2012 and 2013 and a 2% increase for 2014, well below the 3.3% rate of inflation.
Under the bill, the Conservatives are proposing increases of 1.75% in 2011, 1.5% in 2012, 2% in 2013 and 2% in 2014. According to CUPW, Canada Post's focus on concessions make further negotiations impossible.
CUPW members are fighting because they do not want loopholes in their collective agreement, and they are against the wage cutbacks Canada Post wants to impose on future employees
Here is what Denis Lemelin, national president of CUPW, had to say: 
 We believe in free speech, free association, and free collective bargaining. [It is important.] This legislation hurts the values that our country stands for and is an attack on workers’ rights and standard of living. 
New Democrats also believe in these values. That is why we are here, in the House of Commons, standing up for the rights of Canadian workers.
Let me give the House some examples from my riding. When we talk about this situation, it is important to recognize the impact it can have on all Canadians. I have a few examples from my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé.
 Jacques Meunier, owner of Chroma Peint in Saint-Alexis-des-Monts, explained to me that his operations were being disrupted by the Canada Post lockout. Since he owns a body shop, most of his business comes from customers who were in a car accident and have made a claim to their insurance company.
Insurance companies cannot mail cheques because of the lockout. Mr. Meunier has to cover the cost of the various parts he orders from his suppliers without knowing when he will be able to collect the insurance payments and receive the fees that are owed to him.
For a small business like his, the situation is quite serious and difficult.
Mr. Meunier also told me that this week, despite the situation at Canada Post, he received a statement from Revenue Canada. That is a double standard.
I have another example from a student from my riding.
To go on a school trip to the United States, a student in my riding asked Quebec's registrar of civil status to issue her a birth certificate.
The person in charge assured her that if the postal services were interrupted, the certificate would be sent by courier. However, the certificate was mailed before the lockout and was never delivered to the student. 
Since the birth certificate was mailed, Quebec's registrar of civil status could not do anything about it. The student and her family were very worried, but the mother made several telephone calls to the authorities to ensure that her daughter could go on the trip.
The population of Berthier—Maskinongé is aging and a number of municipalities are seeing an exodus of young people to the large centres. It is hard because seniors do not use the Internet as much as young people do. 
Many voters in Berthier—Maskinongé chose to place their confidence in the NDP. We are here to work for people.
We have to work together for all Canadians. We simply want the lockout to end and people to go back to work.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her first speech in the House of Commons. It is a great moment for every member of Parliament to make that first speech. For all of us who have made one, we hope it is some sort of debate or issue that we will remember into the future. 
Mine was on the private member's bill to erect a statue to John Diefenbaker outside. That was a great moment for me. I am sure the hon. member will, as will many other new members, will make speeches in the House of Commons, but she certainly will not forget the subject matter of her first speech. I congratulate her on that.
 I was pleased that she talked about some of the challenges that the lockout and strike is presenting to Canadians. I appreciated it when she talked about small businesses. She is probably hearing from individuals as well who still need the mail.
Could she comment further on the fact that we all have to work together to bring this to a quick end for everybody's interests.
[Interjection]
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, this affects everybody. It is really important that we work together. We were all elected by Canadians. We are all here for a reason. We have to work for them. Let us just do it. Let us stop the lockout, move these negotiations along and let us get everybody back to work.
Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her speech, particularly in light of the history of the right to bargain collectively. That is a very important right.
This system is not ideal. When there is a lockout, as there is now, or a strike, the employer and the employees both suffer economically. Since what is proposed in the bill is unfair, does the member believe that there is a possible alternative, for example, arbitration, to find a fair resolution?
[Interjection]
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
When I think about this, I try to put myself in the shoes of the workers. Then I think about it from all perspectives. I can see that not being able to get one's mail is hard.
However, being a Canada Post worker, being locked out of work and having one's rights violated like this is brutal. That is not right. We really have to stand here and fight for their rights. We have to stop the lockout. Let us get back to work.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on her speech. I am very proud of our caucus, particularly our new members and those who are under 30, who are behaving and acting with such poise, intelligence and composure. I thank them for that. It is refreshing.
The member reflected on what a lot of people are concerned about, which is people have been forgotten in this. The people who have been locked out have been forgotten. 
I have been on the picket line before. I know what it is like. It means we cannot bring home a paycheque. It means we have to sacrifice. 
We have to establish the fact that this affects every day people and the people who work to deliver our mail, as well as small businesses. I would like to hear her comment on that.
 However, she said something very important. She said we must end the lockout. How can the government end the stalemate and get people back to work?
[Interjection]
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, thousands and thousands of people work for Canada Post. It is a unionized business. If the government can do this to a unionized business, if it has the control and is able to lockout workers, which has such a big impact, what will it do to everybody else?
 It is important that we work together. We could do this. We were elected by Canadians and we work for them. Let us all work together, stop this lockout and get back to work.
Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to take a moment to wish all Quebeckers, and especially those from my Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier riding, a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
This holiday is a special opportunity to spend time with our families, our loved ones, and to celebrate our pride in being a part of the Quebec nation, which has a rich heritage and culture. I especially want to thank the municipalities of Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval and Saint-Casimir for inviting me to attend their holiday celebrations.
I would have really liked to take part in the activities organized throughout my riding over the last few days, but I absolutely had to be here, in the House of Commons, to support the Canada Post workers with my NDP colleagues who are working very hard. We are working very hard for those people today.
Despite everything that is happening in Quebec, it is very important for me to be here in Ottawa and join the Canada Post workers in defending and retaining their basic rights. Those rights include the right to free association, the right to collective bargaining—which seems to have been forgotten in this case—and the right to safer working conditions and fair wages.
The current situation is utterly deplorable, but we have to remember that this is not a strike, as I heard some of my government colleagues say repeatedly during the night. The workers are instead facing a lockout imposed by Canada Post. This is something we must remember and always keep in mind as we debate this situation. The executives are the ones who made the conscious decision to lock the doors and deprive Canadians of their mail services, despite the fact that these are so essential.
Canada Post workers, even when they were holding rotating strikes, always made sure that Canadians received their government cheques and other important documents. The union even offered to end the strike if Canada Post agreed to let the expired collective agreement stay in effect during the negotiations. To my mind, that was a very obvious sign of good faith.
It is only since Canada Post ordered a lockout that service has been suspended; prior to that, it was not. It is because of this lockout that Canadian individuals and small businesses are not receiving their mail anymore.
Now the Conservative government wants to impose an agreement on Canada Post employees. The Conservative government's special legislation is unacceptable. It is an irresponsible bill that runs counter to the fundamental and inalienable right of workers to negotiate a collective agreement in good faith.
These actions of the Conservative government are depriving both parties of any opportunity to negotiate their own agreement, an agreement they are going to have to live with and work under during the next few years.
In addition, the Conservatives' offer adds insult to injury, as it is worse than what Canada Post had offered workers before the government's useless and unnecessary intrusion. Lower salaries, job insecurity, an attack on their pensions; this is what the Conservatives are offering Canada Post workers. It is a complete disgrace.
Do my Conservative colleagues realize that Canada Post workers deserve better? Improved occupational health and safety, decent salaries and a pension; is that really so much to ask? Apparently so, according to our fine government.
But should the Conservatives' attitude in this matter really surprise us? This is far from the first time that the government has shown such utter contempt toward workers, in particular when it comes to pensions.
In my riding, I do not have to look very hard for a tangible example of the Conservatives' dismissive attitude in recent years. We need only look at what happened to the workers at the AbitibiBowater plant in Donnacona in the spring. Unfortunately, it was announced last spring that the plant would be torn down. As the hon. members are all probably aware, 9,000 pensioners are literally watching their pension benefits disappear before their very eyes because of AbitibiBowater's financial difficulties. Even though their pensions are nothing more than deferred wages, wages that the employer formally agreed to pay them when they retired, in accordance with the terms set out at the time of their hiring, the big bosses at AbitibiBowater have no qualms about dipping into the pension fund whenever it suits their needs.
What have the Conservatives done to help these pensioners? Absolutely nothing. There were calls for help, but nothing was done. To this day, those pensioners are still experiencing problems.
Back then, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River introduced Bill C-501, which sought protection for workers' severance and termination pay in the event of a restructuring or corporate bankruptcy, as in AbitibiBowater's case.
In short, Bill C-501 would have given pension funds, as well as severance pay and termination pay benefits, secured creditor status, making them a priority in the event of a bankruptcy. Employers would have lost the ability to choose to reimburse all subcontractors before paying their own employees their deferred wages, as companies should have always done from the outset.
 Despite lingering in the House for some time, being debated and seemingly receiving approval, the bill was ultimately defeated by the Conservatives, of course. Shame!
The Conservatives are clearly turning their backs on Canadian workers. Last spring, it was the Donnacona retirees who suffered because of the Conservatives' indifference and contempt. Today, it is the Canada Post workers who are suffering. Who will be next? Which group of workers will the Conservative government try to impose similar working conditions on next? Who will the government try to control once this special legislation has been passed? Everyone is in trouble. Make no mistake. It could happen to anyone, to any group of workers. We need to be very wary.
Personally, I am disturbed by the Conservatives' current attitude. I think that many of my colleagues and fellow citizens from across the country share that sentiment. I am worried about the future of workers' rights when faced with pressure from an employer.
The government's reckless actions are a direct attack on Canada's labour organizations and only serve to reinforce my belief that we need unions that are dedicated to defending the rights of citizens who, like us, work tirelessly to improve their communities. I do not feel that members on the other side of the House are ready to stand up to defend workers' rights as all of my colleagues did throughout the night last night, and as we will continue to do throughout the coming days.
As you know, unions have fought for many years to ensure that our children can go to school instead of having to work in factories, that the salaries workers receive are fair and just, and that workers have safe working conditions.
Very important rights were won through many fierce battles, and these rights include the right to negotiate as equals and in good faith with their employers in order to establish a collective agreement that works for everyone. 
It is high time that the government stop eroding the rights of Canada Post workers by interfering so brutally in the collective bargaining process. The government must stop continually siding with management, and it must take concrete action to ensure that the conflict is resolved quickly and satisfactorily. The government has the authority to demand that the lockout cease and that the two parties return to the negotiating table.
Canada Post workers are ready to return to work. They know that they provide an essential service to Canadians and they are aware of their responsibilities and importance in their communities. 
All they are asking for is to return to work with dignity and that their request be heard and respected. It is a very small request in the current circumstances. It is high time to end the lockout. We must respect the right of workers to collective bargaining by ending the lockout that prevents the workers from exercising their rights.
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to set the record straight. The Conservative Party values the hard work of Canada Post workers. We value anyone who is willing to work hard to put food on the table.
Today I was on the phone with a constituent of mine. She runs a small business and has been running it for 11 years. She was on the phone with me three times today. Cash flow has become critical. She runs a mail house. Her revenue evaporated earlier this week, she is looking for some stopgap financing and on Monday she needs to decide whether she is laying off 16 people.
I am here today to implore the opposition to please allow this woman to get back to work and allow Canada Post workers to get back to work. She questions what really is being achieved by continuing these debates for some 17 or 18 hours. The point has been made. She really sees this as theatrics.
I am here to put the question to the hon. member who just gave her speech to please help me make sure that this woman's employees can continue working for us and to put food on the table for their families.
[Interjection]
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question.
We want to help this person. We have a solution that will help this person make decisions and resolve the situation, and that is to end the lockout and allow the workers to return to their jobs.
Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a number of calls from constituents from my area. One of the things they are telling me is they want to get their mail on time. They asked me to tell the government to unlock the doors so they can get back to work. Has my colleague been getting any calls like that? 
[Interjection]
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I have heard from a number of Canadians, people who work at Canada Post and others who support the Canada Post employees who are fighting for their rights. These people want to see the satisfactory resolution of this situation, but it must not be at the expense of workers' rights. People worked for generations before us to obtain these rights and to ensure that everyone has better living and working conditions. We will not arrive at a solution by violating their rights. The solution is clear—end the lockout.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her great speech, but if we thought great speeches would have solved this about 24 hours ago we would have been done. 
There are some terms we use around here that the public does not quite understand, whether it is filibuster, legislation or debate, and how we do it. Even some of us in here do not understand some of the terms we use, whether it is lockout, rotating strike or back-to-work legislation.
What the public knows is they are not getting their mail but want to get their mail, and we have put forward legislation that can make that happen. Let us vote on that legislation and get out of here.
[Interjection]
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comment.
I do not believe I heard an actual question. However, if the hon. member is asking for clarification of the terms we are currently using, I can provide that information quickly. It is very clear what a lockout means. The employer locks the door and prevents employees from doing their jobs. What we are doing right now in this House, which the public understands, is very simple. We are defending the rights of workers and we are speaking on their behalf. We are their voice in the House. What we are doing right now is explaining the exact reasons why we have to put an end to this lockout.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member think that it was disrespectful of the Prime Minister to make a truly partisan choice by celebrating both Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and asbestos in Thetford Mines rather than remaining in Ottawa, as our leader did, and defending his own bill? 
[Interjection]
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this very pertinent question.
I think that Canadians can make up their own minds from what they are seeing in the House. They see which party is standing up for the rights of workers and people like them and which party is not prepared to do so and puts partisanship above the discussion we are having here.
Progress can still be made. Changes can be made to this bill even though I am not yet getting that sense here.
As for the question of lack of respect, I will let the hon. member answer that himself.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to extend best wishes for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, a very important day of celebration. Many francophones from coast to coast celebrate it, and it is an important day on which to stand up and recognize the day and commend all of those who are involved in the organization of the day so that many Canadians, from coast to coast, are able to participate in the many different celebrations across Canada, in particular, in the province of Quebec. 
I come from a very unique city when we talk about labour. Many will recall the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 and the impact that strike had on the whole labour movement here in Canada. When I consider the type of legislation that we have before us today, it is hard not to reflect on so many different labour leaders. 
When I talk about labour leaders, I am not just talking about those who hold formal positions within the labour movement. I am talking about those who have been involved in the grassroots of our union movement, not only in the last decade but over a number of years. 
I believe that Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, in many ways has been very progressive with regard to coming up with areas of labour policy that have in fact been of great benefit both for workers and for businesses, I must add.
I want to comment very briefly with regard to postal workers. l recognized yesterday when I had the opportunity to speak, and I wanted to reinforce, what I believe is a very important point, something that is being lost. This should not be about a filibuster or anything of this nature. What this should be about is the employees who are working for Canada Post and Canada Post as a corporation itself. We would have loved the opportunity to allow those two entities to sit down in a collective bargaining fashion that is free in which an agreement would have been achieved. 
We believe that the government would have known, and I suspect possibly even supported, Canada Post's decision to lock out its employees. That is really where the problem began. At that point I believe a lot of people lost faith in what was taking place. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the government did have a choice. The crisis we are in today is a crisis that has been created by the government of the day. I believe that to be the case. I do not believe for a moment that the government would not have known that Canada Post was going to lock out its employees. At the very least, Canada Post would have informed the minister responsible. If not, many might even suggest that the minister responsible might even have had some discussions with Canada Post prior to Canada Post making that particular decision. There is a great deal of concern with regard to what actually has taken place there. 
All I know is I have had the opportunity to meet with and have discussions with Canada Post workers over the last number of months, and I made reference to some of those discussions yesterday. I should say “today” because we are still on Thursday inside the House. When we talk about the issues that were important, I listened to what Canada Post Corporation had to say when it came to Parliament and made its presentation, but I also intentionally took the initiative to go out and talk to some of the letter carriers and others concerning what they thought Canada Post's new, next generation of services is going to be like. 
They raised concerns, and there were two different sides. The one that came to mind, which I made reference to yesterday, came from not just one letter carrier but a few letter carriers who raised the identical issue concerning how they are going to have to carry the mail door to door. It was a one-pack system. Now it is going to a two-pack system, which is very difficult to carry in their arms because of the way they flip through the mail to put it into mailboxes.
Suffice it to say there are many different issues that we in the chamber are not necessarily aware of. It is important that those issues be brought to a table wherein there is a sense that the bargaining process is going to be fair. Say what one will, I suspect that at the end of the day the employees of Canada Post believe that the government has not been fair and has directly intervened.
It is not to say that there is no place for back-to-work legislation. It has proved to be an effective tool in the history of our country, whether it is in the House of Commons or other provinces. In fact, we will find that there are political parties of all stripes, Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals, who have all used back-to-work legislation. Every political party inside this chamber when in government has in fact used back-to-work legislation.
What makes this back-to-work legislation so unique is that it has been taken from the perspective of the arbitrator. Limitations have been put in that will prevent legitimate negotiations. As a result many would argue, and I would argue, and I believe the leader of the Liberal Party argued, that it could even be unconstitutional. By the time it hits the court everything will likely be resolved, but I suspect that given the way in which this legislation is worded it could be unconstitutional. There is a need for us to amend and change this legislation.
I still cannot get over the fact that the government locked out the employees of Canada Post. That is a hard pill to digest. I do not think the postal workers will ever digest that particular pill because it was premature at best, not warranted.
Having said that, I believe that the legislation and the way in which it is worded if taken to the Supreme Court I believe would be unconstitutional. The government cannot put the workers in this position. It shows its bias toward management. That is why it was interesting to listen to what the New Democrats had to say during the debate as they addressed the amendment that is being proposed, the six months' hoist.
We have been asking questions, and in terms of the responses they are interesting because we are looking for ideas. We want to see how the workers can benefit by ideas and discussions within this chamber in terms of how we could resolve this thing. We could tell Canada Post to take the locks off and end it. Then the union and Canada Post could get back together and try to resolve this through mediation. I think that is a viable option. The leader of the official opposition has talked about bringing amendments. There was even one member who stood up and said that there were amendments submitted to the government. I think there needs to be a little bit more transparency in terms of what we are talking about. 
If we continue to have this debate for the next number of days, I am game for that. I was in the Manitoba legislature in 1988 when we had the final offer selection debate go for hours and hours and days and days. It was interesting to do the comparisons where they had the six months' hoist. It was a Conservative government and an NDP opposition. I have been there and I can say that there was a great deal of frustration because there was not the transparent debate that is necessary to provide comfort to not only the employees but also to the corporation.
I think we have to start to be a little fairer in our comments and start saying how we can resolve this as opposed to trying to add to the division by saying we are either for the union or the corporation. I believe at the end of the day we need to be more sympathetic in terms of what it is that our letter carriers have to go through in order to be able to communicate their messages, in order to be able to continue doing the fabulous job that they currently do. How many smiles do they put on people's faces when they walk up to their doors to deliver the mail? They are ambassadors to our communities in very many ways. They do not get the recognition that they should be getting. In essence, through the lockout, the government is trying to demonize it when its members talk about it being a strike when it is not a strike.
I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I am thankful for having had the opportunity to speak.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, a number of people have been reading things from their ridings. Well, I heard from a postal work in my riding who said that no one in his station voted in favour of striking in the first place, that they were happy with the offer management presented and understood that without modernization their jobs would be gone. He called the union corrupt and said it counted all non-votes as votes to strike. According to him, the union charged $80 a month in fees and was not accountable to anyone for where the money goes. The union, he said, organized conferences for its top brass in places like Fiji and Maui. He thought that the union ought to be investigated and that if employees had been able to vote on this online the strike would never have happened.
Will this member join me in calling on CUPW brass to put Canada Post's most recent offer to a vote by its membership?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean by the divisive nature of politics. The people do not appreciate it. What they want to see are results arising from this debate. For example, the government has in the legislation the amount they can pay, and it is actually less than the corporation was proposing just a few weeks ago. 
If the government wants to contribute positively to the debate, why do they not make that amendment? Then they would be sending a message to both Canada Post and the employees. The employees are the people who are out there every day ensuring that we get our mail. They would be giving them something tangible, something that would make a difference and show that we are not just wasting our time.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North a question.
Can he explain to us the impact that such a bill would have on upholding and preserving workers' rights and what impact he thinks it will have on our democratic system?
Kevin Lamoureux: Any back-to-work legislation has to allow for free collective bargaining in some form or another. That is the most important principle we have to recognize when we have back-to- work legislation. We have to be realistic. Political parties of all stripes have seen the value of back-to-work legislation. It is a question of making sure that it is fair to both sides. If it is done properly, everyone wins.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There is a quite a bit of noise in the chamber. I realize that members have other conversations to take on, but I would like all hon. members be able to hear the questions, comments, and speeches.
Questions and comments: the hon. member for Markham--Unionville.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague not only for his excellent speech but also for his recent re-election in a riding that for many years was regarded as an NDP stronghold. Given the orange wave of the last election, it was quite an achievement on the part of my colleague.
My question has to do with who should bear the major responsibility for the lock-out. As a former minister responsible for Canada Post, I can tell you that there is no way Canada Post would ever order this lock-out without the agreement of the government. At the other extreme, it is perfectly possible that the minister responsible for Canada Post called up Canada Post and ordered the lock-out. So it is somewhere between acquiescence and order.
My question to my colleague is this: even though technically it was Canada Post that ordered the lock-out, would it not be more realistic to say it was a government-ordered lock-out?
Kevin Lamoureux: I truly appreciate the question, because it gets to the core of the division that the government has caused. We need to be clear on that point. There is no way Canada Post would have done the lock-out without the blessing of the Prime Minister and the minister responsible. That is one of the points that is being lost in this whole debate.
Who is the government trying to kid? Canada Post would not have locked out their employees without the blessing of the government. I truly believe that. When we focus on the division that has been caused, all we need to do is look at that point.
I appreciate the question and the compliment.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today, not because I do not want to represent the workers, but because I believe this repressive bill should never have been tabled. As I said earlier in the debate, with this move the government has shifted the race to the bottom into high gear. 
I want to take a moment to thank my wife, and I will try not to be emotional. Yesterday was our 11th wedding anniversary and I was unable to be with her, but she understands the importance of my taking part in this debate and said, “Dear, I will see you in a week or so”.
 I am so proud of our Quebec caucus for making the significant sacrifice of giving up their important holiday and their chance to meet and enjoy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day with their constituents. I am sure that Quebeckers who chose the NDP in the election are also proud of their choice. They see each member from that caucus in action in the House defending workers in the province of Quebec and in Canada. I want to thank them.
I spent 28 years in the labour movement and this is very emotional for me. In 1988, I spent over 17 weeks on strike. I decided to script myself, because if I do not, who knows what I might say?
With Bill C-6 the government has broken a tradition in this place, a tradition of balance. With this bill the government has chosen to thumb its nose at the rights of the workers of Canada Post. These are workers who simply want to achieve a fair and balanced collective agreement.
 I suggest that the remainder of Canada's workforce serving Canadians under the jurisdiction of the federal government should be very concerned. Those same workers who ensure that Canadians receive the services they need and deserve are now facing the most ideologically-driven government in the country's history. 
There is a labour relations chill emanating from the government as result of Bill C-6 that will be felt across this great country. It will be felt most in the homes and lives of good hard-working Canadians. These Canadians thought they could count on their federal government, a Conservative government, for a fair and even-handed approach in the times of significant labour disputes. Sadly, things have changed with Bill C-6 and today Canadian workers will begin to realize how wrong they have been about the Conservative government. 
Throughout this debate I found out just how terribly uninformed the Conservative members of Parliament are in regarding the union's role, its legal role, in collective bargaining. I want to take a few moments to offer a Coles Notes version. Since workers as well as employers are represented, it might be worth the Conservatives' while to understand this. 
Prior to setting a national strategy for negotiations, all locals post bargaining proposal sheets on their union bulletin boards. These forms are used to seek union membership proposals for changes to the collective agreement. Members will note that I said “proposals”, not “demands”. 
The employees work under and within the terms of their collective agreement and where they find shortcomings they make proposals to their local union officers. An elected bargaining rep from the rank and file of the union compiles these proposals, as do all other locals across the bargaining unit. The union then holds a local meeting where all members can support or reject their co-workers' proposals. 
The proposals that are passed at these meetings are forwarded to the central bargaining caucus. The local union bargaining representatives, who are elected by their local, attend this caucus where all the proposals from the local meetings are presented, prioritized, and voted on by the full caucus.
 After the bargaining caucus has sent their packaged proposals to be presented to the employer, they elect a bargaining team in whom they place their trust. The bargaining team then meets with the company and they exchange proposals.
Again, it is “proposals” and not “demands” or “offers”. Of course, the media, the spin doctors, call these proposals “workers demands”, while what the other side brings to the table is described as a “company offer”. Do members see the difference? 
Now that I have set out the process for union member participation in the bargaining process, I would like to remind members that one thing that comes up repeatedly is the question of how the union gets a strike mandate. 
Unions hold secret ballot votes for their members, most in advance of presenting proposals to the company. Some do so after a final offer. Either way, it is a secret ballot vote. 
The wording on the ballot usually says that a member who votes “yes” authorizes the bargaining committee to meet with the company and to take action up to and including a strike if they fail to reach an agreement. The point is that this process is open and democratic from beginning to end. More important, it clearly indicates the trust that the workers put in their bargaining committee. For workers, the strike is the last vote, the last tool in the box. 
I would suggest in this debate that the uninformed government members have shown more of what they do not know about collective bargaining than what they do know. This stands out when we hear the old clichés about old union bosses. Well, I guess I am an old union boss. 
I proudly served my membership in Local 42 of the communication workers, and later CEP, for 28 years. I am also proud to say I was the longest-serving president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, where we had 105 different local unions. In all of that time, the workers trusted me and I never lost a single motion, because we were always honest with one another. They never called me “boss”; they called me “brother”. I trusted my members' judgment when they took positions at our meetings, and they trusted me. As they said, they were the only boss in the room. 
This has been a lengthy way to begin my intervention on Bill C-6 and on the damage it does to all labour relations with this government. This bill is first and foremost about the future of the workers at Canada Post, the posties, the good, hard-working people that Canadians have for generations entrusted to ensure the delivery of our letters, cards, and packages. 
As will often be heard from the NDP in this place, these good, loyal workers have followed the rules. In good faith, they have proposed changes to their collective agreement and submitted them to their employer. Throughout the bargaining process their representatives have worked hard to resolve these matters.
 In the bargaining process, there are few options for employees to ensure that their proposals are given proper consideration by the employer. If workers decide that the company is not taking their bargaining committee seriously, they can choose to work to rule, for instance.
 In this case, in a most responsible manner, instead of an all-out strike, CUPW decided to use rotating strikes to draw the attention of the public and the government to their situation. They were trying not to overly inconvenience the public. Since they were not shutting down the whole system, they proved that point. During the impasse, the union agreed to deliver essential mail such as pension cheques so as not to inconvenience Canadians. 
Let us be clear: it was Canada Post, the employer, who locked out the posties. Even when the posties had agreed to stop the rotating strikes and work under the old contract, Canada Post and this government said no. 
To be clear, one has to ask what is happening. Why is the Conservative government so quick to trample on the rights of Canadian workers? At least in my opinion, the ideology of the government has overtaken them. Why else would they turn upside down the historical practices of this House? 
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South, CPC): It is truly an honour to rise on this debate and speak to this topic. 
However, first I would like to bring to the attention of the House some important news happening in Manitoba. I want to announce that the NHL franchise will be called the Winnipeg Jets. I am very happy about that. 
I am also going to talk about this important debate. I listened to the member's speech. My question is mostly focused on entrepreneurs and the people who run small businesses. These people drive our economy. When I was an entrepreneur, I relied on the mail quite often. Every day one would expect information on incoming sales, and marketing information was going out. 
My primary question for the member is this: does the hon. member not see that what we are going to accomplish through this bill will have a net benefit to our country and to our economy?
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, the only way it could be better is if the team came to Hamilton.
Going directly to the question, it is not the fact the government decided to force workers back to work, it is how fast it did. There appears to be, and I use the words “appears to be” a complicity between Canada Post and the government for the lockout in the first place. It may or may not be the case.
It is how quickly Conservatives moved and the fact that they are legislating a worse offer than what the group had. It is breaking the traditions of this place.
Why not trust the staff arbitrators that the Minister of Labour has at her disposal to settle this dispute?
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to think of what the link is between the labour stoppage at the post office and hockey. All I can think of offhand is my shot is a bit more like regular mail than email. That is the best I could come up with. It is not all that fast.
I would agree it would be nice to see Hamilton have a hockey team. It is great that Winnipeg is going to have an NHL team again. Next, of course, Toronto will want one, as the joke goes.
Considering the fact that, in my view, this legislation sends an unbalanced system of arbitration, recognizing that when there is a lockout or a strike, even a rotating strike, there are impacts that are negative for the employer and the employees.
Does the member think it is possible to have an arbitration that is imposed where a fair result could actually be achieved?
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, in the collective bargaining process there are provisions for an arbitrator to make a ruling on the final disposition of collective bargaining. In this country it is important the government allows that to proceed without a heavyhanded approach.
By the way, when the letter carriers are on strike, they are not like the people who are not getting the letters. The letter carriers are not getting a paycheque. No one wants to be on strike. The reality is it is not good for anybody.
Why does the government side not listen to the proposals that have come from our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, and help us come together so that we can resolve this situation?
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek very ably outlined some of the processes in collective bargaining.
An email says that: “CUPW took a vote to ratify our demands pre-negotiation. We then debated these demands at two levels, locally and regionally, and voted on each one. Our members then got a strike vote, 94.5%, the highest vote ever, highest turnout ever, and we gave our national executive board the authority to vote on our behalf and it gave us the opportunity to vote on an offer and when they vote on that the contract is adequate enough for us to vote on”.
It talks about the fact the postal workers themselves are not in favour of this lockout. They offered to stay at work and continue to negotiate.
I wonder if the member could comment on that process within a collective bargaining unit.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: I have a bit of experience I would like to talk about. In 1988, I was on the bargaining committee for the communication workers with Bell Canada. We negotiated every day for nine months and then we had a 17 and a half week strike. I understand very clearly the seriousness of this situation. But it is a democratic process. It is an open process, contrary to what is said.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a great national holiday to my constituents. I hope they are seizing this opportunity to celebrate the Quebec nation with their family or friends. I can say that, in electing an NDP member, they voted for a Canadian who respects and shares their language and culture.
On June 3, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes. However, even though workers were fighting for the right to a decent salary, they continued to provide a service that remains important to Canadians. On June 15, Canada Post decided to impose a lockout, thus depriving Canadians of postal services. Five days later, the government introduced back-to-work legislation that provides for a salary increase lower than the one offered by Canada Post during the negotiations, and also sets strict limits on the arbitrator's mandate in settling the dispute.
Through this action, the government has shown its contempt for collective bargaining and for the rights of Canadians who are waging a legitimate battle for their rights as public service employees. If the bill is passed, the Conservatives will have changed the rules significantly.
During the negotiations, Canada Post tried to impose certain working conditions on its employees, thus adversely affecting their quality of life and that of their families. For its current employees, it wanted to end the Workers Compensation Board's contribution for injured employees, to replace the benefits paid by the employer with an expense account for health care, to abolish the seventh week of annual leave, to eliminate sick leave and to impose a short term disability plan. For new employees, it wanted to reduce job security and social benefits, and to lower pensions and salaries. 
Even though Canada Post gave up on certain reductions during the negotiations, it never took into consideration the union's demands relating to staffing, health and safety and working conditions. The fact that the government refuses to admit that this is a lockout, and not a strike by employees, confirms that there is no will to bring concrete solutions to these issues. Let us make one thing clear: it is the government that locked the doors at Canada Post.
Canada Post belongs to all Canadians, and its mandate is to guarantee postal service to all Canadians. The government is headed toward privatization, despite the fact that there is no alternative for fulfilling the mandate of Canada Post. While we in Canada pay 59¢ to mail a standard letter, the same service may cost up to 88¢ in countries with privatized services. In addition, it should be noted that Canada Post is profitable. Last year, its total revenues were $281 million.
Why should we punish postal workers and reward Canada Post, which imposed a lockout and was basically responsible for the shutdown of postal services? In addition, the back-to-work legislation calls for lower wage increases than those proposed by Canada Post in its latest offer: 1.9% in 2011 and 2012-2013 and 2% in 2014. The Conservatives' legislation proposes lower increases of 1.7% in 2011, 1.5% in 2012 and 2% in 2013 and 2014. I want to point out that both offers are well below the 3.3% inflation rate.
According to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, that legislation would cost a typical full-time employee $875.50 over the four years of the agreement. Is the government here to reduce wages? Is it here to create a precedent that will enable it to interfere every time to cut wages?
I am very proud to represent the beautiful Quebec riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
 Many families who live in this riding are already heavily in debt, and they are having a great deal of trouble maintaining their modest lifestyle. Many of my constituents are worried at this moment. In fact, they are telling me that if the Conservatives are prepared to impose an act like this one on postal workers, then they would definitely be prepared to show an equal lack of respect for workers across the country. They elected me because they wanted to build a country in which workers had better working conditions, in which the elderly could live in dignity and in which young people could be confident about their future.
 Today, we can see clearly that the Conservatives have a very different view of things. They supported a two-tier pension system that was initially put forward by Canada Post management, a system that would allow existing employees a defined benefit pension plan whereas newly-hired employees would have a defined contribution pension plan. Since then, Canada Post management has revised its position, but it is still asking for a five year increase in the retirement age.
 If this bill is adopted, it will be a major setback for all workers, including those who live in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. If the bill is passed, it will be sending a clear message to my generation: we are going to receive less stable pensions than previous generations. The manner in which the government intervened in this matter is blatant evidence of its lack of any political will to defend the next generations.
 The Conservatives imposed the lockout on the pretext that the dispute at Canada Post threatened to cause serious harm to the Canadian economy. If that is true, why did they lock the doors to prevent employees from going to work? The Conservatives measure the strength of the economy in terms of the profits made by their friends, but my NDP colleagues and I believe that the strength of our economy is measured in the ability of ordinary families to make ends meet.
 If we take away from workers the right to use legitimate means to defend their rights, we will continue to increase inequities. The government has attacked the defined benefit pension plan and has shown itself open to reducing wages and benefits. If this trend continues, Canada will become a country in which people of my generation will no longer be able to rely on dependable pensions when they retire, and in which the quality of life for workers will deteriorate.
 The trend can already be seen. The wages of workers today are already proportionality lower than they were 20 years ago. According to Statistics Canada, between 1980 and 2005, full-time wages for this group dropped by 20.6%. Last evening in the House, the leader of the official opposition pointed out that the gains made by workers in recent decades needed protection. It is these gains that must be built upon.
 It must not be forgotten that in 1981, CUPW was the first union to obtain paid maternity leave. It succeeded in obtaining this benefit after a 42-day strike, and once this was achieved, it set additional standards for all other employees. We cannot ignore the fact that this bill comes on the heels of other bills introduced south of the border in Wisconsin, Texas, Michigan, Idaho and Arizona. This is our Wisconsin, and we must stand up on behalf of workers everywhere in Canada.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the new member to the House of Commons. It is wonderful to see her here today.
A constituent from my riding wrote to say that results of medical tests she had been expecting were hung up in the mail. Some of the tests involved mammograms. Tests that go between hospitals and different clinics are sent via the mail and they are in a holding pattern right now.
 I know this is the first bill for the member. I know she is very mindful of the health of Canadians and wants the best for Canadians. I ask the member to encourage members of her caucus to get Bill C-6 passed right now so we could get the mail delivery moving.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that this is a lockout and not a strike. I would like the member's caucus to make it clear to Canadians that this is a lockout, that the government has put the locks on the doors of Canada Post, and that the government can take them off anytime it wants to.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues of those facts. I would like to remind Canadians that it is a Conservative government that is preventing Canada Post employees from going back to work.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, prior to my question, I just want to join with the member for Winnipeg South in recognizing the Winnipeg Jets as the formal name of our NHL hockey franchise, something that many Manitobans wanted to see.
The question I have for the member is in regard to whether or not the NDP would maybe support the amendment that would take out the clause dealing with the amount of money being suggested for Canada Post employees. I assume that they would support it given the fact that at one point a number of weeks back there was an agreement with Canada Post that would have seen a better pay increase.
Would the member support an amendment of that nature?
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague knows that Canada Post employees are ready to go back to work right now. I think my hon. colleague is also aware that we cannot discuss this matter right now.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has just spoken about wages, and the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles also spoke about working conditions. I spoke to the union representative in my riding yesterday, who said that there had been a 1,000% increase in work-related injuries after their assignments had changed recently, requiring them to simultaneously deliver many things other than envelopes.
 These work-related injuries are likely to increase, under the new conditions Canada Post would like to impose. Employees, therefore, have good reason to want to negotiate their working conditions.
 I would like to ask my colleague whether, as the members on the other side of the House claim, we are opposed to the resumption of services or whether we are fighting against the manner in which this is being done and the fact that it is becoming impossible for workers to bargain for their working conditions.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is obvious that workers took legitimate means to claim their right to reasonable wages. It is really up to the government to put an end to this lockout and to allow workers to return to work.
 I would like to add that when I speak to young people in my riding, they tell me that they are worried about their future because the bill in question is creating a very dangerous precedent. They have the impression that we are witnessing a downward slide.
 I am worried for the young people in my riding as well as for future workers.
Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to my hon. colleague across the way. I have numerous letters from my constituency as well. Postal workers are complaining that their union is not giving them an opportunity to vote on the offer that is on the table. 
However, most importantly, I wonder if the opposition member actually understands that the longer this goes on, the more that businesses and Canadians will find alternate ways to deal with this work stoppage. That can only undermine the ability of Canada Post Corporation to go forward, which would undermine the ability of the CUPW workers to have a job.
I wonder if the member understands that the longer this drags on, the worse it is for everyone involved.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague when the government will be ready to put an end to this lockout and when the government will be ready to allow these workers to go back to work and keep serving Canadians the way they have been doing.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, sadly, I am rising to speak on Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. It is important for us to continue to emphasize the importance of a healthy environment for fair and collective bargaining. This back-to-work legislation undermines that process.
Why do workers need to continue to have faith that they have the right to a fair collective bargaining process? It is about working conditions. It is about protecting those hard-won rights that workers for many years have fought for. It is about trust in the democratic process. 
This country has a long history of needing to work toward protecting workers' rights, of needing to protect worker's health and safety. I want to provide a bit of history about why this is so important and why workers need to continue to have their rights protected.
I am from the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. Tomorrow there is a miners heritage picnic put on by the South End Community Association. In part, this miners picnic is about remembering our history in Nanaimo—Cowichan and honouring the proud history of miners in contributing to the development of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, and other parts of the riding. I want to go back a bit in history and talk about the protection of workers' rights. 
I have an article dated Friday, April 1, 2011, titled “Nanaimo is no stranger to deadly fires and disasters”. The article talks about what happened to workers when their rights were not protected and when they did not have the safe working conditions that are so important to them and to their families. 
The article states:
 A massive explosion had torn through Nanaimo's No.1 Esplanade mine, instantly killing dozens of men while leaving those trapped to die from carbon monoxide poisoning over the next few days. When rescuers finally made it inside, they found final messages to loved ones scrawled on shovels in coal dust; the miners had known they would never escape those dark caverns alive. 
 This tragedy on May 3, 1887 marked one of the worst mining disasters in Canadian history. In total, 153 men died....Local historians say it's important to never forget about these tragedies. They often highlight the need for better working conditions or improved regulations....The 1887 tragedy, caused when a spark ignited methane gas, had the highest death toll but several other mining disasters also resulted in numerous fatalities. 
 Seventy-seven miners died on Jan. 24, 1888 at the No.5 Wellington mine at Diver Lake when a miner-fired shot ignited gas or dust. Just over a decade later, 32 more miners were killed in an explosion at the No.2 West Mine at Extension; in 1918, 18 miners died when a mine collapsed near Protection Island. 
We know that mining conditions in Canada have substantially improved since that time. We also know that in recent memory we had the Westray disaster, which resulted in the Westray mine bill in the House being brought forward over a number of years by Alexa McDonough until the House adopted it.
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 
I am trying to be very attentive, as I have been all day, listening to the speeches from across the way. I am wondering about the relevance. I did not know the debate was about mining. I thought it was about postal services.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I thank the hon. member. Obviously there is a standing order that urges us to keep our remarks in the context of the question before us, and I am sure the hon. member is getting near that point.
Carry on.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for that intervention because I was about to make the link.
This brings me forward to modern days. I was setting the context for the importance of the trade union movement in this country in terms of protecting workers with safe working conditions and fighting for regulations that keep workers safe. Here we are, fast-forwarded to modern day. 
I have an email that states:
 I would love somebody from the government side to comment on the increased levels of injury that have been documented in every province since the Postal Transformation was initiated a year ago...the new delivery system which was referred to earlier in a somewhat derisive way requires that one arm balance two bundles of mail while the other is needed to sort the mail while going from point of delivery to point of delivery. This new method of carrying the bundles effectively removes the free that was needed in the past to navigate up and down slippery stairs. This has contributed to more injuries while the restructures associated with lessening the work force has led to forced overtime which has contributed to increased injury levels. 
The email goes on to say:
 ...I can assure you that at least 10% of the work force, at any given time, is either sick, injured, or on some kind of modified duty or disability related to the onerous workplace conditions. 
In 1887 we had miners dying because of unsafe work practices. In modern day we still have workers injured or being killed on the job because of unsafe work practices. 
It comes back to the importance of the trade union movement and a collective bargaining process that protects the rights of workers and continues to fight for the rights of workers to ensure that those conditions stay in place. I hope the member can see the relevance of continuing to protect these rights.
Now, other workers in Canada continue to be abused by their employers, but many employers in this country provide safe working conditions. They respect the labour standards in their particular provincial jurisdiction. I do understand that. However, some employers are terrible employers.
I want to turn to an article entitled “Abuse of foreign workers must be stopped, says labour group: Alberta government action needed in light of new criminal charges, says AFL” .
This is an article about some of the working conditions for some of the most vulnerable workers. They often do not have protection. They do not have the protection of a trade union. They do not have the protection of a collective bargaining process. Fundamental to part of what we are talking about today is the collective bargaining process, which is so important to the rights of workers in this country from coast to coast to coast.
In this particular article, dated April 16, 2011, it states:
 News of criminal charges being laid in relation to welders and machinists from Poland and Ukraine working in Alberta is more evidence of widespread violation of employment laws and the abuse of foreign workers, says the province's largest labour group. 
It goes on to state:
 Foreign workers are vulnerable because they fear deportation and are not always aware of their rights. 
It further states:
 Last year, the NDP revealed government documents that showed 74 per cent of Alberta businesses hiring temporary foreign workers that were subject to inspection had violated the labour code. 
It goes on:
 Workers are charged thousands of dollars in illegal fees, often live in homes owned by employers or agencies who charge outrageous rents, are told to work long hours while being denied fair rates of pay--but are afraid to complain because their employer can lay them off and have them deported. 
Of course, in this country right now, because they are temporary foreign workers they are not eligible to be covered by a collective bargaining unit. It is shameful that these kind of conditions, with two-tiered labour practices, are allowed to continue in this country.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers almost feels like a test case for the government. If it gets away with this, what is it saying to workers across this country in terms of being able to be protected by their union, by their collective bargaining process, by the understanding that they will continue to have those rights protected in this country?
Another case again concerns people coming from outside the country: “Caregivers urge 'wage theft' victims to go public”. We have a program here called a live-in caregiver program, and in some cases it is tantamount to slave labour.
There were a couple of cases recently where people went public because of the conditions they were working under. In this case, the claimant said she cared for an elderly woman and her two adult children with developmental disabilities for 10 years. In the last four years of working for them, she alleges that she was living with them and putting in-- 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The member for Kitchener—Conestoga is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Earlier in my colleague's comments she was challenged about not getting to the point of the debate. She immediately linked it well, but I think she has lost the link again. I would ask her to please get back to the issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair recognizes the fact that relevance is an issue and that at times members take detours or circuitous routes to the business at hand. I have every confidence that the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan can do that.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, part of this demonstrates that there continue to be working conditions in this country that need to be protected by the work the trade union movement does. It is important that New Democrats and others in the House continue to fight this back-to-work legislation, because it undermines the collective bargaining process.
We have heard from members opposite that this situation is undermining the economy and that we should support the legislation. I need to remind those members and others who are watching that what we have here is a situation where the workers were locked out. If there is that much concern for the economy, then these workers would be allowed to continue to work while the negotiation process went on.
I urge all members in the House to vote against Bill C-6.
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have been made about the member deviating from the issue at hand, and that is because what we are seeing here is just a good old-fashioned filibuster. 
The opposition party is not acting in the interests of Canadians. If they were serious about helping Canadians, serious about helping postal workers, serious about ensuring that Canada Post can function in the future, they would pass the bill as it now stands.
There has been eight months of negotiations. The government has watched the two parties. They have not been able to come to an agreement. The legislation provides an opportunity to bring the parties together so Canadians can get their mail.
Will the opposition stop this filibuster and allow Canadians to receive their mail immediately? Pass this legislation.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, if the government were serious about getting the mail moving, they would unlock the doors.
Members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers had offered to remain at work while negotiations continued. Instead, Canada Post chose to lock them out, halting mail delivery from coast to coast to coast.
If the member is serious, his government would support the hoist motion put forward by the leader of the official opposition, take six months, unlock the doors, allow the workers to go back to work and get the mail moving.
Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my honourable colleague for her great speech.
Although hon. members on the other side of the House do not always see the link between the importance of the work that the unions have been doing over the last few decades, even a century, many of the benefits that we get now right across the country are thanks to unions. I want to thank the member for bringing that up.
The important thing to understand right now is that we are seeing unfair legislation. The government is trying to legislate lower wages. They need to take that out of the legislation. I would like to hear my honourable colleague's comments.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sudbury for that question. Of course the member's community is no stranger to what happens when workers are locked out or workers need to go on strike because of the conditions they work under. 
I appreciate my colleague raising the question about the relevance in this day and age of what working conditions are like for some workers in this country and why we need to continue to support the rights of workers to collectively bargain fairly and not have government interfere in that process.
What we have In this back-to-work legislation is an effort by the government to impose wages on workers outside of the collective bargaining process. How is that a fair collective bargaining process? 
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my honourable friend from Nanaimo—Cowichan if she is aware that just recently, in the last hour, there was a news release from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations announcing their conclusion that this piece of legislation, Bill C-6, would do permanent damage to collective bargaining across Canada.
I would like to ask the hon. member if she has heard of this development and if she has any thoughts.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing that to my attention.
 There are others who have written about how this kind of back-to-work legislation undermines the collective bargaining process in this country. Again, collective bargaining is part of our democratic process. It is part of the process where workers and employers get together and negotiate. This is not negotiation. This is imposition.
 I would again urge all members to vote against Bill C-6.
Claude Gravelle: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from Quebec, who have taken a principled position against this terrible bill. I would like to thank them for defending the rights of workers on Quebec's national holiday.
 They are here today in Ottawa—rather than in their ridings to celebrate the Quebec holiday—to represent Quebeckers. They are here to protect the workers of Quebec and Canada. In other words, they are here to do their work. I can assure the constituents who elected them on May 2 that they made a very good choice.
I am pleased to rise today to bring a northern Ontario perspective on this government's horrible piece of legislation. This legislation is truly scary, because it is an attack on the rights of workers in Canada. This Conservative government has always had a fundamental dislike for workers' rights because they have always placed corporate profits ahead of decent wages.
Bill C-6 is designed to cut short the collective bargaining process at Canada Post and offer postal workers less than they are currently being offered by the postal company.
Northern Ontario has a unique perspective on the issue of workers' rights. My generation has made their living as miners. They have been proud members of the United Steelworkers of America and the Canadian Auto Workers union. I am a proud member of USW local 6500, having worked at Inco for 34 years. I proudly held many positions in my union. Whether it was as a shop steward or a picket captain, I took my job and my responsibilities seriously. Health and safety were foremost in our thoughts because our work was so dangerous.
These standards came about because our workers organized and pushed the government to end reduced health and safety standards. The recent deaths of two miners at the Stobie Mine only serves to underscore why we must remain vigilant at all times. With respect to strikes, we have never taken a strike lightly or without a vote.
In 1978 and 1979 my union spent nine months on the picket line. I was married with two young children, and the strain on our family was severe, but at no point did my wife complain. At no point did I waiver in my determination to fight for our rights. And at no point did my brothers and sisters at local 6500 complain. Why? It was because management was unwilling to bargain in good faith. That's why. This is exactly where we are today.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers decided to put in place rotating strikes in part to reduce the impact of a total strike. They undertook these rotating strikes while continuing to negotiate. What happened next amounts to negotiating in bad faith and a concerted attack on workers' rights by this government. Canada Post locked out workers just as the Conservative government was bringing in legislation with lower wages than the postal company was offering. This legislation is contrary to the International Labour Organization conventions and contravenes the fundamental rights of all workers to organize and bargain collectively.
New Democrats believe that this legislation is a clear signal of where the Conservatives intend to take labour relations in this country. Denis Lemelin, national president of CUPW said, and I quote:
 We never got a chance in this round of bargaining. Canada Post spent months just saying no and misleading the public about our proposals. Now, as we call for a meeting with Canada Post's President, the Harper government is going to rescue him from a responsibility to negotiate realistically with the workers. 
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been trying to bring postal proposals to the bargaining table that address health and safety issues around Canada Post's new sorting machines and delivery methods. Contrary to the myth being perpetrated by members of the Conservative government, CUPW has also offered proposals for innovations and expansion of the public postal service. 
Canada Post's focus on concessions has made it impossible to negotiate. CUPW members are fighting to keep their collective agreement from being eroded and are also resisting wage rollbacks for new hires. The union has called on the government to require Canada Post to immediately lift its lockout of members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and reinstate the recently expired urban operations collective agreement. Once this is done, CUPW members have committed to returning to work. It is required that Canada Post give their negotiators a new mandate to arrive at a new collective agreement with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that enshrines the principles of respect, dignity, and the sharing of benefits of new technology. 
These are responsible demands, Mr. Speaker. Back-to-work legislation is unjust and unnecessary.
 In his letter to the labour minister, Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress wrote:
 Minister, the proper role for the government in this instance is to tell its own Crown Corporation to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate a collective agreement. It is not to aid the Corporation to achieve, through back to work legislation, its collective bargaining objectives. There is no incentive here Minister, with your actions, for the employer to return to the bargaining table and negotiate. 
 Your role, as Minister, is to foster the process of collective bargaining and not get directly involved in any dispute. For collective bargaining to work, the parties themselves must willingly negotiate. Your actions have removed the employer's obligation to negotiate which will only serve to further poison already acrimonious labour relations. 
I agree with Mr. Georgetti. It seems that the government lacks a true understanding of the impact of wage rollbacks on the economy as a whole. After all, these workers are not sending their wages and pension benefits to banks in the Bahamas or secret Swiss accounts. They are spending that money at businesses in their communities. Decent wages help the housing sector, the retail sector, the transportation sector and help create jobs and spur the economy. They also lead to increased tax revenues for the government. It is basic economics.
Recently, northern Ontarians experienced the longest strike in our history when members of the United Steelworkers were on strike for almost a year. They were fighting to protect their wages and pensions, as well as the pensions of future workers.
Pensions are under attack today and the government is signalling that it will support those attacks on pensions. How short-sighted. Why did the members of United Steelworkers have to go on strike for almost a year? It was because the Conservative government supported the foreign take-over of a successful Canadian company and then refused to defend the rights of workers when the new company laid them off by hundreds, in violation of their condition of purchase of Inco. 
Northern Ontarians understand the value of good wages. They understand the value of defined benefit pensions. They understand because they experienced first-hand how good wages and good pensions benefit their communities.
Northern Ontario is essentially a collection of small communities dotted along the highway. Workers spend their wages in these very communities. They get married and have children. They buy their homes and even buy their cottages in northern Ontario. When the government attacks the workers' rights by bringing in legislation that lowers the wages of workers and circumvents the collective bargaining process, I can say that, as a northern Ontarian, I see this action as an attack on our way of life.
This legislation is a classic example of ideology trumping economics. Conservative members have used as an excuse the lack of progress in negotiation as a reason for this legislation. I ask the House why Canada Post would negotiate in good faith if it knows the government will bring in back to work legislation.
The government has actively undermined the collective bargaining process. This intervention will not be forgotten by workers across the country. It will not be forgotten by workers in my community. New Democrats will continue to fight to protect workers' rights in the face of such a concerted attack by the government. 
I am proud of the efforts by my leader and his great New Democratic caucus in their determination to protect the rights of workers.
Mr. Lawrence Toet (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to comments continually coming from NDP members regarding the need to protect all workers and yet their actions today show me very much to the contrary that they have any desire to protect all the workers of Canada. 
I give, for an example, the 58,000 workers employed in the print industry that, at the very beginning, was drastically affected through the rotating strikes. Companies were afraid to send out anything via direct mail in advertising forms, things that were date sensitive and time sensitive. It is having an impact on the printing companies already, which is affecting those workers. We have 58,000 workers across Canada affected, a large portion of whom are also union workers. 
Are NDP members only here to defend CUPW or are they truly here to defend all the workers of Canada?
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are here to protect workers, all workers, unionized and non-unionized workers. All Canadian workers can depend on us to protect them. What Canadian workers cannot depend on is the government to unlock the doors so they can go back to work and protect the very people the member was talking about.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.
 One of the most troubling aspects of this legislation is the fact that the government is trying to impose lower wages than had been proposed.
 Can my colleague tell us anything about the possibility of deleting this part of the bill?
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I would like to thank my colleague for having asked it.
 Yes, the government is in the process of offering Canada Post employees lower wages. Having two salary scales for employees who do the same work is truly shameful. If the government were serious, it would eliminate this portion of the legislation.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I read a number of letters that demonstrate that the NDP is not standing up for workers. In fact, it is beholden to a small group of union boss thugs. 
I will read a letter from a local postal worker. The letter reads, “I'm a postal worker. As you know, we didn't get the right to vote on the final offer. Why? The union knew we would have taken the offer. We're being held hostage by them. Plus, the strike vote was unfair and unjust.”
This worker is on sick leave and has lost all benefits and coverage because the union will not allow local members to vote. I want to stand up for my local postal workers and demand that CUPW hold a free vote for its membership. Why are members of the NDP standing in the way of that? Why will they not allow CUPW members to vote? How can they possibly contend that they are standing up for workers in this House?
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister  would use such a word as “thugs”. He is well aware that in the bargaining process for the collective agreement the membership voted for a negotiating committee and gave the committee all the powers to negotiate for them.
When Canada Post comes up with a reasonable offer, the committee will take that offer back to the membership for a vote. However, until that happens, the committee is not obligated to let the members vote because the committee has been given the power to make the proper decision.
[Interjection]
Dean Del Mastro:  Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a document written by a local postal worker in which he says, “This is for the real workers at Canada Post, not union thugs”. A Canada Post worker used the term.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous support?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
[Interjection]
Ms. Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a letter that is written by a postal worker from that member's riding that was sent to me because that worker is unhappy with his member of Parliament. Am I allowed to table such a letter?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): That is not a point of order. 
The member from Timmins—James Bay. I trust this is a legitimate point of order.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your ruling this morning really set the tone for this debate. Some of the members might not have been there but we need to reflect on the role that we are playing in this as people are watching.
 I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you ask members to settle down. We need to have a civilized debate. I was very impressed with your ruling this morning.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I would agree that we all ought to give all our colleagues the respect to which they are due. 
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.
Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the citizens of Jeanne-Le Ber who elected me to represent them in this House. I am very proud to be in Ottawa now and to work on their behalf in connection with this important bill.
We hear much talk from the government about the economy, about how important the economy is to this country and about working for the average Canadian.
I do not think the so-called strong, stable majority government, which, incidentally was supported by a minority of 40% of Canadians, is feeling particularly warm toward the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for it. 
In fact, I would venture to say that even the 40% who did vote for them were not voting to have stripped away from them their established right to grow and build their own self-worth and value through the accepted and democratic process of collective bargaining. 
It is quite frankly beyond me how the current government does not see the conflict of interest in this process of shutting down a well-organized and responsible expression of job action to only then introduce back-to-work legislation. 
Let me break this down. The government owns Canada Post. The government is in negotiations with its employees, as Canada Post. The employees, after much negotiation, take job action that sees at least partial delivery through rotating strikes. The government, as Canada Post, locks out the workers. The government, as itself, tables back-to-work legislation. In addition to eroding the process of collective bargaining, it further intrudes in that process by imposing its own views on what these workers should be paid, totally disregarding the agreements already made. 
Now, excusing the possibility that the government may at this time be suffering from an identity crisis, what with playing both sides of the fence, does this government truly not feel any responsibility to the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for them? 
The government speaks about democracy, but then proceeds to deny the democratic process of contract negotiations, because it does not like how it goes. The government says that it is looking out for the greater interest of Canadians, but then attacks those Canadians it says it is protecting. In case it is unclear, postal workers are Canadians too. 
Postal workers are also consumers. In this one-dimensional, myopic vision of the economy the current government practises, I suppose it makes sense to cut out the buying power of a significant number of Canadian consumers to satisfy some ideological belief in the absolute numbers. “We are focused on the economy”. That is a familiar mantra that all members of the Conservative government are well versed in.
I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems that there are many facets to economic growth, including standard of living and morale in the workplace, to name two. 
I wonder what kind of Canada can be built when workers' rights are disrespected. In fact, history shows us what that disrespect can yield. It was that type of disrespect that sparked the beginning of the labour movement in the first place. 
Is this lockout an inconvenience? Yes, it is, and please, let us remember that it is a lockout and not a strike. Then again, I can see why the government might be confused. 
Dare I say that there are many Canadians who would accept some inconvenience to protect the rights that so many Canadians fought and died for. Here are some of the thoughts these Canadians are sharing. 
 I have been a postal worker for the past 21 years....most people don't know that we have to be casuals without paying pensionable benefits for approximately 6 years. With an average income of $49,000 a year, I will be able to retire in 2024 with a rate of $1,391 a month! Now, in 2024, that won't even pay for an apartment....why would I want to lose more from the new collective agreement? Chopra started this year and will be getting a pay of $650,000 a year with a major retirement off of my back! 
 When we put in our right to strike notice on May 31st, the corporation retaliated by cutting off all of our benefits including medical. I have a brother-in-law who has progressive MS and couldn't get his meds while he is in severe pain from the waist down. He is paralyzed. 
 We responded only then after they cut off our benefits within 3 hours of our notice to strike submission, with rotating strikes without intention of harming the mail flow. Only with the understanding that it would delay mail for one day in that city! 
 It is wrong what the [Prime Minister's] government is doing! They collaborated with the management of Canada Post and took away our right of collective bargaining. 
 I want to work and I did volunteer, as did many other workers across Canada, only because we do not want to affect Canadians in a harmful manner. I love serving the public, but not at the expense of our pensions! I don't want to be on some government assistance when I reach 65. There is no need with a Canadian Crown Corp that is making major profits off of the backs of us, the backbone of Canada Post. 
This is a Halifax postal worker.
I was always taught that one should be careful of the seeds one sews. The seeds this government is sewing are seeds of discontent, mistrust, indifference, and absolute contempt. It is contempt for the workers in this country, workers who, when the need is there, are willing to work with management towards the greater good. We saw this at the beginning of the economic crisis over and over again.
What we do not see, however, is the CEOs and the upper echelon colleagues willing to practise what they are forceably trying to extract from the people who make them rich.
If this government is so interested in participating in the collective bargaining process and feels perfectly justified in imposing lower wages than were fairly negotiated, why not be of true help to Canadians by forcing those same CEOs to convert their pension plans, give up their bonuses, and reduce their salaries. I suppose that this is too socialist for this government.
Human beings by nature are social animals. We need to work together to survive. Although there may be a pecking order, there should always be respect. This is something this government seems to feel does not apply to it.
The economy of this country is, and always has been, its people. They drive the country, both as workers and as consumers. If this government truly wants to help Canadians, then treat workers and consumers, as they are one and the same, as they should be treated.
The government needs to take responsibility for its actions. The government needs to unlock the doors. The government needs to put the workers back to work, not by legislating them but by legislating the government to unlock the doors and the lockout. 
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this debate has lowered itself to simply reading e-mails and letters from constituents. I'd like to join in. 
I have an e-mail. I am reading this to the member who just spoke. He and his NDP colleagues should realize the havoc they are creating in this country and in the economy of this country. This is just an example.
This is from one Lori:
 I'm in the small business community. We can't pay our vendors and we might miss payroll for the first time in 18 years. Lots of our printing suppliers have now laid off their staff. 
 You have to do whatever it takes to end this useless NDP tactic and get a vote in. Have to get them back to work. Let an arbitrator decide....We have no alternatives here. We are being held hostage. We have thousands and thousands of dollars trapped in the sorting station with respect to cheques that were mailed before this strike. Please, please. 
The point of reading this is that the people of this country are getting desperate. Why not stop the nonsense that is going on in this House? Allow the votes to take place.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: I am sorry that the hon. member feels that this is a useless exercise. The fact is that while the government wishes to break this down to a simplistic “Deliver the mail”, this is about more than just mail delivery. This is an attack on workers' rights.
I am sure that the person who sent the e-mail would be quite distraught about the fact that he and members of his family might have their rights eroded through this.
If the member really wants work to resume and to have these cheques go out, it is in the government's hands. The government acknowledged this lockout. The government is responsible for this lockout. Thus, the government is the one that can end this lockout. If the government wants the mail to go out, end the lockout.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us how unfair and how unjust it is to lower the wages and how this needs to be removed from the current legislation?
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty apparent. The negotiations have been dragging on for so long and they finally actually got to the amount of money they would be paid, the salaries, which is usually the largest and heaviest sticking point. 
As a union leader myself, I have been involved in many negotiations. It is always the largest sticking point, but they managed to get to that.
Why does the government not respect that and move forward from there? Why does it have to bring back-to-work legislation that includes lowering their wages? Answer that question.
Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have been here now 36 hours or better. My constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex usually do not have to be told the same thing 120 times. I have listened to the comments that keep coming. We hear the same thing over and over again. It has been said that this is about ordinary families that need to be able to make ends meet and that they do not have the opportunity to make a decent living.
Canadians now pay $3,000 less in tax than they did in 2006. They voted against it. They put forward proposals to raise the EI by 35%. They want to double the Canada Pension Plan, which will cost employers and employees, because they are the only ones who pay for it. They opposed a GIS increase. I think it was going to cost a little more than $200 a year, yet they opposed everything families stand for.
I wonder if the member could help explain why they voted against everything for these same families.
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what that question has to do with the issue on the table.
We did not vote against those things because we do not believe in them. We voted against those things because they are not enough. The $1.36 a day, or whatever it is, is not enough to lift a grandmother out of poverty. It is not enough.
If the government really cared about seniors, it would give them the money they need to lift themselves into some sort of dignity. Please, do not twist words.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing a happy Quebec national holiday to all Quebeckers, and in particular to my constituents in the riding of Saint-Lambert. I am not with them today, but they understand that the current circumstances are keeping me in Ottawa and that I will be with them very soon.
 They will also no doubt be aware that defending the rights of workers is the basic reason why we are here in this forum this afternoon. Bill C-6 is just one more example of the attitude of an authoritarian government that cares about nothing but its own decisions.
 As we know, Canada Post workers are simply fighting, as you or I would, to protect their jobs and their wages. They simply do not want their basic rights to be sacrificed and abused. They are refusing to allow their families to suffer the consequences of the Conservatives’ unjust policy.
 In this matter, the unions assumed their responsibilities perfectly. The postal workers’ approach demonstrated respect for the public by holding rotating strikes. Canada Post acted in bad faith by declaring a lockout. Canada Post decided to unjustly penalize people and businesses by depriving them of their daily mail service.
 In any company, employees are entitled, through their union if there is one, to negotiate their working conditions with their employer and to arrive at a favourable outcome, which is not the case for Canada Post employees, on whom the government wishes to impose a contract that runs counter to their interests.
 This is not normal, all the more so as it is not part of the government's role nor within its jurisdiction to interfere in labour relations between employers and employees, and thus take away the employees' right to negotiate a collective agreement.
 The government’s interference in this matter does not give the two parties the opportunity to achieve a negotiated agreement that is in their mutual interest. This is all the more unacceptable given that the government is proposing an agreement in which the wages are lower than those Canada Post had offered.
This is a dangerous precedent for all workers in Canada, who could find unfair contracts, wage cuts and misunderstandings with their employer imposed upon them. No, the government absolutely must stop interfering in this matter, as it is doing, and to give a negotiated settlement a chance, because it is not yet too late.
 This matter not only inconveniences individuals and businesses, but also and above all attacks the basic rights of all workers and all unions to negotiate a collective agreement with the employer.
 Passing this unfair act would be a major step backward, because Canadians have fought for a long time, too long, for a fair and equitable working environment, and for acceptable wages and benefits.
 The Conservative government cannot ignore this and impose a contract that runs counter to the interests of Canada Post employees.
 Canada Post is a dynamic corporation that serves all Canadians. Citizens have always relied on this public corporation, which is one of the best postal services in the world. And these merits, it must be recognized, are due to the employees of Canada Post.
 Our duty as the official opposition is to defend these workers, who operate this essential service for our citizens: our constituents need to get their mail every day, our senior citizens need to receive their pension cheques on time, small businesses must be able to send out their invoices on time. The Conservative government wants to do away with all of that. It wants to privatize this country’s postal services and ask citizens to pay more for it, even though Canada Post is doing its work well at a competitive price.
 The government is now, for purely ideological reasons, against providing our fellow citizens with an essential public service. The reason is clear: to maximize corporate profits at the expense of workers. If there must be austerity measures, the government should look to the CEO of Canada Post and not the ordinary wage earners.
 A collective agreement allows workers to enjoy benefits such as working in a safe environment, preparing for a well-deserved, dignified retirement, and having a sufficient wage to be able to support their families and pay their bills.
 The purpose of government is to protect workers and their families, not to place them in a difficult position.
 This legislation runs counter to the model of social progress that is championed by the NDP, and we cannot allow the Conservatives to do whatever they want because, after Canada Post, who will be next?
 This power grab against workers by the Prime Minister and his Conservative government shows Canadians where they really stand.
 The NDP cannot allow this to happen and we will fight to protect the rights that are fundamental and essential in a true democracy.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when I sit in the House and listen to members opposite, I wonder if they are even reading the same bill that I am reading. It seems that they talk about everything else except what is in the bill. 
It is important for Canadians to know what is in the bill. In particular, I would like to refer the member opposite to subclause 11(2) and ask her what it is she finds so objectionable in the guidance that this bill gives the arbitrator. It gives the arbitrator four principles on which to base a contract between these parties: first, that the terms and conditions should be consistent with those in comparable postal industries; second, that the terms provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure short- and long-term economic viability; third, that the terms maintain the health and safety of the workers; and, fourth, that the terms of the contract ensure the sustainability of the pension plan.
I would like to know which one of those four guiding principles that this bill sets out is the opposition so vehemently opposed to.
[Interjection]
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his question.
 I would simply answer that it is not beneficial to wage earners to impose lower wages than they had negotiated at the outset.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech because she touched on some things that are extremely important: what this is, what this is not, and what this is about. This is not about a strike; it is about a lockout. This is about the government setting a precedent in what normally would be a fair collective bargaining process, where it imposes wages, not just any wages but wages that are lower than what was already on the table.
This is something that should seize us all. It is not just about Canada Post but about how we bargain in this country and how legislation goes forward. I would like to hear from my colleague about the implications of this bill if it passes the way it is without any amendment.
[Interjection]
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
 I would simply like to tell him that if this bill is passed, there will be very significant repercussions on wage conditions and on all the work done to date, and on everything to do with negotiating collective agreements. In a democratic and free country, such an impact is unacceptable.
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened patiently yesterday and today. I have sat in this place for some period of time, and there has been a lot of misinformation with regard to the B.C. Health Services case. I am not going to get into the particulars, but I practised labour law for a period of time, and I would recommend that my friends read the judgment, especially in relation to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's comments, which sets out the particulars in relation to the right to strike, etc.
In this particular case, it is clear that there is a right to associate, to bargain collectively, and a freedom to strike, but there are consequences for that, just like there are consequences for what Canada Post and the union are doing. Clearly, those consequences can be dealt with in the future because we have the rule of law in Canada and people can actually be sued when they do things wrong.
The government clearly has power to do what it is doing. What I want to know from the member is what New Democrats are trying to accomplish. Really, they are wasting time. They are wasting the time of Canadians, especially the time of people who are waiting for the important things that Canada Post can deliver, like seniors' cheques and other things. I want to know what they are trying to accomplish by wasting so much time and money of Canadians, because clearly it is not going to be the result they want.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.
 At what point will this Conservative government—which caused the lockout—accept full responsibility for its actions?
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all Quebeckers a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Today is a day of celebration.
 I would also like to say that I am very proud to be working with such a good team from Quebec, and particularly with the new MPs.
I want to start on an issue that I think is important to understand, and that is how we got here. As people know, there were ongoing negotiations, there was job action, and then there was of course the lockout. We have to underline that point, because some would say that if we believe what we have heard today from the other side, there was no lockout. Let us be absolutely clear about what is happening. There was a lockout. There was an offer by Canada Post to go back to work to keep things going. 
 When we hear from others who suggest that somehow Canada Post workers were trying to undermine the economy or hurt others, it is just not the case. There was a choice made, and the government can make the choice; let us be clear about that. It has the power to do that. The choice it made was to have a lockout, and I think Canadians will hold it accountable for that.
But it is important to also understand that in this country we have fought collectively for fair bargaining. I have been on both sides of the table. I have been negotiating contracts on behalf of members. I have been on the other side of the table when I worked in the NGO sector, where we were negotiating contracts with employees. The guiding principle in negotiations is to make sure you have fair bargaining. Everyone gets that. For those who do not, I am thinking of that commercial where the guy presents one kid with a toy pony and brings the other kid a real one. That is not fair bargaining, for those who do not know what it is. It seems that the government wants to go down that path.
A younger worker will not get the same entitlements for their pension and the same wages as people who are more senior. That really flies in the face of fairness. I think that is pretty clear. That is the kind of issue we will have to confront. We're saying that if you are a young person or a new worker, you will not get the same benefits. That is kind of strange when you think about it. We are asking young people to give up the opportunity to have a decent wage so that they can actually settle in a community, stimulate an economy, and have something that we have all been able to benefit from.
I know the members have young kids. I do too. What do we say to our kids? We say, okay, in our economy we have decided that we will lay hands on certain people and say they will not get as much because there is just not enough. It is like that kid who gets the toy pony instead of the real one. Sorry, we cannot help you. 
It does not make any sense. It flies in the face of fairness. In this contract that was imposed it is important to note that; it is important to note that we are talking about a two-tier system.
I want to turn to the legislation, because I know it was important for some of my colleagues across the way to read. It is actually on page 6. When I first looked at this legislation, there were a couple of things that grabbed my attention. One is the final offer selection. For people who do not know about that way of bargaining, it is a method in which both parties agree to--that is the first point--a process whereby they boil down the issues to a couple of issues, put in what appears to be the best offer, and provide it to an arbitrator that has been agreed upon. It is not an imposition. In this legislation, this is being imposed. It is taking a method of bargaining and torquing it such that it is undermining the whole relevancy of what was final offer selection.
It gets better, because on page 6--and it ignores the Canadian labour act in some ways--it says that wages will be imposed. Some people might think that it is not a big thing and that they have to put the wages in there because they could not agree. I think it is terrible and regressive.
Here is the kicker. They impose wages that are less than what was on the table from the employer. If I tell anyone in this country that an offer was put on the table by government, whose role is not to take sides--the role of the government is to be a fair arbiter, and I see other members nodding yes--but then in legislation on page 6 the government put in wages that are less than what the employer was offering, at the least it is confusing. What we have here is a method of bargaining that will change the way in which bargaining is done in this country.
We have to stand up against that. The one thing we have to stand up against is unfair bargaining, and we can do that in this place. Today we are here to make sure the bill is changed.
This is an offer to the government. We can change that, so why not change it? If we told everyday people that an agreement was being negotiated and a wage rate was put in front of the employees, and another party, who is supposed to be fair in arbitrating the dispute, imposes wages lower than what the employer was offering, most people would say that would not pass the smell test. It certainly does not pass the fairness test. It would be reasonable for the government to look at that. That should obviously be dealt with. That is one of the reasons why we are here today.
This is not about us as a party deciding we want to spend a day and night here. This is not our idea of a retreat. If we want a retreat, we will have a retreat. We can do that. This is about a principle, and it is about bargaining and about the direction this country is going.
If the government is going to put bargaining, like final offer selection where there has been no agreement, and put it into legislation, then we have to deal with that. If the legislation is going to impose wages on workers that are less than what is being offered by the employer, then we have to stand up to that.
As I mentioned before, bringing in closure and then bringing in legislation is a little untoward. When government members were in opposition, they fought very hard against closure. Mr. Manning was the leader of the opposition in 1998. He was very strong on this point. He believed that the whole issue of closure that was being rendered upon Parliament was fundamentally undemocratic. He fought hard against that. Preston and I do not agree on everything, trust me. But he had it right when he talked about what Parliament is about and when he said that closure should not be used to ram legislation through, that closure should ultimately never be used. To use it before legislation is brought in is new. That is something we have to deal with.
I think of the people who spoke against closure. 
 Brian Mulroney's government on closure was a pillar of virtue compared to what the Liberal government has done since it came to power. It continuously uses this hammer. It is not a matter of negotiation. It is just too bad: “It is my way or the highway”. 
 It is unfortunate the government has decided to go this way. It is a trend. It does not bode well for this institution that the government has decided this is the way to force through legislation, controversial or not. The government is just doing it. 
Do members know who said that on November 22, 1999? It was one Preston Manning.
 Mr. Strahl, who was in this place not too long ago, said in reference to the government of the day: 
 It uses closure and time allocation to choke off debate in the House. It stacks committees and committee hearings....How can such a government possibly be pretending to exercise democratic leadership in government when it behaves in that way? 
I just say that for the record because it is important to know how closure is being used.
I ask the government to take a look at this legislation, take a look at this imposition, and ask themselves: Is this fair?
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments.
Before I get to my question, I just want to point out that I personally have had a very positive relationship with Canada Post workers in my lifetime, whether it was with delivery to my constituency office where Dean delivers the mail with a smile every day, or to my home where Cathy has delivered mail for over 20 years. I have a very positive relationship and I respect the professionalism and the work they do.
However, over the last number of days we have had dozens, if not hundreds, of emails written to this place by our constituents and constituents of members across the way, pointing out the negative impact that this ongoing work stoppage is having on our economy. I just received another one from my riding. It says:
 We currently have hundreds if not over a thousand shipments either stalled with Canada Post or are unable to ship. 
 A secondary issue is receiving payments, sending invoices and payments. These are problematic, but obviously not as crucial. 
He goes on to ask us to move quickly to bring this work stoppage to a halt.
Small businesses are at risk. Seniors are at risk. Charitable groups who do such good work for us are at risk. How much longer will the New Democratic Party cause these groups to suffer?
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I think that will be when we see we get some fairness. Simply put, every single small business operator I know, and my sister is one, works extremely hard. They are looking for the government to do a very simple thing: pick up the phone and call the person they appointed. 
This is a point I have to make. The head of Canada Post was not hired by Canadians; he was appointed by the Prime Minister. Guess what happens when the government wants something to be done? It can do whatever it wants in terms of direction, and I think we heard this from the former Liberal minister, that it just picks up the phone and says what it wants to happen. 
This government could, if it wanted to, end it right now. It could pick up the phone, call the head of Canada Post, and it would be done. It is that simple. That would help all the people who are concerned, whom the hon. member mentioned.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for most of the last day and much of last night. I have heard from both sides and I hear one common element, which is the importance of getting the mail service back and the importance of ensuring that average Canadians, senior citizens and small businesses are not impacted. That should be our primary goal here. 
To get through this, we can throw rocks at each other for days. I think the government understands that we are serious about fairness. However, we both have to look at the issue of compromise in order to put senior citizens and small businesses first. 
I ask my hon. colleague, because of his experience, if he thinks that it would be fairly straightforward for the Prime Minister to take out the clause that forces wages down in the back to work legislation. Could he take that out, call on Canada Post to unlock the doors and send both parties to mediation and arbitration? 
This could be settled immediately. I think it is incumbent upon us to show Canadians that in this 41st Parliament we could actually get something done for the good of the people of Canada.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I think we are at that point. I think we need to ask the government what is reasonable, what is fair and how we ensure that we all do our jobs. Is the government going die on the hill on this particular contract?
Again, the main focus of my speech was around page 6 of the legislation, where it has the salary grid laid out. In fact, it is lower than what was on the table in negotiations. 
I think we could see some form of agreement so that this House could do its job. We could get through the next number of hours, not by debating points back and forth, but perhaps by ensuring that we do get a resolution to this issue. We could ensure that Canadians get their mail and have postal workers back doing their job. We could ensure fairness so that all of us could go back to our constituents and say that we all did our jobs and be proud of that as parliamentarians. 
That is what I think Canadians are looking for; that is what we should be doing; and that is what I think is a reasonable offer. It is something that should be done. We ask the government to take a look at this.
Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this today.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as my colleagues in the House know, especially my friend from Peterborough, I like to think the glass is half full. He knows that is true. 
I just want to point out to everybody in the House that over the past 18 hours or so the government is no longer referring to this as a strike. It is now referring to it as a lockout. That is a very positive step forward, for that is exactly what it is.
Speaking of that, I had an email from someone who publishes a weekly paper in my riding. He asked why, if the government was going to lock people out, it did not give notice to people like him. That is a very good question. We have had that question in the House a number of times. Why all of a sudden did things get stuck at the post office? Things were not going anywhere. People were upset. It was a hardship for many, including this small business owner in the west end of my riding. 
Why did the government not give notice, for example? That is in the spirit of compromise. That is in the spirit of saying that the government may have to do something, so we had better sit at the table and work things out. 
Why did the government not do that? I do not know. I told the fellow who owns that weekly paper that I would ask that question today. Perhaps in the question period we will have a chance to do that.
The government's insistence on locking out Canada Post employees and sending them back to work is not just an attack on collective bargaining rights. It is also an attack on young workers and an attack on the retirement security of all Canadians.
I want to talk about what the bill says about imposing new hourly pay guidelines on the workers at Canada Post. It is significantly below Canada Post's last offer, which makes no sense at all. In fact, over the four years of this contract, $35 million will be taken out of the pockets of Canada Post workers and their families. That is important: it is workers and their families. That is $35 million that will not be taxed. That is $35 million that will not be spent in the local economy.
What this boils down to is fairness. That is what we are really talking about today and tomorrow. We talk about the younger workers coming into Canada Post and not getting the same deal, getting partial deals of what the older workers get. 
We do not have a two-tier system of rent in this country. We do not have a two-tier system of mortgages. We do not have a two-tier system of going to the grocery store and buying groceries. We do not have a two-tier system of filling up our gas tanks. It is outrageous to say that young workers in our country should be paid less than their older counterparts. It is outrageous. They are doing the same work.
I want to say something about pensions, an important element of this, and about the pension changes that the government is trying to impose on workers at Canada Post. In the last legislative session, pensions and retirement security came to the fore in just about every discussion. Bill C-501, my bill, came to Parliament, was voted on a couple of times, and was passed those times. I know that there is a will on that side of this place to ensure that Canadians have the retirement security they need.
In fact, before the last election, the government was actually warming toward increasing CPP and making CPP better. Then the Minister of Finance said it would hurt the economy. He forgot that we were talking about phasing it in over seven years. We were not talking about some big shock. 
The Minister of Finance has also suggested that increasing CPP is administratively difficult. The president and CEO of the CPP investment board, David Denison, has made it clear that there is no administrative impediment to enhancing CPP. In fact it is quite the contrary. He says private plans will cost significantly more for the same benefit.
In 2007 Canadian RRSP holders paid private fund managers $25 billion in fees, fees that we do not have with CPP. CPP is simply the lowest-cost option. If that were enhanced, the kinds of negotiations that go on at Canada Post on retirement security would be made easier and clearer and we could plan for the retirement security of those beginning work in their twenties.
A phased-in CPP is an increase from $960 a month to $1,868 a month over the next seven years. What would that mean to the average earner? For people who make $30,000 a year, every week over the next seven years they would pay $2.27 out of their salary to ensure their CPP doubled. It simply makes sense.
We have heard some stories from business owners and other people. Let me talk about Canadians who are hurting, and I am not going to put any blame here. I will read a couple of passages from emails I have received from northwestern Ontario.
This is from a postal worker and her husband. She says:
 Our sick leave provisions are such that a fulltime employee earns 10 hours per month of sick leave credits. This sick leave accumulates until you retire. At that time, any sick leave you have not used is gone. WE ARE NOT PAID OUT!!! 
That seems to be a misconception of many people. Their sick leave provisions in their contracts are protecting them in case of long-term disability. She goes on to say:
 Well, last August, my husband...was diagnosed with cancer and shortly went off work on sick leave. Fortunately, he had almost a year of sick leave credits. As such, he has been able to still provide for us by receiving a regular pay check. His drug benefits were still active as well. This has been a great comfort for him as he has gone through months of treatments and surgery and made this situation much more tolerable. He could just concentrate on healing. He was hoping to be able to return to work by the end of the year and work a few more years. We still have a mortgage and bills like everyone else. We put three kids through University... 
 On June 2, 2011, CPC declared that our collective agreement was no longer in force. This resulted in [his] sick leave and benefits being cut off.... 
Lest people think, from this discussion, that it is small-business owners, seniors and others who are suffering because of this. Many people who work for Canada Post are also suffering. This means that Canadians right across the country are suffering.
Another person writes, “I am 62 years old, a single mother. Nine years ago, I became partially disabled, only working a half shift at Canada Post”. Her son is just coming to the end of university. She is already poor. She is asking why her employer proposes to make her poorer.
Here is one from a woman in my riding. She says, “I'm currently on sick leave after experiencing a heart attack. I also have numerous other related health issues”. All her benefits have been cut off. She continues to say, “After only two days without my insulin, my glucose levels have doubled and I'm experiencing difficulty breathing without my puffers and heart medications”, which she can no longer afford. That is what is happening.
We, on this side of the House, and I am sure many on the other side, believe in free speech, free association and free collective bargaining. This legislation hurts the values that our country stands for and is an attack on the rights of workers and their standard of living. The proper role is for the government to tell its own crown corporation to get back to the bargaining table and negotiate a collective agreement, but first it must unlock the doors.
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite had many good points. However, the one point I would like to underline is what he clearly said about Canadians all across the country hurting, and that includes postal workers. I have had emails from postal workers in my riding and from across the country. They want to go back to work now. They want us to encourage members opposite to stop delaying this and to pass Bill C-6.
Would the member agree that the bill needs to be passed for the good of all Canadians in our country, and it needs to be passed swiftly?
[Interjection]
John Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, this is not a strike; it is a lockout. It could very easily be ended by simply taking the locks off the door and getting everybody back to work.
In fact, she will remember that CUPW said that it did not have a problem, that it would keep working with the existing collective agreement, while it continued to negotiate. That would have been fine, too. It does not have to be this way.
My final point is we have proposed amendments to this, which we think will help to solve the deadlock we are in right now. Perhaps if another member from the Conservative Party has an opportunity to ask me a question, I would like to know why the Conservatives have not accepted those.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where we are hearing from people in our ridings. I have certainly had emails and phone calls from constituents who are concerned. I had one from a postal worker who said, “Negotiate, do not legislate”. I can certainly understand his point of view.
I have calls and emails from people who are in business. They are suffering because they rely upon the postal service to bring them reimbursement or payments but they are not receiving. There is a real need to find a way to solve this.
My hon. colleague has talked about possible amendments. It seems to me we ought to be discussing what could bring us together here. We have a lot of back and forth, a lot of rhetoric on both sides about how each side is wrong. We are hearing two very divergent points of view. However, I am encouraged by the talk of amendments. Perhaps we ought to be focusing on what could bring us together.
Would my hon. colleague tell us some more about what his party has in mind as a way to resolve this impasse and move forward?
[Interjection]
John Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. We should be talking about coming together, not moving further apart. I think we have achieved that and are achieving that as time goes on. 
It is heading into the weekend. We all know this will come to a resolution eventually.
One of the amendments is to ensure we do not have this inequality in the pay. We should take that clause out of the legislation. Canada Post had a last offer. We should go with that offer and move ahead.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, first, I thank and congratulate my hon. colleague for his incredible work on behalf of his constituents and the Canadian people. 
I also thank him for raising the issue of the impact of this legislation on the younger members of the workforce at the beginning of his speech. 
The Conservative government vows to fix the Canadian economy, but this back to work legislation will have the opposite effect.
Could my hon. colleague explain for the members of the government the disastrous effects the working conditions and lower wages that the Conservatives want to impose will have on the youngest members of the workforce and ultimately because of that, on our economy?
[Interjection]
John Rafferty: Mr. Speaker, I have already talked about the wage part of the issue for young people, but let me briefly say something about retirement security. We know the retirement security will be the biggest issue facing the country as we move forward over the next 20, 30, 40 years. To erode people's pensions as soon as they start working when they are 20 does not make any sense at all.
We should all be working in this place to enhance retirement security, not only for those who are approaching retirement age or those who are already in retirement, but also for those who are in their twenties and their thirties who probably have not thought much about retirement security. We need to ensure they are ready to retire.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy standing up as I have been in the House uninterrupted without sleep for 31 hours. I mention this not with any sense of bravado, but merely to apologize in advance if anything I say is somewhat less than coherent. 
 It would also be better if I were not to speak in French, given that I am very tired.
I will speak to the motion in a couple of ways. I find the challenge of being original, after 31 hours of debate, is my main obstacle. We have heard a lot of very fine words on all sides of the House, but it has become, and I hope I do not offend anyone, a little repetitious. Therefore, I thought I would take a different tack.
We do want to stay on the subject, and the subject of the motion is a hoist amendment. It is useful to go back and reflect on the fact that hoist amendments used to be used by the government, not by opposition. They were used most commonly around 1867. That is why most of us had not heard of them before, but we have learned more about hoist amendments.
However, what it comes down to is the fact that to accept a hoist amendment in these circumstances is basically to reject Bill C-6. Why would we want to reject Bill C-6? Those reasons have been well canvassed.
 I want to state the position of the Green Party on this as clearly as I can.
We sympathize with all those people who are disadvantaged by the current lockout, work stoppage, however one wants to put it. Small businesses are disadvantaged, some in my own riding. Others disadvantaged are: small operators of all kinds; individual Canadians waiting for their cheques, whether they are seniors, or single parents waiting for child support cheques; the workers are disadvantaged, people who cannot go to work when they want to, who are not receiving their paycheques.
I would like to take it as a given that every member of the House would rather have the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers do their work with a management structure of Canada Post that allows them to do that work efficiently, effectively, with proper supports for their training. A lot of the issues that have come up have to do with new equipment purchased by Canada Post. I hear from Canada Post workers in my riding that it did not provide adequate time or adequate training. There are some structural issues here that are real.
For CUPW, it has not really been primarily about the salaries. We have also heard that. That was not the big sticking point in the negotiations. What then was? Issues of fairness, issues of pensions, issues of this training equipment.
How are we to resolve this? This is where I would like to try to be original. What are our duties as members of Parliament? To whom do we bear allegiance?
It was not long ago that every one of us in the House swore an oath of allegiance. Members may recall, unless they have individual practices within their own parties of which I am not aware, that none of us put our hands on the Bible to swear allegiance to our political party or the leaders of our political parties. Quite simply, we all swore allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
We did that not because we admire a very admirable woman of enormous sense of duty and responsibility, named Betty Windsor, who lives in England and has a lot of grandchildren and some great-grandchildren. We take the oath to Queen Elizabeth II because she represents to us, as head of state, our country. Our primary duty in this place is to our country. As such, I would beg of each and every one of us to think primarily about what is in our national interest, which is clearly to end the lockout, to get people back to work and to stop blaming each other for how we got in this pickle.
The Government of Canada clearly sympathizes more with Canada Post. That is understood. I think all of us in opposition tend to sympathize more with CUPW. However, the opposition is not CUPW and the governing party is not Canada Post. We cannot continue to be proxies for people who cannot get to the bargaining table on their own. We need to fix this for them and we should not fix it in a blunt way, with a draconian instrument, that would cause long-term damage to something we need to thrive, our national public postal system.
 I know I have heard from many members, and I am not pretending for a moment that this idea is original, certainly in the official opposition and from some within the governing party that we should be able to bend a little. We should be able to fix this. We should not conduct an ongoing echo chamber in our House of Commons that leaves Canadians from coast to coast absolutely stupefied as to what we are doing here.
Let us surprise the people of Canada by having the members of the 41st Parliament act differently. Let us actually get together out in the corridors, and maybe people are already doing it. Let us remove those sections of Bill C-6 that are unacceptable at least to this side of the House. Let us find a way that gets the postal workers back to work as soon as possible, which satisfies all the needs of the people that we have heard so much about, the people who need their glasses, the delivery of food to the north, services to small communities. All of those needs and hurts will be mended the minute we take the locks off the door and get people back to work. People who want their mail delivered really do not care whether we keep clause 15 in Bill C-6 or not.
I beg of all of us in the next few hours that we find a way to hoist ourselves out of hoist amendments. In studying this I learned to my horror that we could move a hoist amendment again and continue to debate the bill. We could be here for days. That is in no one's interest. 
Let us move to unanimous consent on things that make sense and let us solve this problem. Let us get the postal workers back to work and do it in a way that shows a collective respect for them and their work.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, the member said she does not like all the repetition. There is no repetition on this side of the House of messages we are getting from businesses and individuals in our ridings. I received one from a constituent in the riding of Blackstrap who owns and works at a local insurance office, a small business, the type of people the NDP members claim they represent. 
The constituent wrote, “We look out for all types of people, seniors, farmers, students, families, small business, churches, and we rely on Canada Post to send our clients their insurance policies and other necessary communications. For many younger individuals and urban families we send correspondence by mail. However, for those such as seniors, farmers, etc., these seniors are rural individuals and now are without the documents that would confirm their interests are protected or are without notice of potential risks they should be aware of. I would be interested to see how many vulnerable individuals would the federal opposition like to put in the position of having their valuables and investments destroyed with no protection so they can champion postal workers having extensive pay increases and receiving lavish but economically burdened pensions.”
 That is from one of my concerned constituents in Blackstrap.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing that point of view. If the hon. member can consider that everything I said spoke to that concern, that individual with that difficulty would not be in any difficulty at all if the government benches were prepared to compromise just a bit and tweak Bill C-6 so we can get people back to work faster. That is all I am asking. I am just asking the member to consider that when she reads out valid and important concerns on all sides of the House.
I have received similar emails. I read one yesterday in the House from a local newspaper that cannot get its papers delivered. How on earth does it advance the interest of those mentioned in the email the hon. member read out loud to keep the lockout going by failure to compromise?
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister must have Deepak Chopra's phone number because he only just hired him in January of 2011. In fact they scoured the countryside to find a corporate hitman to come in and stir up problems at Canada Post and upset the delicate and fragile balance of industrial relations in a fairly volatile workplace. We know the Prime Minister is now in Thetford Mines revelling in a pile of chrysotile, even though the global community has condemned Canada for--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. I would like to remind all hon. members that it is not appropriate to comment on whether members are or are not in the House during proceedings. 
Would the hon. member quickly move to his question.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague's views on whether or not the Prime Minister knows the phone number of Deepak Chopra, because he hand-picked him and parachuted him into that position in January 2011. Could he not pick up the phone again and tell Deepak Chopra to lift the lockout, let the workers go back to work and the mail will flow?
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has me at a disadvantage. I am not in a position to speak to what is in the  Prime Minister's rolodex.
I do agree with the hon. member and I applaud his quite valiant work over more than a decade on the asbestos issue. However, on this issue, to solve the lockout we need to be perhaps less skilled in our rhetoric and more skilled in the communication skills that Deepak Chopra is famous for, harmony and co-operation. The rhetorical flourish is fine, but to solve this, I think we should all tone it down.
Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague, a former fellow Cape Bretoner on entering these chambers and being the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I have been receiving emails from people in my riding in Cape Breton also. The last one I got is from Mr. Richard Andrews. He is asking me to do everything I can to get the mail moving. In Cape Breton we see all the postal workers being locked out with no income and their family members have no medical plan.
There is a lot more co-operation here and I see the NDP made some space so the member could make her statement. I see more co-operation. It seems that it comes down to half a per cent when we look at the difference between the Canada Post offer and what the Conservative government has offered. 
If an amendment were put forward regarding that half a per cent, the minister might take a look at it, and we could have the mail moving and people back at work.
The hon. member used to work for a minister here and knows the system. Does she think an amendment is possible which would somehow get the mail moving again?
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, yes. I believe the first step would be for the official opposition to have private conversations with the Minister of Labour. Those conversations should be shared with the House in the hopes of achieving unanimous consent so the workers can get back to work this weekend.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing the people of Roxboro, Île-Bizard, Pierrefonds and Dollard-des-Ormeaux a happy national holiday. I would very much like to be with them this evening to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day at Île-Bizard, as I did so often when I was a teenager, but it will not be possible this year.
 Many of my colleagues today expressed their regrets about not being able to be in their ridings, to which the MPs on the other side of the House replied several times by saying it was their own decision. Unfortunately, this allegation is very different from reality, which is not surprising. Indeed, since the beginning of this debate, we have heard a great many unfair accusations and phony arguments from the Conservatives.
 For example, they have used the economic crisis to justify the need to act quickly, when it was the government itself that imposed the lockout. The Hon. Minister of Laboursaid on June 15 that she had not received many complaints about the rotating strikes. Another example was from my colleague on the right telling us that they were worried about the viability of Canada Post. And yet, he knows full well that Canada Post earned $281 million in revenue last year. This money goes into the coffers or is invested to modernize the corporation’s infrastructure and equipment, and it all created employment here. We could also point to the fact that we receive excellent service from Canada Post and that our stamps are among the least expensive in the world. 
 In another phony argument, the legitimacy of the union’s decisions are being attacked. We heard this a lot today. Who is surprised that the Conservatives are taking advantage of this situation to launch a smear campaign in an effort to demonize any workers who organize?
 And yet, as the MP for Hochelaga explained earlier today, the union consulted its members about the mandate they wanted to give it. The members voted and the union obtained 94% support going into the negotiations. And yet it would appear that my colleagues on the other side of the House, who boast of receiving support from 40% of the population, are claiming that they have a clear and strong mandate. The union received 94% support to conduct these negotiations.
 The Conservatives are also hiding behind reports from worried citizens. They read many such comments to us, and it is touching, but they never say anything about those who support Canada Post employees. Some people might be surprised to hear it, but there are indeed people who support the striking employees, and take them coffee and food. There are also worried workers awaiting the outcome of this dispute, and wondering how the government will react when the time comes for them to negotiate their own working conditions.
I am nevertheless sensitive to the fact that a number of people are suffering because of the work stoppage at Canada Post. I am trying to be very clear. Although we are standing up today for the workers, those at Canada Post and all others who fear for their future working conditions, we are just as mindful of public concern about the lockout at Canada Post, among business owners, people waiting for their cheques and everyone else. We are well aware of that.
That brings me to another false line of debate all too often raised by the Conservatives. They accuse us of prolonging the closure of Canada Post and of not working with the government in the interests of citizens. That is a red herring. Let us get something clear here: the NDP wants postal services to resume just as much as the Conservatives do. No one is in favour of stopping postal services—no one. What we are denouncing today and what is intolerable to us is the way in which the Conservatives want to resolve this dispute.
We are opposed to this bill on the resumption and continuation of postal services. We are not opposed to the resumption of postal services, but rather to the working conditions that this bill imposes on workers, to this government's way of rejecting the workers' right to negotiate.
To sum up, the members opposite have said this is a situation that no one wanted. That's true; we agree. So let us stop the false debates, let us stop the lockout and let us resume the negotiations now.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a bit of inconsistency in the NDP's argument. On one side they say the government should play no role and that we should allow the two sides to bargain. On the other side they accuse the government of somehow being involved in the lockout. Therefore, on one side we are not supposed to be involved, and then they say we are involved. They are all over the road on it.
One thing seems very clear to me. We are calling this a lockout, and my hon. colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac said some time ago that in fact the workers themselves are locked out by their union. They are locked out from having the opportunity to have their say on the most recent contract offer that was made by Canada Post, and I do not understand why. I have letters from postal workers. 
 I hear the member for Malpeque shouting, but I want to ask this member a very succinct question. I have a number of letters from postal workers in my riding who are experiencing hardship and who want the opportunity to vote on Canada Post's most recent contract offer. 
Would this member join me in calling on CUPW to allow its members to vote on Canada Post's offer? Doing that would make this bill redundant.
[Interjection]
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite, who has just given us further proof that the Conservatives' arguments are red herrings and lead us into false debate. Thanks once again. I heard my colleague say—and I'm sure the translation was excellent— that the lockout was imposed by the unions. I am sure there is something completely distorted and false in that statement. 
Yes, unfortunately, there is a lockout, and it was not at all imposed by either the workers or the unions. The unions had a strong mandate from their members, and we must respect their rights and let them negotiate their collective agreement.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by our honourable colleague. 
A few minutes ago, I put a question to our colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who mentioned, for example, that the NDP might perhaps be able to reach an agreement if the government could offer the same wages as Canada Post cited in their last offer.
Can she confirm that that is indeed the NDP's position? I also hope we will have some comments from the government on that offer.
[Interjection]
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for raising the point that this bill on the resumption of postal services indeed suggests giving employees a wage even lower than what was negotiated. That is something we find intolerable and it is an example of the way in which the government is intervening in the negotiations. It is something we find utterly reprehensible. We would also prefer that workers have the right to negotiate, not just Canada Post's workers, but all organized workers.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, as soon as they get a majority, they exercise their authority. That's how I would characterize this government's attitude toward its responsibilities. The rotating strike started just one month after the election, to the day. The principle of a rotating strike, of course, is that it lasts 24 hours at one location before continuing at another.
The rotating strike was not supposed to penalize the entire country and would ensure service at all locations, with the exception of the municipality affected by the strike on a particular day, on a rotating basis, one municipality after another.
The government cannot tell us that a rotating strike is worse than a work stoppage forced by the employer. What is happening now is not a rotating strike, but rather a lockout. We can therefore say that everything has been brought to a standstill with the aid of the Conservative government.
The public is not blind. The rotating strike left the door open to negotiations between the two parties, but the lockout does not. The workers decided to conduct a rotating strike because they were aggrieved, as the government had offered them less than their employer, Canada Post.
The workers sought increases at least equal to the rate of inflation, particularly since Canada Post is profitable and therefore would run no risk by improving the situation of its employees. Remember that it earned a profit of $281 million last year.
A number of labour strikes have been harshly suppressed in the past. I can offer the example of the Winnipeg General Strike in 1919, the most famous strike in Canadian history. Within a few hours, 30,000 workers walked off the job. The issues were the collective bargaining principle, wage increases and improved working conditions. In 1949, there was another famous strike, the strike in Thetford Mines, involving 5,000 workers, including 2,000 miners from Asbestos. The issues there were wage increases, the pension plan and recognition for the family. The issues have always been the same.
That was a time when any attempt to organize in the workplace was immediately repressed. It was a time when there was no legislation on working conditions.
 I get the unpleasant impression we are reliving that period when workers had no rights.
 The current incidents at Canada Post are strangely similar to what happened in the last century.
 The government complains of the harm done to small businesses, harm that it has caused through its lockout. 
The government is trying to pass this bill as quickly as possible in contempt of the workers' most fundamental right. 
The NDP sensed what I would call this totalitarian attitude long before the election. Unfortunately, our worst fears have been realized, and not just once, but twice. 
The NDP opposed the budget tabled on June 6, 2011. It opposed the bill to end the strike by Air Canada's 3,800 call centre and check-in counter personnel, which was just barely avoided. It now opposes Bill C-6  because the bill does not enable the two parties to go back to the bargaining table to reach a joint solution.
However, the workers wanted to negotiate with management, and they want to continue those negotiations.
Canada Post wants new employees to accept reduced wages, benefits, job security and pension plans compared to what is offered to current employees. Quebec law prohibits employers from creating working conditions for new employees that are different from those enjoyed by current workers. However, employees of businesses under federal authority, such as banks, telecommunications companies and the Canadian public service, are not protected by that legislation. This “orphan clause” providing for differential treatment made headlines in Quebec a few years ago. 
Might we state once again that it was the government that subjected the postal service to a lockout, not the unionized employees? Unionized employees were conducting rotating strikes to avoid harming small and medium-sized enterprises and the public. Unionized employees delivered pension, workers' compensation and employment insurance cheques to Canadians.
“Aimed at the black duck, killed the white, oh, son of the king, you are unkind.” That line from V'la l'bon vent, an old Quebec folk song, is very appropriate to the work required of us today by the Conservative government.
Mail service is of course very important to Canada's economy, and any extended stoppage of that service would call for action by the Government of Canada in the public's interest. But what is the black duck at which the Hon. Minister of Labour is aiming in this matter? What is the cause of this interruption in mail service across Canada?
After a few days of perfectly lawful rotating strikes that had virtually no effect on mail delivery, Canada Post management decided unilaterally to cut back Canada's postal service, violating, with impunity, its own mission to deliver the mail quickly and efficiently across Canada. That decision alone would have constituted grounds for the minister to table a bill to summarily dismiss Canada Post management for incompetence and contempt of public order.
 But now the Minister of Labour has drawn her big silver gun in the form of a special act and drafted legislation mistreating postal workers instead of rightly attacking those who are disturbing the public order, Canada Post's senior management. 
This legislation is out of all proportion to the harm it aims to remedy. Senior management at Canada Post, feeling supported by such a well-connected accomplice, will thus order a lockout of its workers, putting the finishing touches to its sabotage of mail delivery across the country. 
One can just imagine the size of the bonuses those gentlemen will be receiving for that brilliant idea. 
This bill is a crude joke that rewards the turpitude and incompetence of Canada Post management. “Shameful,” as our leader would say. In addition, the minister adds insult to injury by getting back at the unionized workers: the legislation even provides for working conditions inferior to those set out in the draft collective agreement.
To vote for this bill would be to show contempt for Canada's unionized workers and to deny them their rights. However, Canadian taxpayers pay the minister's salary in order to protect those rights.
To vote for this bill would be to reward the laziness of Canada Post's senior management, who are more concerned about their year-end bonuses than about the performance of the service they are required to provide to Canadians.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, first, if I could, I would like to congratulate Toyota. In my riding of Cambridge the workers and the management have actually received recognition as being the number one auto assembly plant in the world.
I want to put forward as well an email that I have received. 
 I [am] writing to you in a hope that you would help intervene in the CPC/CUPW strike. I want to work; the union is not allowing the membership to vote on the generous offer put forward. Please contact the appropriate member and give them the concerns that many postal workers are unhappy with the union's approach and would like the Gov't or CPC to order a vote. 
My question to the member is this. It appears to me that the union has locked out their membership in a very undemocratic way. Will the member support a call to her union bosses and the conductors of the socialist party to demand that the union allow its membership a free vote?
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, while we were all in the House last night, our leader suggested that negotiations resume and that there be a truce so people could have six months to negotiate in a thorough manner. The lockout has to be stopped and the locks removed.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, to the member, I appreciate the great speech but the members on the other side have forgotten something. They have locked out the CUPW workers. Their legislation prevents them from voting on the contract, so what are they talking about? The legislation prevents the workers from voting on the contract.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. I would just remind all hon. members that questions and comments are directed to the person who has given the presentation.
Does the honourable member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles wish to answer the question? 
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question. Would it be possible to repeat it? I did not hear the question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): This is a period for questions or comments. That was a comment. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what happened was that my hon. colleague requested to hear the question. Because of the heckling and shouting from the Conservatives, she was not able to hear the question, so she said, “Can I hear the question?” 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. 
After a speech is given, members have an opportunity to ask a question or make a comment. It is widely misunderstood that there is a requirement that there be a question. There is not. My understanding is that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek actually made a comment rather than pose a question, as he has the right to do.
 I would also agree that the noise in the chamber made it difficult for the hon. member to hear.
On questions and comments, we have time for a short question from the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
[Interjection]
Jamie Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member had time to respond to the comment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): We will try this again.
If the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles wishes, she may answer her colleague.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. 
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 
The government must really do something and stop this lockout. That is all the parties are waiting for, to resume negotiations, and the unions are waiting to resume mail delivery. As the member at the far end of the House said, people are waiting for their diapers, their mail and their prescription drugs to be delivered. So it is time everyone started negotiating. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, with a short question, please.
Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her talk this afternoon, this evening, or today, whatever time it is wherever people are. 
The fact is that this is a serious issue for all Canadians. I have had the opportunity to be in management and work with a unionized company and I have also been in a union. I had the unfortunate opportunity to participate in a strike for several weeks, walking around the printing plant for a newspaper, from midnight to 4 a.m. It was not a good experience for anybody involved.
The workers lose on both sides of the perspective. The only winners in this are the union management and the company management. I think the fact is that people are being blamed for locking out or striking when everyone knows it is a work stoppage and we need to resolve this issue. The way to get the locks lifted is to pass this legislation.
Does my hon. colleague not believe that the best way to resolve this issue, to get the workers back to work, is to pass this legislation opening the locks so we can resume the delivery of the mail to small businesses--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I must give the hon. member time to respond.
 L'honorable députée de Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles a la parole.
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Madam Speaker, to respond to the hon. member, as he said, it is often the management party that emerges from negotiations or strikes in a winning position. There is a power grab here by the management side, Canada Post.
 Second, like the hon. member, I have also managed businesses and conducted negotiations. It was done in another manner, not by lockout. We discussed and re-discussed the issues and we ultimately found a solution. 
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by doing something that perhaps we should have done a great deal earlier, and that is to recognize and to pay tribute to one of the most well-respected, well-known, brave and dignified labour leaders that this country has ever seen, and I make reference to Jean-Claude Parrot, the former leader of CUPW, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
 He led a couple of strikes in the mid-1970s against a draconian situation in probably the most hostile industrial relations environment in recent history. He wound up going to prison for his convictions and his beliefs. I met with JC just a few years ago in Geneva, where he was representing Canada at the ILO. 
I raise this because our conversation led to growing trends in his home country, my current country. The name of Thomas d'Aquino came up because we were talking about the driving influences, the dynamics, facing the labour movement and the economy generally today, and that seemed to be the wish list of Thomas d'Aquino, the declaration of Thomas d'Aquino on what Canada needs to do.
 He was the unofficial prime minister of Canada. He was guiding things during the 1990s. He had 10 or 12 things that he said Canada must do in order to prosper in the 21st century, et cetera. One by one, he was ticking them off, and right up in the top three was that corporations had to get out from under their legacy costs.
“Legacy costs” is code for pensions. Legacy costs are blamed all the time, even when the auto industry got into trouble recently. They never let a good crisis go to waste. The first thing the industry said was that it was not industry mismanagement and not the fact that the industry builds cars that nobody wants to buy, but the legacy costs. If only the industry could get out from under their legacy costs, said the auto industry, it would be as good as Honda and Toyota.
Jean-Claude Parrot, in his wisdom, flagged this for me as we sat having dinner in Geneva. I have been watching his prescient observations come true, because we have seen an unprecedented assault on the very notion that workers should have an expectation of a reasonable pension plan when they retire. It has been systematically undermined and chipped away at.
Here is the modus operandi. First, we get Thomas d'Aquino, or John Manley now, to say something. He will say that we need to get rid of pensions. Suddenly, a couple of right-wing think tanks come along and validate that. Sure enough, a couple of studies by the Fraser Institute say that we have to get rid of pensions. Then, sure enough, the lobbyists are unleashed; let loose the hounds. The lobbyists descend on Parliament Hill. Suddenly, Tim Powers and Geoff Norquay are on Parliament Hill saying that we have to get rid of pensions. 
All of a sudden, a neo-conservative government dutifully falls into line and says that we have to get rid of pensions, although perhaps in a nicer, kinder tone, because villainy wears many masks, as we know, but none so treacherous as the mask of virtue, and the government is good at putting on the mask of virtue when necessary. 
We will even see the government use that trick tonight as it tries to misrepresent what is really going on in the lockout at Canada Post. Because this is not really about 0.5 of 1% of a wage increase for one of the three years; that in and of itself would probably not be enough to cause an impasse in a national institution. What this is really about is the systematic erosion of a public service pension plan and the benefits and the expectations of that group of workers. They chose to take on Canada Post because, frankly, it has been an irritant for years. It has been a very militant union, and as I said, it is one of the most volatile industrial relations environments in the western world. It has been a sick, sick environment, and I am the first to recognize this.
There was a fragile balance. After the extremely hostile days of the seventies, a relative labour peace, a compact, as it were, was managed, and that survived until about the time the Liberals started demanding that Canada Post pay the government dividends. All of a sudden, the mandate of Canada Post was expanded to not just delivering mail on time and providing good service and reasonable postal rates, but to paying millions of dollars per year into the general revenue.
That is when the government started milking it like a cash cow. That is when the pension started to get starved, et cetera. This has been a problem throughout, but Canada Post did manage to get relative labour peace for a number of years, until Moya Greene was parachuted in. Moya Greene tried to change the corporate culture at Canada Post, but then most recently the government went head hunting. 
This is one of the problems with not having a public appointments commission. They went head hunting for a corporate hitman who would come in and do the really dirty work, who would really throw a spanner into the gears of industrial relations, who would stir things up to the point where we would have this impasse and the difficulty we see today. 
It is the same as in the movie Wag the Dog. One manufactures a crisis and then points to the crisis and says that the only thing to do is to use the extreme measure of privatization. It is not paranoid to assume that is the ultimate goal here. I have watched the reaction every time we raise it. All those people on the Conservative benches nod their heads saying, “Well, what is wrong with that? It's a given, isn't it? We are going to privatize it sooner or later. We might as well start now”. 
Frankly, most of the country does not agree with privatizing Canada Post.
They parachuted in this hitman, Deepak Chopra, not the guru with the incense and all that stuff, but the other one, the corporate hitman. They parachuted him in at $650,000 a year plus a 33% bonus for everything he can squeeze out of the workers in this round of bargaining. That is pretty good change for the CEO of this company.
We had an expression in the labour movement when I was negotiating agreements that we do not want tourists at the bargaining table. We do not want tourists, but we surely do not want an agent provocateur. We surely do not want a saboteur at the bargaining table who is going to deliberately undermine things, deliberately provoke a conflict and then have the government of the day run to the rescue to put the fire out. They threw a bucket of kerosene on the smouldering embers of an old historic labour dispute and then came rushing in with the fire brigade saying, “Put out the fire with back-to-work legislation. It is a lockout, more hose, more pressure. We need more steam”. It is crazy.
I represent the riding of Winnipeg Centre. In 1921 the Government of Canada wanted to lock up J. S. Woodsworth as a leader of the 1919 Winnipeg general strike, but the good people of my riding sent him to Ottawa instead to be their member of Parliament. He stayed there for 21 years and became the founder and first leader of our old party, the CCF, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I am very proud of that history and that tradition, and we are not going to stop that tradition today no matter what we call our party, because we smell a rat in the woodpile. 
This is not a normal labour dispute. There is something sinister going on here, and it is not paranoid to assume that. I keep seeing nodding heads on that side every time we imply that what the Conservatives are really trying to do is find justification to privatize this crown corporation either by starving it to death or using it as a cash cow.
It is really hard to understand why there would be an impasse for a cost of living wage increase when the company showed $281 million in profits last year and similar amounts in previous years. This is a stable work environment. The company has shed a lot of labour costs by technological change so its operating costs are actually going down even though its capital costs went up to put in new mail sorting services et cetera.
It does a good job. It is a Canadian institution that we value and treasure. We are not going to let those institutions by which we define ourselves as Canadians be dismantled one by one.
The labour compact in the postwar years led to relative labour peace and an end to wildcat strikes. The deal was when productivity was up and profits were up, workers' wages would go up. That was the deal, and that deal has been eroded and compromised.
Joy Smith: Madam Speaker, I must say I always look forward to the member opposite's grasp of theatre. It is very interesting to listen to some of his comments, and his use of hyperbole is absolutely astounding. However, the factual content is somewhat worrisome. 
The facts are that on May 2, this country elected a strong, stable Conservative majority government. Canadians elected a strong, stable majority Conservative government because they had confidence that our government could handle the economic downturn that we are coming out of in such a fragile economy.
Is the member aware that Canada Post is losing $25 million a day from this strike, this lockout? Is he aware that the economic downturn is not helped by what is happening right now? Is he willing to pass Bill C-6 and encourage his caucus comrades to do that? 
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, when we form the first strong, stable majority progressive social democratic government, we would probably pick up the phone and tell Deepak Chopra to cut the bolts on Canada Post's doors. My colleague comes from Winnipeg, and we know that every kid on the street there has a bolt cutter so he can steal bikes. We could borrow one of those bolt cutters and cut the padlocks off Canada Post to get its workers back to work. 
Actually, what Canada Post is saving in wages probably offsets anything it is losing in terms of mail volume. However, the fact remains that the solution to this problem is not back to work legislation. The solution to the problem is to accept the offer of the union to go back to work without any rotating strikes, which it has offered to do, which could happen tomorrow morning if the Conservative government told its flunky, Deepak Chopra, to unlock the padlocks. 
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I too enjoyed the member's remarks and I agree with his last question. It is funny how in this legislation there is really nothing to cut back the massive bonuses that management gets. It is all taken out on the workers.
My question really relates to an area that I know the member is very concerned about. Earlier, the member for Peterborough got up in the House and went after the NDP strenuously in trying to argue that the workers were not allowed the right to vote on the contract. Is that not a major contradiction with what his own party is trying to do when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board? The government is denying farmers the right to vote on whether the wheat board remains or not. Is that not a major contradiction? 
I ask the member if he could maybe explain that to the House and to the member for Peterborough?
Pat Martin: It does seem to be a glaring contradiction, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate my colleague for raising the question. Let me just answer on a serious note. 
The strike mandate given to the bargaining committee at Canada Post was the biggest in its history. Some 97.5% of all the employees gave a strike mandate to the bargaining committee, because they were told there were rollbacks on the table from the company and the mandate was there. It is customary, actually, to negotiate the best deal possible and then take it to the employees. 
The lack of democracy here, or the undermining of the industrial relations process, comes from the heavy hand of the state imposing its will on a democratic process and a constitutionally protected process of free collective bargaining. 
The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, I would like to advise hon. members that if they want to be recognized, they ought to wait until they are recognized to make their comments. Otherwise, they will wait for a long time to speak.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sudbury.
Glenn Thibeault: Madam Speaker, I do not know how I always draw the short straw, but I always seem to speak after my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre, so I will try to have as much theatrics in my speech as my hon. colleague did. 
Before I begin, I would like to wish all Quebeckers and francophones right across the country, but specifically those celebrating in my riding of Sudbury, and especially my wife, Yolanda, and my two daughters, Trinity and Thea, a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Bonne fête nationale. 
I speak today with much worry, worry for working families in this country. I worry for people like Todd and Chris and Conway and Steve, as I have spoken to them about their concerns. They worry that their invitations to an important event tomorrow are stuck in the postal outlet. 
While today we are fighting for the workers at Canada Post, tomorrow I worry that it could be another union, another working group, or other public sectors workers. Who is next?
Today's debate is to fight for all Canadian working families. 
The attacks on Canada's postal workers may not be as bold as what is happening to public service workers in the United States, but they have started. They are as deeply rooted in an ideology as what we have seen south of the border. A troubling aspect of these attacks, whether they are happening in the U.S., in Canada, or anywhere else around the world, is the skewed portrayal of workers. 
As Paul Moist outlines, 
 The large majority of public-sector workers are in health care, schools, social services, and local government. They are mostly women and are far from highly paid.Of the over 600,000 members of CUPE, the average annual pay is less than $40,000. 
It takes a certain amount of gall to portray these workers as privileged. 
Attacking the workers and attempting to put all responsibility on workers is at best a mistake and is at worst an all-out assault on the middle and working classes. 
However, as the current government, try as it might, attacks these workers, people across the country cannot seem to figure out exactly why pensions and good wages are so bad for Canada and why this government is against letting families have a decent living. Why would they legislate lower wages? It is unfair, let alone unjust, and I would encourage the government to withdraw this from the bill. 
First, contrary to what various Canada Post management officials are claiming, postal workers are not a cost of production that is some kind of burden on taxpayers. Postal workers, through their labour, create tremendous new value in the economy, just as miners do and just as other transportation and communication workers do. Indeed, as a crown corporation, Canada Post has consistently made a profit over the last few years, despite the fact that electronic mail usage has grown significantly. The contribution of postal workers to the creation of this new value should be praised and not belittled. 
That is why I want to praise the CUPW Sudbury Local 612. On Monday, this local volunteered to deliver government cheques to seniors and others in my community, and 5,600 government cheques were delivered, despite the workers having been locked out.
 While my colleagues on the other side have called the union members thugs, I would like to mention that the union members in my community and the union members right across the country work hard for their local charities. I can attest that they work for the United Way, for the food bank, and for cancer care. Our union members care about their communities and care about their country, and we reject the idea that they are thugs. 
We are seeing the effects of slashing workers' wages, pensions, and benefits in quite dramatic form, but for the CEOs, the story is quite different.
 The compensation for the CEO of Canada Post is approved by the President of the Treasury Board. For the last four years, the salary of Canada Post's CEO was as follows: 
In 2007, the base salary was $455,000, plus a 25% bonus, equalling $568,750. In 2008, it was $482,000, plus a 33% bonus, or an 8 percentage point increase in bonuses from one year to the next. In 2009, it was $489,700, plus a 33% bonus. In 2010, it $497,100 in base pay, plus a 33% bonus, totalling $661,143.
What does this government offer? It offers 1.75% in the first year, 1.5% in the second year, and 2% in each of the next two years. Obviously, the CEO has the support of this government, not the workers of Canada.
As Dan Charbonneau, the president of OECTA's Sudbury Secondary Unit, wrote to me, he could not believe the legislation being brought in by the Conservatives dictating that they had to return to work. Mr. Charbonneau added: 
 This government has gone one step further by tilting the arbitration in management's favour by imposing wage increases that are less than those already negotiated at the table. 
As was mentioned before, it is unfair and unjust to legislate lower wages. Why would this government not withdraw this from the bill? That is a question we are still trying to understand.
In summary, this is not a strike but a lockout imposed by management and the Conservative government. The government is now imposing a contract on the workers. This is not fair collective bargaining. Along with all New Democrats, I will work hard to ensure that the government recognizes the importance of fair and negotiated contracts.
If the Conservatives are so concerned about mail service for Canadians, especially in rural areas, including ones that fall in my riding around Sudbury, in Nickel Belt and throughout the north, then end this lockout now.
Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have had tonnes of communication from residents in the City of Barrie who are concerned about the strike and how it is affecting small businesses and the economy. I am surprised how one-sided it has been. People have been adamant that we need to see postal workers get back to work to make sure that we do not damage small business and that the seniors we have spoken about get their cheques across Canada, not just in Sudbury.
One letter I thought was very telling. It spoke to me of the many different ways Canadians are affected by the NDP's inability to support this very important legislation and how this filibuster is hurting Canadians. I want to find out what the hon. member thinks about this and if there are similar circumstances in his riding of people being affected.
This is the letter I received today, whose author asked if I would read it. Debbie from Barrie, who is restricted in a wheelchair, asked me to pass it on. She said: “I read your information about Canada Post. I really hope this gets resolved soon with the back to work legislation. My older brother passed away June 6 and he was cremated in Ottawa and his ashes are stuck in the mail. I am sick about this. We had a service Monday without his ashes. Thank you for trying to pass the back to work legislation”.
That was a message sent today. I couldn't believe it. I bet there are hundreds and hundreds of examples of Canadians who are being tremendously affected by the NDP's inability to support this legislation.
[Interjection]
Glenn Thibeault: Madam Speaker, of course there are many people being affected right across the country. However, it is in the hands of this government.
The hon. member knows that he could easily talk to his colleagues and that they could make the phone call to ensure that locks are cut at the doors of Canada Post, so that the employees could go back to work and distribute the mail. This is a very easy solution. They just have to make the right choice, and they continue to make the wrong choice.
Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, what has been unfortunate in this debate—it is not a filibuster, it has been a debate—is that the Conservatives have been trying to tell Canadians that the mail has been stopped because of the New Democratic Party. We know what has actually happened is that they locked out the workers and they shut down Canada Post. They introduced legislation last night, and even if it had passed the mail still would not have started today
We have at no time stopped this. Mail is not going to start again until Monday, so that gives us 48 hours to discuss this. It seems to me that the only people who would be discomfited by having to work the weekend to find a solution would maybe be some of the Conservatives. We have been saying all along that we are more than willing to find a solution. 
We have 48 hours within this House. Of course it will go past that if they do not want to negotiate.
However, given the fact that the Conservatives have promised again and again that their primary concern is getting the mail running, I would ask my hon. colleague whether he does not think that in this 48 hours before Monday morning they could take a few reasonable steps: for one, sending a message to open Canada Post, and two, ensuring that it pulls the wage clause out of the back to work legislation. They could then go home to the barbecues and the mail would run. 
In 48 hours, do members not think we could solve this? 
[Interjection]
Glenn Thibeault: Madam Speaker, I have been in this House for three years, and it has been an honour to do so. I have seen this House come together and work as one team to pass legislation quickly.
We have the opportunity, if the government so chooses, to withdraw that unjust and unfair wage reduction legislation and to cut the locks off the doors so the workers of Canada Post can go back there to start getting the mail out.
 If the Conservatives want to do this, I am sure we can get this done. They can get back to their barbecues and the mail can get out by Monday.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to wish everyone in my constituency of Pontiac and in Quebec a happy national holiday. 
I have listened closely to the debate over the past 18 or 20 hours and have come to the conclusion that it is a debate about the role of government in civil society. On that issue, I believe this government must be reminded of the history it seems so easily to disregard. That is odd for a conservative party.
The 19th century proved that unbridled capitalism was unrealistic. We have learned that we cannot rely on the good faith of big business and management when it comes to workers' conditions. There are good reasons why we have unions. I would remind the government that the higher the degree of capitalism, the more abuses there are. Sometimes the “big bosses” decided all issues for workers, sometimes even life and death matters.
The work week in the 19th century varied from 60 to 70 hours. It was 60 hours in the secondary sector and 70 hours in the tertiary sector. Fifteen-hour days were not unusual. Workers generally did not even have enough time to eat. Children made up 8% of the labour force in Quebec in 1891 and were such cheap labour that demand exceeded supply. They worked to the point of exhaustion in unsanitary conditions, exposed to all risks and without supervision. It was in those extremely difficult conditions that workers established unions to protect themselves from the vagaries of the new, impersonal labour market.
Although the first unions were small, local organizations, they immediately triggered hostile reactions from governments and employers. Governments in fact declared the unions illegal. Union movement sympathizers were blacklisted and constantly subjected to intimidation. That is why legislation was introduced to protect workers. Despite the strength of this opposition, the poor wages and the dangerous working conditions, strikes and protests increased, and the unions became established. It is a heroic story, I think.
The government often played a negative role in this story, and we have learned a great deal about the nature of government thanks to the union movement. The dark hours in the history of the union movement show that the role of the state should be to protect its citizens and to remain neutral in labour-management disputes, but, instead of remaining neutral, this government shows contempt for workers and their hard-won rights. 
The truth is that the workers of this country and of the world, the ancestors of the vast majority of us, have bled for the right to organize and protect themselves.
 The Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes last week. They have a right to do that. The union nevertheless offered to end the strike if the company allowed the old contract remain in effect during the negotiations, but Canada Post refused to do so.
 At midnight on June 15, Canada Post decided to lock out its employees and to shut down mail service. That is no longer a strike; it is a lockout, an unjustifiable lockout because Canada post is profitable and provides high-quality service. 
Let us compare the cost of sending a letter in Canada with the alternatives in the private sector. We pay 59¢ to mail a standard letter. In Germany, it costs 77¢, in Austria it is 88¢, and in the Netherlands it is 64¢. Therefore, why put workers into a corner and force them to accept concessions regarding their salaries and benefits, when the corporation is making $381 million in profits and its CEO is paid over $600,000? It does not make any sense.
It is difficult not to conclude that Canada Post is taking a hard line, to the point of putting services in peril, particularly in rural and remote areas such as mine. Again, the role of the state is to remain neutral and to facilitate an agreement. It is not to side with the employer.
I, like many others in the House, have heard concerns from constituents in my riding about receiving cheques and payments. These concerns are well-founded, but the reality is that they are not caused by striking workers. 
The rotating strikes by CUPW were designed to ensure that the essential mail was delivered, but Canada Post has chained the doors. The workers cannot get in to do their essential work. They did not ask for this. Canadians did not ask for this.
I invite Canadians and the people of my riding to see the situation for what it is: a tactic on behalf of Canada Post and the government to exert pressure. Instead of acting to bring both parties back to the table and restore good faith, the government has chosen this labour dispute to stomp on the rights of all workers.
It is Canada Post and the government which have attacked the most vulnerable. It is this lockout and this bill. They are the ones depriving single mothers of their monthly child tax benefit cheques. They are the ones depriving seniors of receiving their GIS or OAS payments. They are the ones depriving Canadians who depend on CPP disability benefit payments and low-income Canadians waiting on tax return cheques or, in the case of some of my constituents, their disability cheques and business payments, both of which Canada Post refuses to give them. Those are tactics.
We should also realize that this legislation is not an accident. The fact that the first great labour battle with the government is with CUPW is not an accident. I, for one, salute the great work postal workers have done in the past to ensure social progress in our country. They have been at the forefront of many progressive struggles.
CUPW was the first Canadian union to pass a boycott resolution against South African apartheid. It has also taken stances against the Iraq war, as well as against NAFTA and FTAA. CUPW is also a major reason why we have maternity leave benefits in our country.
If the government is neutral, as it repeats ad nauseam, as if repeating it will make it true, why impose a lower wage than offered by the management of Canada Post in the bill. This goes against the entire principle of collective bargaining. We call for this section of the bill to be removed immediately.
Finally, I will add my voice to that of my colleagues. Take the locks off and give Canada Post workers a decent wage, decent pensions and dignity.
Dean Del Mastro: Madam Speaker, there has certainly been an awful lot of mischaracterizations about what is going on and how we have arrived at this point. The member in the official opposition continued along that route. He indicated that he thought this was a provocative action in many ways and that it never should have happened.
 However, there was no talk of how Canada Post significantly had suffered economically through the rotating strikes, especially when it culminated in Toronto and Montreal. It indicated that some $100 million had been lost by Canada Post. That money belongs not just to the workers of Canada Post, but to all Canadians. That $100 million is real and it really did not have a choice.
This is the position that Canada Post and its workers are in, but it made an offer just last week. The members across the way have constantly talked about the wages in that offer and it seems they are prepared to accept it on behalf of the Canada Post workers. Is that what everyone else is hearing? That is what I am hearing.
I certainly never called CUPW members thugs. I said the union bosses are thugs, the ones that go to Fiji and Maui on—
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Union dues.
Dean Del Mastro:  Yes, on union dues. Why will they not allow their members to vote on that contract?
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting his statistics, but Canada Post has made $381 million. One would think that it could pay a decent wage to the workers and ensure pensions. The CEO is making close to $600,000 a year. There are 55,000 postal workers in this country who should have a decent wage and a decent pension, and Canada Post can afford it.
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. 
Charlie Angus: If we are going to have--
The Deputy Speaker: I am assuming further to the comments that have been made.
Charlie Angus: We have at least another 48 hours before Monday comes. I ask the member for Peterborough to withdraw his comment, which he just made when he sat down, where he called people “union thugs”. I am sure the people who work in Peterborough are not union thugs. I would like him to withdraw that comment.
[Interjection]
Dean Del Mastro: On the same point of order, earlier I asked for unanimous consent to table a document from a local postal worker in Peterborough who I support, who actually referred to the union management as “union thugs”. I asked for unanimous consent to table it. Can I have it now?
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?
There is no unanimous consent.
Order, please.
I was unable to hear the comments from either the parliamentary secretary or the hon. member because of the shouting and the heckling, so I would ask everybody to calm down and listen to each other so that we can have a more respectful debate.
Is there a question now? I have lost track.
The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou has the floor for a question.
Raymond Côté: Madam Speaker, I am certainly going to please members opposite by pointing out that the current lockout does indeed have a significant economic impact. That impact is not just related to the shutting down of postal services, but also to the imposition of certain working conditions on postal workers.
Mr. Stephen Jarislowsky, who manages a $46 billion investment fund, said he was worried about the current economic situation, where the natural resources sector is dominant. He compared this situation to the housing bubble in the United States.
Does the hon. member think that a good negotiated settlement would be a better solution to ensure good working conditions and retirement benefits for our workers, while also ensuring our economic viability? 
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Of course, Madam Speaker, but first we must act in good faith. We must start off on the right foot and resume negotiations.
How can it be done when the government imposes salary increases that are less than those offered by the employer? It is impossible. The first thing to do is to ensure that workers' interests are protected, so that we can then sit at the table and resume negotiations in a respectful fashion. 
Olivia Chow: Madam Speaker, five months ago the Prime Minister of the Conservative government appointed the president and CEO of Canada Post. He gave the president and CEO a half a million dollar salary and a 33% bonus. That means he earns more than three-quarters of a million dollars a year. 
Five months later, on June 3, this CEO cut off the drug coverage and other benefits of all employees, which includes those on sick leave and disability insurance. Ten days after that he locked out 48,000 workers. While they are locked out, he continues to get his salary and bonus every day, and that is more than $2,000 per day. Meanwhile, of course, the workers do not get their salary.
Why does a CEO kick out the workers and prevent them from working, you might want to ask, especially given that the company has made, in the last 15 years, $1.7 billion. They are not losing money. It has been profitable. In fact, their profit has come back to the taxpayers of Canada. Remember, the first mandate of Canada Post is to deliver services, to deliver mail universally to everyone in Canada. That is their mandate, not just to make money for us. But they do make money.
Let me contrast that with a letter carrier. The hourly rate for new workers is $19 per hour. That is what is being offered. The current starting rate for workers before this was $23.11, and the maximum dollar amount per hour is $24.15. The offer on the table, given by the CEO of the post office, appointed by the Prime Minister, is 1.9%.
Now remember, the CEO, on average, over the last few years, has received a 4% salary increase. He gets a 4% increase. The annual average rate of inflation is 3.3%. This worker is given 1.9%. The Conservative Party, with the Prime Minister, is rubbing salt on the wound and saying, no, 1.9% is too high; let us lower it to 1.5%. That is what this legislation is all about, lowering the wages that were offered by Canada Post from 1.9% to 1.5%. I do not know how these members of Parliament can justify that.
A letter carrier carries up to 35 pounds. I would challenge any member of Parliament on the opposite side to carry 35 pounds of mail in all kinds of weather--snow, sleet, rain. Do it, and do it for 35 years and see what happens to you.
Let me tell you what happens to the post office workers, the sorters and the mail delivery people. One out of ten of them are injured on the job--one out of 10. That is three times more severe, on average, in terms of injury than any worker in Ontario. This kind of injury is three times more serious.
In all of last year, 6,335 incidents of injury were reported, with close to 3,000 workers being disabled because of injuries. What kinds of injuries? There were 27 concussions, one amputation, one electric shock, 91 fractures, three frostbites, 325 bruises, and 978 sprains. Over 1,000 workers in pain, all in the last year.
These are our public servants that we are talking about. They are not thugs. They are our workers. They deliver service to our public.
Where were they hurt? There have been 405 who have hurt their ankles and 579 who have injured their lower backs. Can anyone imagine carrying that weight? There were 302 of them who have injured their knees, hundreds have injured their hands and wrists, and 10 have injured their lungs and other internal organs.
How were they hurt? They slip. They trip. They fall. They are hit by trucks, cars and carts. They are assaulted. And there were 87 workers who were bitten, stung and scratched by animals and insects. It is not an easy job. It is a dangerous job. 
There are many ways for a post office to make money. With regard to postal banking, for example, New Zealand and Italy introduced it. Now, a few years later, 30% of the revenue comes from postal banking, representing 70% of their profits.
There are many ways to make sure that Canada Post is financially viable and that it continues to make a profit. They have to think creatively and try something new rather than targeting the workers. The job of a postal worker is really difficult.
I want to read a letter from a constituent of mine. He is a concerned Canadian, not a postal worker. 
He said, “If Canada's economic action plan is delivering results to Canadians and supporting job creation, it does not make sense to support a contract by Canada Post that would hurt Canadians and risk the elimination of thousands of jobs. This is a time when we should be strengthening Canadian jobs and the Canadian economy, especially those jobs that provide a vital service across our nation. As the economy improves, concessionary demands by management should be dropped. Demands for cuts in benefits for new hires, lower rates for current temporary employees, and the replacement of sick leave with personal days and a weak short-term disability plan sharply undermine the hard work of CUPW members and the maintenance of a quality public postal service. Canada Post's behaviour has been unethical and very discouraging. Please ask Canada Post to stop the cuts and accept CUPW's offer. The parties should negotiate a fair contract. It should not be forced by legislation.”
Another note said, “Canada Post should not be allowed to stop mail delivery. The Corporation is responsible for an essential service.”
They want to remind me, and all members of Parliament, that the union was willing to continue to deliver mail on a rotating basis while the negotiations continued. The postal workers are willing to work if the doors are opened.
Given how dangerous their jobs are, and given how little they are paid compared to the CEO who earns 14 times more than they make, what we should do today is to show some respect to the hard-working, beloved postal workers. Let us open the doors. Let them work. 
Stop the lockout now and bring them back to their jobs so they can continue to deliver an essential service to all Canadians.
Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Trinity—Spadina for her lecture on why, in her opinion, the class war continues in Canada.
Before that, we had the member for Pontiac, who has unfortunately departed, giving us a speech—
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Trinity—Spadina.
[Interjection]
Olivia Chow: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that anyone should talk about whether a person is absent or present in this House. I could start naming all the people who are absent, but I do not think that is allowed.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. That is accurate.
Chris Alexander: I apologize for that.
Madam Speaker, the member for Pontiac also gave us his version of an address to the 15th plenum of the communist party of some country. I have never heard an attack so absolutely outrageous and bombastic against capitalism. He called our system of market economy “savage capitalism”. It takes me back to my days in Moscow.
What we really need to know from the hon. member is if she will extend the same concern for injuries of non-unionized workers to the injuries of business people who are not receiving their mail because of the blockage her party has brought about in this Parliament. Will she express the same concern for the injuries of the Canadian Forces, fighting for our country in Afghanistan? Or is she going to simply focus on continuing to block--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 
The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.
Olivia Chow:  I am concerned about the injuries of all workers.
 I want to read a note. This is from a postal worker from Peterborough:
 I am not sending this e-mail to my member of Parliament...as it is clear by his behaviour in Parliament that he is against unions and it would only hit his trash bin as fast as back-to-work legislation hit the floor. My MP only adds to our burden by sending us 20-plus meaningless unaddressed ad mails per year. Please do not let this current Bill C-6 pass. 
I think that the very insulting lowering of wages being offered from 1.9% to 1.5% should be withdrawn. That is what is in front of us.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 
On a point of order, the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
[Interjection]
Dean Del Mastro: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has just referred to a document. I would request that the member table that document.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to ask for unanimous consent to table the document?
[Interjection]
Olivia Chow: Madam Speaker, I have this in front of me. I could send it in, but I think I require unanimous consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Deputy Speaker:  Just to be clear, there was no unanimous consent on that, and I have asked the hon. member for Churchill to speak.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
[Interjection]
Hon. Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, if a member refers to a document, as the member did, and it is asked that it be tabled, with all due respect, I do not believe that unanimous consent is required, because the person who read the document has simply to say no and no documents would be tabled.
 Therefore, there is no requirement for unanimous consent when a member asks that a document referred to be tabled. I suggest, with respect, that the member has no choice but to table it.
The Deputy Speaker: Indeed, except for ministers, any member who wishes to table a document must seek and obtain the unanimous consent of the House to do so.
I think we will move on from this point of order.
The hon. member for Churchill.
Niki Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am concerned by some of the questioning in the House that has this light humourous tone. After about 24 hours of debating this issue, we should all recognize how serious it is and give the respect that is owed to the people on the picket lines fighting for rights that we all ought to have as Canadian workers. 
I would like to ask my hon. colleague to elaborate on the point she raised about the draconian nature of this legislation. The government has taken a position that it will go farther than Canada Post, farther than management, and give workers who are doing nothing more than asking for a fair wage less than what management has put on the table. What does she think about this measure?
Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, the inflation rate is 3.3%. The union is asking to catch up with the cost of living. This is not unreasonable. The CEO of Canada Post, who was appointed by the Prime Minister, offered 1.9%. However, this legislation would give them 1.5%, lowering that by 0.4%. That is a complete insult. 
This means that if a party goes to negotiate, they need not worry, the Conservative government would not only legislate them back to work, it would actually lower the wage increase. This approach would create even more labour conflict.
Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to rise in the House during debate, I will take the opportunity to thank the voters of Halifax who voted me back with a very strong mandate to represent all the constituents in the riding. 
For those political trivia buffs, such as the member for Winnipeg Centre, it is an interesting fun fact to know that I was elected with more votes of any member since Robert Stanfield. That is not bad for a New Democrat.
I am here representing the constituents of Halifax, regardless of whether they voted for me, I have had a lot of contact from constituents since we started this debate in the House, and actually since hours after the rolling strikes began and the government announced in the House that it would introduce back to work legislation. 
It is the constituents' voices that we are missing. We are doing a good job, standing up for the workers and for Canadians, but their voices are missing. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to bring their voices to this chamber, to this magnificent place, and actually share with hon. members what they are saying in my riding. Some of them are postal workers, some are not, but they all care deeply about this issue.
I will start with a letter I received from Thomas Beazely. He wrote:
 My name is Thomas Beazely and I am a lettercarrier and 29 year employee of Canada Post in Halifax. I urge honorable members here today to reject the legislation before you. Remove this unjust act that impedes the ability for our union and Canada Post to negotiate a fair agreement for both parties. Allow history to show that government allows collective bargaining to resolve issues and does not permit legislation to tip the scales and handcuff the Rights of workers and labour in Canada. Let the record show that all parties here today worked together to make the playing field level so that Canada Post is forced to negotiate in good faith. This has not been the case thus far. We the workers, I a lettercarrier, want to do our work. We want to serve the citizens of this great country, we want to deliver the mail. We did everything we could to ensure our service was maintained with as little disruption to the public as possible while attempting to force Canada Post to negotiate in good faith. They have hidden behind the promise of legislation and today hide behind the act of legislation. They caused the loss of service to our customers and now should not be allowed to hide behind the misleading information they are providing to our customers. Let “nay” be the vote that carries at the end of the debate, let history show all parties are concerned about workers rights. Thank you for your time.... 
I have another letter I received from a constituent named Scott Mason. He writes:
 ...I am a mail carrier for Canada Post. I strongly oppose the back to work legislation because it gives the corporation a way out of bargaining in good faith. Why should Canada Post negotiate when they know the Gov't. t is going to side with them anyway. We started out with rolling strikes to put some pressure on the Corp. and very little on the public. We do not have any problem with the public, as a matter of fact we have been getting overwhelming support from the public. If we do not have the right to fair negotiations, what kind of future will we and our families have? What about future generations? It seems like we are going backwards! If the majority of the population is only making minimum wage, where will are economy be? The Prime Minister would be wise to think real hard about this situation, because there is a lot of unions in this country with a lot of votes. We are not asking for the moon, we just want a fair deal. We were ready and willing to deliver the mail, and still are. Now if the Prime Minister would legislate Canada Post to let us get back to doing our jobs, which many of us love and make them negotiate, he would earn a lot of respect. 
The next letter is actually from someone in my riding who I know is not a postal worker. In fact, he is a scientist but he wrote to me because he cares about this issue as well. 
His name is Chris Majka, and he writes:
 A just and democratic society is one that knows how to hear and balance the voices, ideals, and legitimate concerns of all its citizens. The right to collective bargaining by unions representing working people, are an essential component of how modern, progressive, democratic societies work. These rights were hard fought for, and represent a significant triumph for citizens, not only of Canada, but also of nations throughout the world where the principles of civil society are respected. They ensure that working people have a right to be heard with respect to legitimate concerns relating to the conditions of their employment and the remuneration they receive. But they also represent something even more important--dignity. The dignity that is every person's birthright. Dignity to be respected as an individual, as a human being with fundamental rights--and not simply as a mechanical cog within an administrative or corporate machine. 
 And these rights must also not be toothless. Where collective bargaining fails to achieve a mutually acceptable consensus, unions, and the members they represent, must have the right to withdraw their services, and strike for what they believe in. Without this capacity collective bargaining pales into insignificance. Unions must be able to take a principled position on the picket lines, literally standing for what they believe. Except in demonstrably dire circumstances, this right to collectively bargain should not be abrogated by government. 
 Forcing workers back to work needlessly muddies the waters of collective bargaining. It disenfranchises workers from the fundamental rights of every person to have to have a role in determining the conditions, circumstances, and remuneration under which they offer their services to an employer. 
 I submit that in the case of the current [lockout] by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, there is no dire threat to Canada of the sort that would warrant the federal government passing back-to-work legislation. 
 I urge the Canadian government to respect the rights of workers, to respect the principles of collective bargaining, to respect the right of unions to undertake legal strike action, and to drop its plans to pass such legislation. Canadians from all walks of life are looking to see if this government intends to impose governance on its citizens, or work in concert with them. This is the time to demonstrate good faith and show a commitment to respectful civil society. 
Actually, I feel like I could not have said this better myself. People have written really passionate letters and it is a real privilege to be able to bring their voices to the fore.
In the time I have left, I would like to read a little bit from Jim Guild in Halifax. He wrote:
 Any fair-minded parliamentarian would have to rise and speak forcefully against the legislation forcing postal workers back to work. Any law that so precipitously and unnecessarily takes away the democratic right of workers to lawfully withdraw their labour would be reprehensible. But this Act is so flagrantly one-sided in favour of the employer -- Canada Post -- that it does discredit to even this Conservative government. And this is a government that most Canadians expect to be unfair and unreasonable. 
 Not only is the legislation an attack on public sector workers, it is a disrespectful assault on the very public service upon which Canadians rely. This is particularly true for Canadians who live outside our urban areas. 
 It is a slap in the faces of the very workers who created the Canada Post profits these past years that have flowed directly to the Canadian government coffers. And it insults every new employee before they have even start working for Canada Post. 
 This is the [Prime Minister's] gift that keeps on taking. 
 So I encourage any Parliamentarian to do whatever they can to delay, if not prevent, the enactment of this short-sighted and mean-spirited legislation. 
As I said, those are the voices of people from my riding who I represent. I think they have put it just beautifully. I urge the government to start acting reasonably, take the locks off the doors and let the two parties negotiate and put an end to this lockout.
Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Madam Speaker, I recognize the hon. member's passion in her comments but her comments are misguided and reflect her party's focus on narrow interests and even a narrower vision.
We have heard from Canadians overwhelmingly that the government wants us to act on their behalf and expects us to because of the strong mandate that they have entrusted us with. We will not break faith with the Canadian people.
Why can the member opposite and her party not join us in supporting the broader interests of all Canadians?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, Carole Woodhall, from the riding of Halifax, has the perfect answer to that question. She writes to us on the NDP side and says:
 Thank you for your support of postal workers who have exercised their legitimate rights to bargain for a fair collective agreement. It would be a grave disservice to postal workers for the government to interfere in the collective bargaining process. The parties should be left to work out their differences without government intervention. What is the emergency? Postal workers were willing and ready to deliver cheques as they had done in past labour disputes during the 1990s. 
This is a lockout and nothing else. It is time for Canada Post to cut the locks off.
Jinny Sims: Madam Speaker, I am getting tired of hearing about special interests whenever it refers to working people across this country.
This debate today is not about just unionized workers. This debate is about all workers. If we want to talk about special interests, we could talk about a government that instead of telling Canada Post to open the doors so workers can deliver the mail, it introduces legislation which introduces a lower salary than that offered by Canada Post. So talk about special interests. Members across the aisle have a special interest, and that special interest is attacking working people.
I would like to ask my colleague to make a comment.
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would like to bring up something that a constituent from Halifax wrote to me that directly relates to this question. She says:
“Postal workers have always wanted to continue to deliver the mail and have showed up daily to do so only to be turned back at the door. I ask you, how can the government legislate us back to work when we have never chosen to leave work or strike? I urge you to do what you can to squash this motion, have us legislated back to work and instead a motion that Canada Post be ordered to come back to the bargaining table to work on a fair and collective contract. We employees are not trying to be difficult or impede or inconvenience the Canadian public by demanding that we be treated fairly and with respect, and along with the help of the NDP and others in the House who realize this is wrong, we will continue to fight for justice”.
Lois Brown: Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that my colleague has been reading letters from her constituents talking about the postal strike. I would like to read something from a constituent of mine who is an employer in the area. He says:
“As a business owner in your constituency, I am part of an industry that employs over 58,000 Canadians, and when you consider family members relying on those employees has an impact on some 150,000 Canadians in total. As you can appreciate, in addition to our loss of business, the impact on the cashflow for all small business is an extreme hardship we can ill-afford to face in these challenging times”.
What does the hon. member say to 150,000 Canadians who are in danger of losing their livelihood?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I certainly hope the member's constituent is watching right now, because I would like him to understand that it is her party and her government that has put the locks on the doors. The postal workers have said that they will go back to the table and bargain, but it is her government that put the locks on the doors.
I hope that all the businesses in her riding realize that it is that member's responsibility and that the losses that they are suffering are a result of her party's actions.
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to take a different tack here today in this debate. 
We have asked for a debate on what we call the six-month hoist. We heard the leader of the opposition last night give what I would have to say was one of the most magnificent speeches that I have ever heard in this chamber. It probably qualifies as one of the most magnificent speeches ever given in this chamber. He talked about the history of Canada and of the rights of people and of improvements to the lot in life for all Canadians that have been brought about over many years. He put the current situation in that context.
I want to talk a little bit about that. I am going to quote from a letter I received. It is a very moderate letter. I don't know where this individual lives in Canada, but he is a Canadian. He says:
 Thank you for defending a fair settlement in the Canada Post Lock-out! 
That sounds very bland, and it sounds like something we would expect to see happen. We would expect to see our government promote, and our laws designed to promote, a fair settlement of what is a dispute over a collective agreement. Collective agreement and collective bargaining rights are enshrined in our law. They are constitutionally protected rights. They are rights that are contained in the universal declaration of human rights. We brag about how we are a rights-based society under the rule of law. The rule of law includes the constitutional rules and constitutionally protected rights. 
What he says here is,
 Thank you so much for your strong stand in Parliament. It makes me proud to be a Canadian when I see that our politicians make personal sacrifices to protect workers in this country. 
It makes me feel proud to be recognized that this indeed is what we are doing, protecting workers. From what? In this case from legislation that strips their rights to bargain collectively, that says to them, when they seek to improve by a bargaining position, “Here is what we would like and here is what you would like. Let's bargain. Let's talk about it. Let's trade proposals back and forth. Let's exercise our right to withdraw our labour.” In this case it was through a series of rotating strikes to bring attention to their circumstances and their demands. 
What do we have? We have a government agency shut the doors. Now, within days, I think it was two days later, the government gave notice of this legislation. When the legislation comes, what does it do? It says, well, we do not really care about the bargaining that went on. We know that this company that produced a profit of $186 million made an offer to the workers based on its bargaining stance and other conditions. What does the government do? It passes legislation that says, no, you are going back to work, and you are going back to work for less than the company had offered you during collective bargaining.
That cannot be other than taking away the constitutionally protected rights of workers to bargain collectively, because they were bargaining collectively and the government said, no, we are not going to allow this bargaining to take place; in fact, we are going to interfere with this and order them back to work and order an agreement to be put in place--I would not call it an agreement, because it is not an agreement, but order a contract to be put in place that is not agreed to by the parties involved and that in fact gives workers less. 
This individual also says: 
 I must give special thanks to the members from Quebec who are giving up their National Holiday to stay and fight [the Prime Minister's] unjust legislation. Bonne Fête nationale! 
I want to recognize as well the sacrifice that our members from la belle province are making to participate in this debate, to defend a fair settlement for Canada Post workers and to make these sacrifices.
 We hear about the concerns that people had, about small businesses and others who needed cheques or mail. I am very sympathetic to that. So is this individual. He said:
 One point...I understand that, on the first day that Canada Post locked out postal workers, only 23 workers from three very small communities (Smithers, B.C.; Sioux Lookout; and a third from NF) were scheduled to rotate on strike. Without the lock-out, the small businesses would now have their cheques, as the posties ensured with the rotating strike. 
Then he asks us to stay strong and keep up the fight. I can assure everyone that we will do that.
What we have here today is a manufactured crisis. The same powers that manufactured that crisis have the ability to make it go away. Just take the locks off the doors. Encourage the collective bargaining process. Encourage a fair settlement.
Instead, the government has tilted the balance. It has made it impossible for there to be good faith bargaining between Canada Post and its workers.
I am saying “Canada Post and its workers” deliberately. I want to say that to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Prime Minister himself, who has unleashed in this House language that I do not think is deserving of this place. 
If he is speaking for thePrime Minister when he gets up in this House and talks about “union bosses” and “thugs”, then he is delivering a message on behalf of the Prime Minister that this is his attitude toward workers' representatives who were democratically elected and given a 97% mandate to negotiate an agreement on behalf of the workers. This member comes here on behalf of the Prime Minister and talks about union bosses and thugs. He hides behind a piece of paper that he says comes from one of his constituents. 
That is not good enough. The bosses who shut down this operation are sitting over there. They are the ones whose agency locked the doors on Canada Post. They are the ones who are acting as bullies with legislation that takes away the rights of workers to bargain collectively. If there is any thuggery or any bullying going on, that is where it is coming from.
I want the government to tone down its talk and stop inflaming the situation. 
Mr. Bob Zimmer:  Stop calling the kettle black.
Jack Harris:  It is the kind of language that I am hearing from over there that is inflaming the situation. 
I am objecting to that. It does not do them any credit whatsoever and it does not do this Parliament any credit to have a situation like this. Instead of solutions being reached, workers who are exercising their constitutionally protected rights are being vilified in this House. Their representatives are being vilified. 
Members who want to understand could have listened carefully last night to the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about the advances made through struggles year after year, over many decades, to give us the kind of Canada that many of us share today. 
However, this process and this approach is to say, no, we will not share the advances with the next generation. The benefits that have been won in terms of some security in retirement will not be shared by other people. The next generation that comes along will have to start off with lower wages. We will have a special policy where we will hire people on a non-discriminatory basis. We will bring all these people in on a non-discriminatory basis and give them an advantage in bringing them in. We will bring in aboriginal people, people of colour, disadvantaged people, and we will pay them half or three-quarters of what the current workers are being paid. That is how we will have equality in this country. That is the plan. New hires will get less than everybody else. We will adopt a very proactive policy that identifies and brings in people who are especially disadvantaged and we will pay them less. 
That is wrong. However, that is what this leads to. 
We need to have a fair settlement. That is what this individual is asking for. That is all we are asking for here. This legislation should be hoisted for six months. That is our motion, and we would like to see it implemented.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Madam Speaker, picking up on what the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering was saying earlier, I have my undergraduate degree in Soviet studies and eastern bloc political philosophy and history. I fought with perestroika and I had no further use for it. However, it seems to be coming in very handy listening to the debate over this matter.
With recent polls stating that 70% of Canadians support back-to-work legislation to end this work stoppage at Canada Post, can the member explain why the official opposition is not on the same side with the majority of Canadians but is only repeating its rhetoric with respect to the union position?
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, I thought red-baiting as well had ended some time ago, but I guess not.
Let me talk about the 70% of Canadians. I would be willing to bet the hon. member that 70% of Canadians, if they were asked, would not support this legislation. They would not support legislation that said the government shall move inside the collective bargaining process and order people to go to work so that they would get less money than their employer had put on the table in collective bargaining. I will bet that 70% of Canadians would say that is unfair.
They might want to see the post office workers back at work. If they were asked if the government should take the locks off the post office to allow postal workers to deliver the mail, 90% would agree to that, too. 
Let us not play with statistics here. I do not think that 70% of Canadians or any substantial percentage of Canadians would want the government to follow through with this legislation and to do what it is trying to do.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. colleague is about the discriminatory movements I see with respect to this bill and the offer that has been tabled. For me as a young person, as a woman, and as a person who identifies as a person of colour, why is it that, in the opinion of this member, the government seems to be supporting this type of discriminatory behaviour? 
I hear comments from across the way that says workers should have taken the first offer. That type of bullying tactic I do not understand. I would ask my hon. colleague to chime in and give his opinion on that.
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, I guess the Conservatives have an agenda, and the agenda is to lower people's expectations. They think they can convince anybody to go along with that by saying we have to get the mail going so we will stop this from continuing, and saying that the workers are looking for too much. Members hide behind other people's quotes that say they are lucky to have jobs, et cetera. 
This is all really part of an agenda that ends up dividing Canadians instead of all of us saying we should try to get everybody up with better benefits, better pensions, better rights, and better opportunities. Let us not divide people, one against the other. Let us improve everybody's lot in life. 
That is what the union movement is trying to do for its workers. As we have seen historically, this raises up everybody's benefits if it is allowed to happen. The government does not want that to happen.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Madam Speaker, as I mentioned when I spoke previously, I am from a community which has historically distanced itself from political issues and from most of the Canadian dynamic. Growing up north of the 50th parallel on an isolated reserve conferred a certain number of advantages that I can gauge at their fair value in light of the situation we are dealing with today. The Innu have always made it a point of honour to oppose any kind of pernicious state interference in community management.
I want to emphasize the word “pernicious”, as it certainly applies here. State intervention in the form of social policy, to help people in need, is essential if we are to ensure that we do not let the neediest and most disadvantaged people fall through the cracks. The state has an important role to play in helping communities, be it through funding infrastructure or collecting data that allows it to determine the socio-economic profile of a community, and thus identify socio-economic problems as well as possible courses of action to solve those problems.
It is ironic to see this government, too often blinded by its ideology, seeking private subcontractors, at any price, to provide services to Canadians and fill the jobs associated with them. Although, in a labour conflict such as this one at Canada Post, market logic should dictate that the government allow both parties to find a solution to the conflict, the government's reflex has been the opposite: it has intervened although it did not need to. And what is worse, the government, by taking this action, has upset the natural equilibrium between the parties in question. The reason we are in this House today is to restore that balance and to ask the government to withdraw certain provisions in this bill, in particular the one that pertains to salaries.
We must allow the arbitrator and the two parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to all. We can restore the balance and reach an agreement so that Canada Post lockout ends and service to the population resumes. In the final analysis, that is our goal here today.
I would like to get back to what I was talking about earlier, pernicious government interference in community management. When the message does not get through and the government takes measures compromising the independence of our management structures and the general self-government of my nation, the members of my community do not hesitate to act and express that independence in a radical way.
I want to make this perfectly clear: I would not want to urge the Canadian population to resort to roadblocks to make its voice heard, even though we are clearly faced with a situation involving government interference with the right to freedom of association and labour relations. I would advocate another approach, that of restoring the balance I was just referring to.
The government is attempting to create a precedent that clearly indicates the type of approach it is going to adopt with regard to the Canadian population during this mandate. As we can plainly see, this approach is akin to the authoritarianism of certain regimes that are currently being criticized by international observers. It is not my intent to quote figures and authorities to support my statements in this House, as my position rests on the heartfelt conviction that is a hallmark of the Innu community.
It is that conviction that enables me to offer a human viewpoint on any situation that arises. We must never avoid the human aspect inherent in the situation that concerns us at this time. The government's interference in the human relations that are part of the dialogue between Canada Post employees and their employer opens the door to improper government intervention in labour relations between all employees and employers.
In this regard I want to come back to the imbalance created by the Conservative government with its special bill. We will recall that the postal workers had offered to extend the collective agreement while bargaining continued. That is what the bill provides, but the bill goes further by setting the parameters within which the arbitrator must operate.
Why do they want to substitute themselves in advance for what should be happening down the road? Why not let the negotiations take their course and give the parties involved room to bargain in good faith? Imposing special legislation is a draconian measure that should be considered only in situations where the Canadian public is at risk of serious harm. That is not the case here; we are not in a crisis. I would caution everyone, however, because a crisis point can be reached very rapidly.
The Canadian public has expressed its views on the role of government in the past, and the current situation in the House of Commons is setting the tone of the social dynamic that is imposing itself on the Canadian public.
The measures proposed by the Conservatives belong to a bygone day.
Labour relations are in a constant state of change, and I suspect that this progress lies at the root of the measures proposed by the Conservatives.
They will have to reassess their positions and policies if they are to keep abreast of the wishes expressed by Canadians.
Obstructing the exercise of the right of association and the flow of bargaining that happens in labour relations is direct repression and negation of the concept of free will.
We can be assured that the presence of the NDP in the House will influence the government's decisions. Therefore, opposition members have not hesitated to debate this essential question and will continue to do so tirelessly.
I therefore urge the Mamit Innuat, the Pessamiunnuat, the Chimonnuat, all Innu in general, as well as the Naskapi, to support the postal employees and to support them massively and visibly. Make yourselves seen, brothers and sisters.
We will see that when we pool our efforts, big things happen.
All Canadians need to heed the warning that this issue is very likely to herald a dark era. It is up to the public to take a position and make the decision-makers understand that they will not remain passive forever.
Quite apart from the interruption in postal services, these recent events will perpetuate the power struggle going on in the public and private sectors. It is essential that people mobilize to support the desire of Canadians to express themselves and to flourish.
If I must, I am prepared to sit until the royal couple arrives, so they can witness the dedication of the New Democratic Party members of this House.
In passing, I salute the superhuman effort made by the party's support staff, some of whom are sleeping only a few hours a night, to ensure that our efforts are coordinated.
Without them, we would not be able to sustain our opposition to the policies of the Conservative government. With their support, we are making history today.
And last, I send greetings to the people in my riding, people of all origins, and I wish them all a wonderful time at the festivities that have been organized throughout the region.
I would have liked to be with them, but my presence is more useful in Ottawa.
Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that while those members are prepared to sit here until the Duke and Duchess arrive, we are prepared to sit here until they are gone to ensure that Canadians get mail delivery returned to them.
For anybody watching this debate, there must be a confusion about the events that occurred. The fact is, and I am sure members will agree, the old contract expired last October. The union leaders were negotiating with Canada Post and failed to arrive at an agreement.
The old contract had expired. It is quite legitimate that once something has expired, one cannot operate under it any longer unless there is an agreement between the company and the workers. We had the situation where, because the union did not want to continue negotiations unless it could operate under the old contract, it started rotating strikes. Then there was the lockout, and now we have back to work legislation.
The bottom line is we want to get the postal workers back delivering mail across Canada to everyone who needs that mail delivery. We are asking the parties to work with us. Let us try and get the workers back to work and then we will negotiate from there. Hopefully, we will have a good settlement all the way around.
Let us get the mail going again.
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. 
I would note that this kind of delay is inherent in the situation the workers and the employer are in. Events in that situation were fluid and that is how it should have continued: the parties involved had a responsibility to each other to sit down, and they would have reached an agreement, as has happened in the past. There was no urgency to intervene, let alone interfere, in that practice, which is proper and normal. 
[The member spoke in Innu-aimun.]
Raymond Côté:  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Manicouagan for not quoting letters. I think we have proved on both sides of the House that we could have letters stating opinions on either side. Quoting from letters is in fact simply a smokescreen to distract us from the real debate. It is an old trick that was known to the Greeks 2,500 years ago. 
We will get back down to business, as the saying goes. Should we not leave the two parties free to bargain in good faith?
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which follows on what I was saying.
 That is correct, the ideal approach in this situation would be for the parties to sit down together, because in any event this is a power struggle and we are going to see this every day, whether we like it or not. So, it is better that the parties themselves be the ones who ultimately have to decide their fate. That is the normal way of doing things, and in this society it is how it should be done. 
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments and contrary to what he said, some small businesses do find themselves in a crisis, people cannot pay their bills and they certainly cannot meet their payroll.
 We have heard over and over again from our side of the House about the hardship being caused to Canadians and to our economy. We have heard from the other side of the House that government should not intervene. In any negotiations there are two sides, and that is why we have a dispute.
 First, the union chose to implement a job action which the employer countered with its job action. Given that the situation has gone on for eight months, how long would the hon. member allow this dispute to drag on to the detriment of families, seniors, businesses and the economy in general? How long, two months, eight months, ten months? 
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
I am well aware of the hardship being suffered on both sides. However, social imperatives must prevail in this case. The effort to make our points is truly worthwhile for Canadians. In fact, that applies not only to this situation, but also to situations that will arise in future. That is why we are here today and we are making these points.
Manon Perreault: Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak in this debate. I would like to take the opportunity to wish my constituents in Montcalm a wonderful national holiday, in spite of the bad weather. Certainly, at present, the Conservative government does not seem to want to work in the interests of the Canada Post workers. In spite of this obstacle, I particularly want to mention Quebec's national holiday and say to my fellow Quebeckers that it is great to be a Quebecker at this point in history. I want to assure them that I am with them in spirit and I sincerely hope to meet them in the near future. So I wish everyone a memorable national holiday full of music, stories and legends of our very own.
 It is unfortunate that the Conservative government does not recognize Quebec's national holiday, but I can tell you that my constituents recognize the importance of the job I have to do here in Ottawa, supporting the Canada Post workers.
 In negotiations, it is preferable for the two sides to find common ground and reach a consensus; unfortunately, I have the clear impression that, since the negotiations began, Canada Post Corporation never intended to bargain in good faith. Withdrawing from the negotiations and imposing a lockout shows its lack of respect for its workers. 
A lockout is not a strike. A strike is a protest action taken by workers, while a lockout is the temporary shutdown of Canada Post. It is a decision initiated by the employer.
Canada Post Corporation preferred to wait for the government to intervene by trying to impose special legislation. That approach completely takes away any workers' right to strike, since they would always be afraid of legislation like that being imposed on them, and unfortunately sends a negative message not just to the Canada Post workers but, and most importantly, to all workers in Canada.
Right now, back-to-work legislation will create dissatisfaction and discontent among the workers. They will find it hard to swallow this kind of forced settlement and it will leave a bitter taste in their mouths. And that is without mentioning the poisonous atmosphere that will prevail between management and workers for months if not years to come.
We must not forget that several thousand workers are affected by this lockout. When will the government finally understand that Canada Post Corporation employees are people first—I repeat, people first—with families, obligations and responsibilities?
This bill will take power away from unions, whose primary role is to stand up for employees and look out for their interests. Second, the union must also make sure that information is conveyed to the employees. By doing that, it fulfils its function of communicating between Canada Post and the workers.
 Canada Post Corporation is acting as if it is confused by the present situation. That is incomprehensible. They are the ones who brought on this situation. The position the government has taken is quite simply a slap in the face to democracy. What has become of common sense? The workers are locked out, and on top of that the government interferes by trying to pass legislation to force the workers back to work. The Conservative government's true colours are showing.
The Canadian courts have recognized that workers have the right to negotiate their employment contract. The Canadian courts have recognized that workers have the right to form associations with other workers to enforce their rights and their employment contract.
The approach taken by the Conservative government has no basis. This procedure is going to create a precedent that no worker wants. Who is going to pay the cost, ultimately? Workers.
Instead of showing consideration and respect for our workers, the government wants to abuse its powers and give the back of its hand to workers' rights. This is unfair and oppressive.
I do not understand. The Conservatives form a majority government. Yes, they got the support they needed, but did they have the courage to really tell Canadians how they intended to go about governing the country?
Did they say they would come down on the side of the most powerful instead of helping workers? Did they say they would impose their legislation without considering the consequences for workers' lives? Did they say they would not give workers the opportunity to negotiate in the way that prevailing practices provide for union negotiations to take place? Did they say they would bring in a bill to take away workers' rights to be heard and cut their pension plans? Will they continue to impose draconian measures on Canadian workers who try to exercise their right to bargain for better working conditions?
I think that out of respect for the workers and their families the government should withdraw from these negotiations and not impose anything by special legislation, let alone take the employer's side. The Conservatives' way of doing things is clear to see here—it is easy to see who their friends are—and it is at the expense of Canadian workers
 It is these same workers who day after day contribute to making Canada Post the postal service we know today. These workers have contributed to their pension plan, and like everyone living in Canada they are entitled to draw a pension when the time comes, and thus to be sure of a peaceful and serene retirement. I therefore believe it is reasonable to expect a little consideration from the employer, and also from the government. 
Why not give the two parties a chance to bargain in good faith and encourage communication more? 
At present, the employees cannot enter the distribution centres and have no access to the mail, so they cannot deliver it. The doors are barred, that is what a lockout is. Canada Post has to remove the locks from the doors and allow the workers to do rotating deliveries, as was the case at the beginning of the negotiations. Today, the government is attacking the postal workers at Canada Post Corporation; who will be the next victims of the government's extreme decisions? No one wants to have their wages cut and their retirement date pushed back five years. 
This special legislation is going to give all Canadian workers cause for concern and uncertainty, since they will always be wondering whether they will be the Conservative government's next scapegoats. This special legislation is going to create a gulf between two generations of workers. This special legislation is going to cause wage inequality and social inequality. This special legislation is going to weaken labour relations, not to mention the poisonous atmosphere the workers will have to endure.
The message the government is sending to workers is clear. It will not hesitate to side with employers, even if workers have a lot to lose. No matter what the situation, employers will be favoured over employees. That message tells workers they have no chance of bargaining fairly and equitably, because if they insist and push too hard to enforce their rights and their collective agreement, the government will not support them. Quite the contrary: it will interfere and force the workers back to work by special legislation. What year is this? These workers have paid union dues for years. The union is doing its best to represent them, but the workers did not expect that the government would use a special bill to try to prevent the union from doing its job properly and would fail to respect their right to bargain their working conditions freely. 
 I am afraid this approach is an attempt to create a gulf between workers in different generations, and also between employers and employees. 
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Madam Speaker, we are approaching the 24th hour of this debate. We are coming very close to it. This is the first time in my almost 11 years as a member of Parliament that I have seen this type of exercise carried out in the House of Commons. In some respects I appreciate it. There is good debate between two polarized sides, it would seem. I want to congratulate the opposition member, a new member, on winning, and I commend her on her speech. 
My question to the member is this. It seems the NDP's identity crisis is over. In the first couple of weeks of this new Parliament, the NDP came forward with a supply day motion asking us to lower taxes. That is the first time I have ever seen such a request from the NDP, but it was on small business. It seemed that most of the NDP members were uncomfortable with that supply day motion because it was new. It was as if they were trying to show us that they were ready to govern.
The past 24 hours have shown us that this party is not ready to govern. We can see that NDP members have taken every legal step there is, and they have attacked. 
My question to the member for Montcalmis this. Over the past number of years we have seen how the NDP feels about replacement workers. It calls them derogatory names, such as “scabs”. We know what they think about lockouts. We know what they think about back-to-work legislation, but apparently revolving strikes are all right.
Why does the NDP show that it is not ready to govern and that it will be forever in opposition by not recognizing what is going on in our economy and by not recognizing the need to get the postal workers back to work?
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Madam Speaker, I am well aware that Canadians need their mail; we understand that and the postal workers understand it too; they are professionals. But I think we have to respect the workers, the workers in our communities, the workers who must work outside whatever the weather. 
 To come back to Canada Post's young workers, I think the new generation deserves the benefits that our parents and their parents fought so hard for. 
Alain Giguère: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member for Montcalm, as well as the members of the opposition, that this debate is simply about whether or not we are going to resist the lobby pressure of those who wish to raid pension funds. That is what it boils down to. The pattern is always the same. Everyone makes mistakes, but the important thing is not to keep making them, especially after what happened in Walkerton, where people died because lobbyists took advantage of the opportunity to do their own laboratory testing.
I would simply ask the hon. member to answer the following question: should we always grant the wishes of lobbyists, yes or no?
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Madam Speaker, simply put, everything we do should be done in accordance with our conscience and to the best of our knowledge. Common sense always has a role to play.
Gord Brown: Mr. Speaker, this morning around 4 a.m. I asked one of our NDP members for an opinion about the fact that seniors and small businesses in my riding were not getting their mail. 
Yesterday I spoke with the executive director of the United Way of Leeds and Grenville, Judi Baril. She told me about the United Way. I know that they serve 27 agencies and have 92 programs, and one in person in three in my riding of Leeds—Grenville is served by the United Way. They are suffering serious cashflow issues brought about by this situation with Canada Post.
I ask the member: could her party move this debate along and let us vote on the bill so that we can help the charities, seniors and businesses in my riding? 
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Montcalm has only 30 seconds left.
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, I get the sense they are trying to pin the blame for this situation on the members of the NDP and the workers. I would, however, remind the House that Canada Post employees opted for rotating strikes, in other words, employees in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, for instance, would take turns going on strike. That way, postal service would continue, albeit at a slower rate. So cheques would have been delivered and small businesses could have paid their suppliers and received payments from their customers.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I will comment on the previous member's comment about how one in three people in his community need help from the United Way. That certainly sounds like a prosperous community where so many people are still in need. If we do not stand up here to defend worker's rights, that will be two out of three and eventually three out of three. That is why we are here today and that is why none of us will go home until we can reach an equitable and fair solution.
We must always remember that any kind of negotiation between employees and their employer, whether they are involved in this kind of dispute where the employer has locked out its workers, is about the real lives of Canadians, their quality of life and the lives of their families.
My riding contains one of the largest postal sorting stations in Canada and I have been hearing from many of the workers, both at the plant and at other stations across the eastern GTA. All of these workers have spoken to me simply about fairness. 
I have a lot of respect for the men and women across Canada who are responsible for delivering our mail. These very same people who, during the labour dispute, vowed to guarantee the delivery of social assistance and old age security cheques, are the people who offered to end strike action if Canada Post would simply agree to keep the old contract in force during negotiations. That is a pretty reasonable stand to take. However, Canada Post refused.
These are the kinds of people who make up the workforce at Canada Post: people who want fairness so they can support their families, pay their own bills, work in a safe environment and retire with dignity, which is a right that should exist for all Canadians, real Canadians doing a real job for all Canadians.
One of my constituents who is a postal worker summed up the attitude of the workers being locked out by Canada Post and now being forced back to work with this legislation. She wrote to me and said, “Remember, we want to work, we want to deliver, we love our jobs and we take pride in our jobs”. This debate is not just about mail. It is about workers' rights to fairness and collective bargaining, and, for many years, Canadians have fought hard for fairness in the workplace.
In my own family, we have a long tradition of fighting for workers' rights dating back to my great-grandfather who served in both world wars and was a plasterer by trade. He understood that working conditions improve only when people stand up and fight for them. This struggle continued with my grandmother and my grandfather who met and fell in love while working together to improve the lives and conditions in their own workplace. My father was a teacher and an active member of Elementary Teachers of Toronto, and I am proud to carry on that mantle. 
It is easier to understand the need for fairness when we talk to the workers on the front line. Michael Duquette, president of Local 602 of CUPW which represents over 2,000 workers in Scarborough and the eastern GTA, has been very generous with his time keeping me apprised of the concerns of his members. 
Amother member of the executive board of Local 602 sent me an email detailing some of the unpleasant things Canada Post has done to its employees since CUPW first gave its 72-hour notice to strike on May 31. I would like to share a few of those stories. 
One employee, a motorized service courier, was off work on a work-related back injury. As soon as the 72-hour notice was given, his health benefits and sick leave were terminated by Canada Post. At that point, it was discovered that he had a cancerous growth. Now he has no sick leave, no benefits, no income and must apply for employment insurance.
One employee who was diagnosed with terminal cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy was stunned to find out that his benefits were cut off as of May 31. Now he has to pay for his own treatment. This violates the collective agreement and it is inhumane. Of course, he can go through the grieving process, but who, when dying of a terminal disease, would put off treatment to await the outcome of a grievance procedure?
Another motorized service courier who was off work on WSIB-approved leave at the time the 72-hour notice was given, received his pay statement which said that he had received a full paycheque. However, when he went to pay some of his bills he was denied for being overdrawn. At this point, he discovered that Canada Post had only paid him one-third of his total pay, despite that his paycheque said that he was paid in full. I wonder what kind of games are going on there.
Imagine people who are off work on a work-related injury or on sick leave with cancer or leukemia being cut, and finding out that not only do they have no benefits but also no money, even though a pay stub was received in the mail saying they had received the full funds. In the federal sector we have the unfortunate record of having the second highest injury rate next to longshoremen. Now the corporation wants the members of CUPW to give up the top-ups to WSIB. It wants members to accept substandard short-term disability. This is unconscionable.
Canada Post is also trying to take credit for initializing the government cheque delivery program which I referred to earlier, which took place on June 20. This is something which the union had to doggedly pursue in order to get the corporation on board, and then the corporation took credit for it.
The CUPW member I referred to earlier, wanted me to know that the support from the public has been very positive. She wrote, “While on the picket lines outside our facility, members of the public and other businesses dropped off food, hamburgers, hot dogs, cases of water and pop, giant containers of firewood. Even Tim Hortons came over and gave everyone $2 Tim Hortons cards. Vehicles were driving by and honking their horns at all hours of the day and night in support. They also had, in Pickering, numerous people bringing ice cream in the heat. Even McDonald's came by and brought cases of water and ice”.
It seems they are losing support on all sides and they should be aware of that.
People old and young have approached the CUPW member offering their support. They understand this is not just an attack on the workers of Canada Post, but it is an attack on all Canadians and their rights as citizens. People are appalled at the fact that Canada Post would lock out its workforce and then would collaborate with the government on legislation to force the workers back to work with a worse settlement than the corporation was willing to offer at the bargaining table. Also, the corporation is preventing them from going back to work by not unlocking the doors. 
These are real stories from real people. They are the people being affected by this draconian back to work legislation the Conservative government is trying to ram through this House and which all of us on this side are proud to oppose.
 I fear that the government is out of touch with real people. I fear it does not understand the effect its legislation will have on working people. I also fear, like others here, that this is just the beginning, that we will see further legislation from the government that will hurt working families in the country, making it harder for them to make ends meet and to live with the dignity and security for which they have worked and deserve.
It is important to remember that it was the management at Canada Post that decided to lock out the workers and shut down the mail service.
Mr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have heard members relate the personal stories that have been told to them by different people giving different points of view.
 In my case, it is actually my two nephews and niece who are letter carriers in our community. As they look at the total remuneration package they get with Canada Post, they say it is quite generous. They say that it provides them with a great living. It is a great job that is highly sought after. There are people who would love to become letter carriers and would love to have that type of job. That is not to say it is over the top and not to say they would not want more remuneration for what they do, but they are very happy.
I have also received emails from individuals who have told me that they had no choice as letter carriers to decide on the four offers that were made by Canada Post. They were closed out of saying whether or not they would approve of those offers. 
When members hear those stories, what is their reaction to the people who would love to be letter carriers, who would love to have such a job in this country? All I have been listening to from the other side of the floor is how downtrodden the letter carriers are.
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is true the workers at Canada Post are happy with their jobs by and large. That is why they want to go back to work. Why will the government not unlock the doors?
More importantly, with respect to all the people who would like jobs like those, the government has been negligent over the last five years in not creating those well-paying jobs so people can get them and support their families.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for his speech.
We are going to raise the level of the debate even further, instead of keeping it at the lowest level. J.P. Morgan, the famous American banker who prevented an economic crisis in 1907, said that a company's most senior leader should not earn more than 20 times the salary of its lowest paid employee.
So should we not let postal workers negotiate better working conditions more in line with those enjoyed by Canada Post's CEO?
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
There would not be enough money if all the letter carriers were paid as much as Canada Post's CEO. We might agree that the latter should perhaps not be paid until he negotiates a collective agreement that is fair for all employees.
It is unconscionable that people are making insane amounts of money when compared to the workers who are doing all the work.
Mr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last weekend I met with a local postal union representative. He was very respectful in his communications with me. He was very open and kind. He invited union leaders from three or four other unions in the area. They were all very reasonable and respectful.
One of the things that is really impressive about the strike from the union side is that it did not do a general strike. It did a rotating strike because it did not want to do any damage that would hurt Canadian people.
I would urge members of the NDP to have the same respect for their fellow Canadians and let the postal workers go back to work by ending their self-serving political stunt. It does not serve the general public nor the postal workers. They should let this legislation go through. 
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear a member opposite finally acknowledge how respectful union members and leaders are. 
Were it not for the Conservative government and for Canada Post and the Minister of Labour locking the workers out, they would still be doing their jobs.
I also spoke to many managers at the postal sorting stations, people who are not protected by the union. They are all behind the union members. They know if the members get a better deal, they will have better job protection. I will not mention their names because they are fearful for their jobs. They are not protected by a union.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today, I would first like to wish a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to Quebeckers, as well as to francophones outside Quebec.
Why are we here? It is simple. We are here because senior management at Canada Post declared a lockout. Had there not been a lockout, we would not be here debating a special bill. So, if we want to find a simple solution to this problem right now—because everyone here agrees that service must resume—the easiest thing to do is to simply end the lockout. It is as simple as that. Everyone must return to the negotiating table so that everyone can benefit from the service—the workers, the public and small businesses. That is what everyone wants.
However, I am wondering about something. Initially, when this subject started to come up in the House, the Prime Minister spoke about the best interests of the economy. I am wondering whether Canada Post's senior managers were concerned about the best interests of the economy; I am not really convinced that they were.
I would like to get to the root of the problem. It has often been said that the negotiations had been going on for a long time, but it is important to look at why they were going on for so long and are still going on. If they are still going on, it is because this is no ordinary negotiation.
When concessions are being demanded with regard to pension plans or orphan clauses, for example, it usually mean one of two things: the company wants to improve the return for shareholders, no matter who they are, or there is a problem. Canada Post is generating several hundred million dollars in profit, so perhaps the crown corporation anticipates problems in the future. However, if such is the case, perhaps these significant problems should be put on the table. We have yet to see this happen. What is certain is that, given communication technology, Canada Post will one day have to examine its way of doing things and change the services it offers. That is undeniable.
One thing is truly harmful: the orphan clauses. This is a type of discrimination that I find completely unacceptable in the 21st century. People who do equal work should always be paid an equal salary. Period. That is it. That is all. This approach should never be called into question.
I would also like to point out something else. Given the fact that this is no ordinary negotiation, it will clearly take longer than a more ordinary negotiation process. As a result, I would really have liked to have seen the ministers exercise a certain degree of leadership with regard to the challenge posed by this negotiation. I would have liked the minister to recognize the fact that this collective bargaining process was unusual and to make a special effort to invite the parties to put more effort into the negotiations. I would have liked the ministers to have reassured the public by announcing publicly that, despite the rotating strike, services would continue to be provided. 
I would like to remind you that, at the start of the Air Canada strike, the first thing management did was take out advertising informing the public that the company would continue to provide service to its customers. I do not understand why the ministers did not stand up and declare that Canada Post would still be delivering the mail. That was not done and I find that leadership was lacking. They could have reduced the losses sustained by Canada Post subsequently. All they did was create panic everywhere and, as we know, when there is market panic, sales drop. There is no question about that.
Before I conclude, I will speak about respect for the employees. We want service to resume and everything to get back to normal, and businesses to have what they need to operate. It is important to look beyond this, to consider the work environment. We must think of Canada Post's productivity. In looking for solutions, it is vital that we consider this aspect as well. We cannot just tell these employees to return to work and forget about it. We must consider that labour relations will be difficult in the next few years. We must ensure that the service everyone is proud of today will continue to make us proud in coming years.
Thus, I would like to avoid dividing people and creating an environment where people are pitted against one another, that is, unionized workers against other workers, or public servants against private sector workers. That is no way to live in a society. I believe that is a rather unhealthy attitude. We should instead focus on what is not working, namely the challenges that Canada Post will face in future, and find solutions to maintain this service and to provide it at a reasonable cost. Like everyone else, I have received emails indicating that, compared to those of their competitors, Canada Post's services are provided at a reasonable cost. 
In closing, I believe that public and private enterprises cannot be managed in the same way. The decision to lock out employees cannot be made without taking into account the repercussions on society. I find it unfortunate that this was done. The reason for the lockout was very limited and based on issues particular to Canada Post. That is regrettable. There is more than one way to achieve the same end: there is confrontation, but there is also conciliation and negotiation. This situation should be managed with this in mind.
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, opposition members are repeatedly saying that the government chose to declare a lockout. That is absolutely untrue. It was the Canada Post administration that made that decision, just as the union decided to go ahead with a strike. The Leader of the Opposition and all of the opposition members have been insisting for hours now that the government should make a decision that would violate the Canada Post Corporation Act. We cannot decide when to end the lockout. That is up to Canada Post, but they have not yet made that decision. The only way to end the lockout and avoid a new strike is to pass this bill. Can the member for Louis-Hébert finally accept the logic of this proposal, which respects the Canada Post Corporation Act?
[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the government declared the lockout. Rather, I said that Canada Post had. To respond to the question, if the House unanimously declares that it wants Canada Post to end the lockout, management would take that suggestion into consideration. This decision does not have to be forced on them.
Don Davies: Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, this issue is about process. It is about how we, as a Parliament, adopt a policy that results in a process that allows parties to actually come to agreements together, which I think everybody on all sides of the House advocates is the best solution to any labour dispute.
It is quite right that there were rotating strikes and then Canada Post responded by a lockout. The problem, and why we are here today and tonight and over the next few days and weeks, if necessary, is because the government has chosen to respond by interfering in that process, by not only proposing legislation that orders one side back to work, but in that legislation prescribes wages lower than what management had offered.
What that does is provide a disincentive to one side coming back to the bargaining table. They have tilted the balance. Now one side knows that if they do nothing and stay away from the bargaining table, they may end up with a deal that gives a better wage package than they would be forced to accept at the table.
I would like to ask my friend to comment on that and ask how he views the government's involvement in this.
[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comment. 
My thoughts on this are very straightforward. I find it unfortunate that this bill does not give the arbitrator the freedom to resolve the situation. It imposes parameters. 
The last speaker said that the government should not intervene with Canada Post, but that it would intervene when it came time to set wages. A decision needs to be made: either it can intervene or it cannot. There needs to be some coherence here.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, and I listened with interest. I do not know how long he has been a member of the NDP, maybe a long time, maybe not. I know some of his colleagues have not been a part of the party for a long time.
I wonder if he is aware that the NDP has quite a long and distinguished history of strike breaking. For example, in 1966, the federal NDP supported legislation to break a railway workers' strike. In the same year there was a longshoremen's strike and they supported that legislation. In 1973 they supported legislation to end a railway strike. Perhaps most troubling, in 1975 the federal NDP and the provincial NDP governments in both B.C. and Saskatchewan supported Bill C-73, that famous bill that had wage control measures that not only limited wage increases but rolled wages back. The NDP supported that.
Is he aware of these things? To hear them speak today, that would never be acceptable, yet it was acceptable in their history. Does he think there might be some situations where the government does have to take a role as we have done today?
[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of our first principles, on this side of the House, is to be responsible. When public interest is at stake, we know how to react.
However, what is important to understand in this case is that Canada Post has declared a lockout and has sped things up.
I feel that the public interest should always come first, with respect for everyone.
Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to wish all Quebeckers a happy Saint-Jean Baptiste day on this June 24, although it is technically still the June 23. I especially want to wish a happy Saint-Jean to my Brome—Missisquoi constituents. I am thinking of you, and my heart is with you. 
I am in the House today to defend the rights of not only the 55,000 postal workers, but also all workers, including those from my riding. This fight to uphold the rights of workers will affect all workers in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi, in Quebec and across Canada. We are standing up for our vision of a fair society. Minimum labour standards exist because workers fought to further the cause of those who were most vulnerable. Young people, women and seniors have rights because people fought to further their cause.
We in the NDP want to stand up for ordinary middle-class people so as to make things easier for families and improve the quality of life for Canadians. Whether we are talking about health care, education or the environment, we in the NDP are defending the public system because we truly believe in it. Letting the free market regulate everything does not work. Some people are left by the wayside, and only a minority is growing richer at the expense of the middle class, which is struggling more and more because of measures such as the intention of our friends opposite to impose a lockout followed by special legislation.
The appropriate solution is to stop the lockout, which is a bullying tactic, and to bring the employees and the employer together. There is no silver bullet. Everyone must contribute in good faith to move this issue forward, since the special legislation planned by our friends opposite is too hasty. Canada Post is a profitable corporation. Over the last 15 years, Canada Post has generated $1.7 billion in profits, and its postal rates remain among the lowest in the industrialized world. In addition, Canada Post has paid the federal government $1.2 billion in dividends and taxes over the last 15 years.
So why lower wages? I do not understand. We are asking the government to remove that unwarranted clause. The union is looking for nothing more than a fair redistribution of wealth. The union raises the quality of life of every member of society, not just postal workers. In particular, the union helps safeguard fair working conditions and drive the overall economy. What is more, better working conditions for postal workers mean better working conditions for all workers. Through their work, letter carriers actually provide a reassuring presence in the neighbourhoods they serve. I am thinking particularly of the poorest members of society, the elderly. Not only do postal workers provide efficient service, but they also build ties with the public.
No, the government's measures will not go through as easily as the mail arrives at its destination. The government must take the locks off the doors and let postal workers do their wonderful work.
David Tilson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member who just spoke and I have listened to other members of the New Democratic Party. It is all about the union. They have all boasted about how they have done such and such with the union. I understand that. That is part of their platform. That is part of their life.
However, there are other people in this country who are having great problems as a result of what is going on.
A small-business owner from Orangeville by the name of Jeff left a telephone message with my Orangeville office. He said most of his customers' payments are sent by mail and that because of the strike he will not receive payments for orders he has already fulfilled, which will cause grave problems to his business. He may even go under as a result.
My question for the member is this: does he care about the Jeffs of Orangeville, those types of people who are in that situation, the small-business person as an individual or an organization?
[Interjection]
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member across the way that the locks were put on by the government across the way. Let the parties involved work together and negotiate, and they will find a solution. That would be a tangible step towards protecting all workers, both postal workers and those in the hon. member's riding.
[Interjection]
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member just said something that is patently false. He said the lockout was imposed by the government. I think he is--
The Speaker: We have been dealing with this for some time now. Statements of this nature are points of debate, not points of order.
Are there questions and comments?
The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi, and I commend him for his very worthwhile remarks.
It is very clear that a government agency has imposed a lockout. This bill is totally draconian and unacceptable. The government is trying to impose a settlement on the workers, and we do not support that, plain and simple. It is an affront to their dignity.
Could the hon. member comment further on this draconian bill? I would like to know whether he thinks the government's bill is warranted or whether he feels both parties should be able to negotiate a collective agreement in due course and on an equal footing.
[Interjection]
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.
He knows that, when two parties engage in honest and open negotiations, they move toward a solution that benefits everyone. I think that is the type of solution needed in the Canada Post situation.
We should remove the unjustified wage reduction clause and remove the locks from the doors. The employees want to work. They want to serve the public. We should let them do their work and create the conditions required for the two parties to negotiate in good faith.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague across the aisle very intently. I would just say that one of the problems with socialism, which I understood his party embraced last week, is that once the socialists have spent everybody else's money, then they are out of business.
However, my real concern has to do with the fact that he said that this was imposed to soon.
Is his problem that it is just early days? 
Why do we not get this signed and get people back to work, get businesses back in business? That is what this is about.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has only 30 seconds left.
[Interjection]
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, when we put a gun to the head of one party, the chances of finding a win-win solution are slim. I support the negotiation process, and it should be the preferred option. However, we should have a negotiating context where both sides act in good faith and are prepared to make compromises.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I love your haircut.
This is my first opportunity to deliver a speech in the 41st Parliament, and I would like to begin by thanking the voters of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for the vote of confidence I received in my re-election. No one can say we did not notice.
I remain humbled by their decision and hope to meet and exceed the expectations placed on me by the good people I am fortunate to represent. I also want to thank all those who staffed and volunteered in my campaign. I am extremely grateful to all of them, and of course, my ability to stand in this House would not be possible without the wholehearted support of my family and my friends, and especially the support of my husband Keith, my children Mindy and Shawn and their partners and of course my mother Simone.
As many of you may know, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is one of the largest ridings in Canada at 103,264 square kilometres to be exact. Culturally we are very representative of Canada. There is a significant Franco-Ontarian population and, yes, in my constituency, many communities celebrate St-Jean-Baptiste Day. As a matter of fact, Kapuskasing hosts the biggest St-Jean-Baptiste festival in Ontario. Hence, we are disappointed with the Conservatives for not allowing the House to rise in respect of Quebec's national holiday. 
Should we be surprised? I think not, given recent elections called by the Prime Minister for which we saw Elections Canada offices open on Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Easter Monday. It is obvious that the Prime Minister is not respectful of holidays that allow for quality family time together. While workers have fought to achieve days off, this government has continuously blatantly refused to respect even religious holidays.
We also have a strong first nations presence in my constituency and both Ojibway and Cree are spoken. There are 17 reserves in the constituency populated by hard-working people. 
While I am talking about the first nations, I want to inform the House of something that came to my attention this week with respect to the arbitrary decisions that this government actually makes, the reason we are here today. 
Chief Shining Turtle from Whitefish River First Nation wrote to me and indicated that INAC has given notice to one of the bands in my riding that they now have roughly three months to wrap up a major land claim. Their work plan, which was approved by INAC, calls for wrap-up by next year but not in the next three months. However, that is what INAC wants. The band needs 12 months to properly negotiate the details of this 1850 claim. This is a complicated history to evaluate, and they are concerned and want to ensure that they get it right in order--
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Brant is rising on a point of order.
Phil McColeman: Mr. Speaker, this debate is about Bill C-6, not about land claims in this country and who is on the right side of land claims.
This is totally inappropriate.
The Speaker: I urge the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing to bring her remarks to the substance of Bill C-6 as quickly as possible.
Carol Hughes: I will do just that. As I indicated, this is about arbitrary decisions. The chief goes on to say, “My council and I much favour co-operation and collaboration over unilateralism and arbitrary government action which inevitably result in frustration and confrontation.”
That is where my remarks link to Bill C-6.
Most of the work in my riding has traditionally been resource-related, especially in the forestry and mining sectors. There are many farms, including a significant stretch along the strip of land near Lake Huron, and a great many small businesses as well. More and more we are seeing the small businesses pick up the slack created by job losses in traditional resource sectors, which have been devastated by short-sighted government policies over the last few decades.
As I said, we are hard-working people, but it is not all work all the time by any stretch. Visitors to our riding this summer will have no end of opportunities to join in our community's celebrations and cultural events. As you can imagine, with two Great Lakes and thousands of inland lakes, streams and rivers, we have fantastic fishing in the constituency as well. In fact, Chapleau has just won the title of Canada's Ultimate Fishing Town in the World Fishing Network--
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member has been speaking for a little over four minutes and I have heard the words Bill C-6 only once. Maybe she can bring the rest of her remarks to the substance of the bill. I think the House would appreciate it.
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: It all comes back, Mr. Speaker, to the first part when I was offering congratulations about being elected.
Usually when I stand in this House to offer some remarks on a piece of legislation, I say that I am happy to speak to the bill. Today nothing could be further from the case.
There is nothing happy about back-to-work legislation, and the piece we have before us now is among the worst this place has ever seen.
It is a blatant attack on workers and pensions and is emblematic of the contempt that the Conservatives display for hard-working Canadians. As I indicated before, this is exactly what the chief had mentioned.
We understand how this government feels about workers. When it comes to picking sides and using legislation to end strikes and lockouts, the government has one gear: overdrive. We have seen this with workers, and we have seen this with first nations as well.
Even Lorne Gunter, a columnist friendly to the Conservative government, stated on Wednesday that they are acting like bullies in the Canada Post lockout. It's not that I agree one bit with his prescription for privatization. He manages to completely ignore Canada Post's mandate when he asserts that the private sector can do the same job as the Crown corporation. I will speak to that in a moment.
What concerns us on this side of the House is that not only is this government choosing winners and losers in this dispute, they are forcing a lower wage on Canada Post employees than the corporation was offering, and the logic behind that has gone missing.
It would seem that Conservatives feel workers do not deserve to make a good living wage in Canada, that only management deserve defined-benefit pensions, and that the interests of the elite far outweigh the interests of the general public. How does driving down wages help the economy? It does not. It lowers the buying capacity of individuals. That much is certain. It makes it harder to buy a house, which in turn affects housing starts. It makes it difficult for children to pay for increasingly expensive post-secondary education, which makes it harder for those children to get better-paying jobs themselves. It increases the divide between the wealthiest and the poorest Canadians, a trend that has gone on for a 25-year run now in the wrong direction. It is another nail in the coffin of the middle class in Canada. It is not a prescription for a robust economy either.
We have to ask ourselves then, if this move does not help the economy, what purpose it serves. Could it be ideological? It would seem so.
Let us take a moment then to look at the main point in Mr. Gunter's article that I spoke about earlier. He suggests that the private sector could easily deliver the same services Canada Post offers, at which point he needs to take a look at the mandate of Canada Post which is to guarantee postal service to all Canadians. When people call for Canada Post to be privatized, many are looking at the $281 million the corporation made last year, and they are licking their chops. 
If we privatize it, will all Canadians still receive postal services? I do not think so. I have already spoken about Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing. It is a vast rural riding and is exactly the kind of place that would suffer the most if Canada Post were to be replaced by the private sector. In rural and remote areas, postal service is arguably more important than it may be in larger centres. 
Many people in my constituency have limited or no Internet options and they still write and receive letters. They cannot go online to do their banking or pay their bills. For them postal service is an integral part of day-to-day life. This is the actual postal service that this government, under another government agency, has locked out.
If we imagine what might happen if we privatize postal service in Canada, we can look at two different scenarios for places like Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing. Under one scenario there would not be postal service at all. Let us face it: there are postal routes in Canada that are not contributing to the $281 million Canada Post made last year. Most of those are rural and remote. If we allow for the private delivery of mail in Canada, I cannot imagine many people busting down doors to get their hands on the rights to deliver mail in places like Hearst.
Speaking of Hearst, right next to it is Constance Lake. It took us a year to finally get a post office there or at least some postal service there after there was no postal service delivered to that area. They had to travel over 40 kilometres. This is how we know that if Canada Post were privatized, we certainly would not see the services in those areas. 
What we would likely see is a profitable portion of postal deliveries scooped up in a heartbeat and quite possibly the end of mail delivery in many parts of Canada. 
The second scenario is one that sees rural and remote delivery continued but at a dramatically higher cost to the consumer. If we allow the real price of delivery to govern the cost of each piece of mail, the delivery of rural and remote mail will become exorbitantly expensive. It will add to the already high cost of living in these places, which has been exacerbated in recent years by the high cost of basic items, such as heating, and tax grabs like the HST. 
We just went through a campaign during which there was a huge response to the message the leader of the NDP brought to Canadians. It was a message of hope based on making life more affordable, and it obviously resounded with the Canadian public, as we now sit as the official opposition. The NDP believes in the need to address the inequities in Canada's rural and remote communities. 
Let me speak about Elliott Lake.
 I see that the Speaker is getting up.
The Speaker: I am anxious to hear about Elliott Lake, but now we will have to move on to questions and comments. 
The hon. member for Essex. 
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can actually talk about the bill in the next couple of minutes.
There has been a lot of discussion today, and members opposite on several occasions have raised the prospect of making amendments to Bill C-6. There has been a lot of talk about one of them being about wages. The member's colleague, the member for York South—Weston, suggested that 11.5% over four years, which is what he said the Toronto police received in a settlement, would be considered a fair wage. The member for Trinity—Spadina suggested 3.3% per year, which would be 13.2% over four years. 
Can the member tell us whether the New Democrats will be moving an amendment to stipulate wage increases that are somewhere between 11.5% and 13.3%?
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated before during this debate, we are not going to show the government all of our cards at this point. We have indicated what we are willing--
The Speaker: Order, please. 
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated, we have actually provided some information with respect to a hoist motion. If the government is willing to really negotiate and look at the wage rates, then we are certainly open to its suggestions and will continue down that road. Obviously the government is not willing to move at this point, and that is why we are still here today. 
 Let me tell you about Elliott Lake, which reinvented itself, as a response to the loss of mining jobs, as an affordable place for pensioners and seniors to retire. For many of those seniors, the incremental increases in the cost of living ate away at the advantage they sought when they moved to Elliott Lake. 
What does all this have to do with the debate? It has to do with pensions, which are part of Bill C-6. Price increases to everyday items, such as groceries, are hard enough to budget for. When the Conservative government conspired with the Ontario government to slap an additional 8% on home heating bills, it was a significant shock.
The Speaker: I have to stop the hon. member there to allow for more questions and comments. 
The hon. member for Newton—North Delta. 
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for her very passionate and well-thought-out presentation.
I have a question for my colleague, and it specifically relates to the legislation. The legislation the government has introduced would actually give postal workers a lower salary increase than was offered by Canada Post. I would like my colleague to comment on that and on what kind of impact that has on free collective bargaining. 
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, and she is absolutely right. The government is trying to impose a lower wage rate than what Canada Post actually wanted to give them, while the CEOs are actually making a pile of money. In 2010 it was $497,100, plus a 33% bonus. Is that fair? No. 
When we think of this, we think of J. S. Woodsworth's famous line: "What we desire for ourselves we wish for all”. Would it not be great, whether we are in collective bargaining or not, to ensure that all Canadians have a decent pension so that they have a good quality of life? We also want to make sure that every worker has a good wage, and a living wage at that. 
Mr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, finally the hidden agenda of the NDP is revealed. Not only are they socialists and anti-small business, but now we find out that they are simply a party of large-union members. 
I come from a rural riding. I would like to ask the member about a small businessman I talked to in the last week who has been drastically affected. Rochester Hatchery has been drastically affected not only by the situation that is now ongoing but also by the rotating strikes. He said that the rotating strikes were as devastating for his small business, with the uncertainty they provided, as what is going on today. The only thing that will help him is if we move forward and get this legislation passed quickly. It has cost his business $70,000 to this point in time.
I ask the member what she would say to my small businesses in rural Alberta that are being affected.
Carol Hughes: What I would say is that this government can come to its senses and remove that wage from its bill, and we will talk.
Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last night we heard a phenomenal speech by the leader of the official opposition. He raised the bar and raised the tone of civility of this debate. He also focused our attention on some of the really important things that matter and that mattered in the last election.
I want to remind those in the chamber of another speech made last night. It might have been this morning; I can't quite remember. It was by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the official opposition labour critic. He talked a lot about the history and culture of working people. He reminded the House and Canadians of the battles that have gotten us to a place where so many people in this country take having a weekend off for granted. He talked about his father, who was a lumberjack. He himself was a miner. I thought it was a really powerful speech, because we forget that nothing comes without a fight.
The government has repeatedly asked why we are here. We are here because we want to bring it to the government's attention that we want to speak for all workers, not just unionized workers.
 I want to speak to the fact that I have been a self-employed small-business person. My father was as well.
I represent a riding where there are a multitude of different kinds of small businesses and self-employed people, and they are workers too. They want pensions. They want benefits. They want job security. They would like to have access to EI. If their children get sick, they would like to take a couple of days off to look after their loved ones. This is not an option for many Canadians. 
We are here tonight, and for as long as it takes, to focus the government's attention on the fact that workers in this country are hurting. A win for a trade union is a win for all workers, and a loss is a loss for all workers. 
There are people in my riding who worked for companies for 23 years, were let go, and now have no workplace pensions. They have none. Do members know what they are doing now? They are competing with their grandkids for jobs at KFC.
The government asks what we are doing here. When we in the NDP see legislation like Bill C-6, which offers workers less than what management was offering in the first place, we have to say that this is not right. The leader of the official opposition, the member for Toronto—Danforth, drew a very clear and respectful line in the sand. 
I too have received e-mails and phone calls from small-business people in my riding. For example, I received an e-mail from a member in my riding who publishes two magazines, not one but two. He is dependent on postal service. He e-mailed me to say that we have to stand with the workers at Canada Post and that the principle of collective bargaining is a principle that our grandparents and great grandparents fought for.
Last night I listened to many of the members opposite talk about how their fathers were in the trade union movement. I thought that was interesting. If it were not for the hard work and dedication of men and women over decades and decades, many of us would not have had the opportunity to end up where we are right now. That is very important for us to consider.
Another thing I respectfully ask the members opposite to consider is this. In 1995 a CEO's salary was 85 times the average worker's. That seems a little high. Most reasonable people would think there was something out of whack with that kind of equation.
 I know some of our friends across the aisle like to characterize some of us on the official opposition side as some kind of wild-eyed folks that they do not want around their money.
 However, today a CEO's salary is 220 times the average worker's pay. Whether one is a small business owner, a medium-sized business owner or a big business owner, or a worker, something is wrong with that.
 That brings me back to Bill C-6. If we allow pensions to be chipped away at for workers who have fought for so long to achieve and to protect this benefit, then we will not help workers across the country who have no pension in the first place. If we let this happen, it moves the marker back for everybody else.
I was elected in the riding of Davenport on the promise that I would advocate for, speak up for and fight for, among other things, those who had no pensions, benefits or access to a safety net like employment insurance.
If we look at the data, we see a large-scale migration from the unemployed line of the ledger over to the self-employed line of the ledger. The problem is that for so many people who are self-employed, they are not really making enough money. They are trying to get businesses off the ground.
The government likes to trumpet the fact that it has supposedly created hundreds of thousands of jobs, but it never says whether these are full-time jobs. It never says whether these are jobs on which one can raise a family. We need a means test because one cannot raise a family on a $10 an hour or $12 an hour job. One cannot raise a family on a job where at the whim of the employer he or she loses a couple of days of work. That is happening all across the country.
At the same time, housing affordability has plummetted. It is almost impossible for most young families to afford to live in the city of Toronto.
We have postal workers who are key to our communities, to our economy and we have been asked to agree with the government to chip away at their living wage. We will not do that. 
We have many workers in the country who are looking for leadership from the official opposition—
The Speaker: Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have not yet engaged in this discussion or debate in this place. I have listened to the hon. member's comments quite closely, and I there are a few small corrections that need to be made.
First, with respect to the hon. member, he is not simply elected by some constituents. He is here to represent all of his constituents. This is not a closed shop. This is not a union organization. This is not a non-union organization. Our job, as members of Parliament, is to represent everyone as fairly as possible.
The issue is quite simple. We have a group of workers that failed to negotiate. What the workers could not negotiate, they will now try to get through intimidation, and the tactics with which to intimidate are the official opposition. 
I cannot understand for the life of me why those members would not agree to put the postal service back to work so all Canadians can get back to work.
[Interjection]
Andrew Cash: Mr. Speaker, representing all Canadians is exactly what we are trying to do on this side of the House. 
When we have one-third of all income gains in the last 20 years going to the top 1%, who is representing whom? We are very clear on this.
In my riding of Davenport we have real estate agents buying pizzas and donuts for CUPW workers because they recognize they are partners.
I am talking about every day Canadians, whether they are in a union, or they are a dishwasher, a cab driver, a web designer or a small entrepreneur, we are all in this boat together. It is the government that is trying to hive off a certain part of the Canadian community and play that one part off against the rest. 
We will not stand for that and we have drawn that line in the sand.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member speaking clearly from his heart with very commendable comments. I know he and my other colleagues feel clearly in our hearts that we are here to represent all of our constituents.
While I have been here, I have not heard members on the other side debate their reasons. They will stand and ask questions, but I have not heard debate. It is very rich that they criticize the postal workers who are locked out and say that it is their fault.
There has been a record rate of bankruptcy in my province of small businesses. Rural post offices have been shut down. The services in the cities have been limited. Where have the Conservatives been for the small business people for the last three years?
[Interjection]
Andrew Cash: Mr. Speaker, many of us who come from Ontario have seen this movie before. It is called manufacturing a crisis in order to justify draconian measures. We are now seeing it again. 
Small entrepreneurs, small business people, self-employed people are not buying it. They see that their interests are very similar, if not exactly the same, as CUPW workers because they need the same thing. They need a living wage. They need an income that can support their families. They need pensions so they can retire in dignity. These are Canadian values and that is what we are fighting for.
Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House today. On May 2, I received one of the best presents of my life from the people of Shefford. A total of 27,575 voters put their confidence in me. This is not merely a number. I am talking about people who took time during their day to go and put an X on a ballot. I am taking this opportunity to wish them a happy national holiday. I regret that I cannot be there to celebrate with them.
When it comes to my constituents, my priority is to respect them. “Respect” means to “understand”, and to “understand” means to “listen”. The problem with this government is precisely its inability to listen, to understand and to respect. That inability is illustrated by the fact that it refused to suspend our proceedings during Quebeckers' national holiday.
What do Canada Post workers tell us? I met with them last Friday. They told me they want the government to help them negotiate an agreement, rather than imposing one. 
I am going to explain to the government what the term “negotiate” means. It means to listen, to discuss and to exchange views. Canada Post workers have been asking the other side to negotiate to reach an agreement, not to protest on a sidewalk because of a lockout. Postal workers want to deliver the mail. They want to provide that service to the public. They want to help Canada Post fulfill its mandate, which is to serve all Canadians, whether they live in urban or rural areas.
Eight months later, the government has still not figured out how to encourage the two sides to negotiate. The best that it could come up with was to impose unacceptable conditions, within which an arbitrator must try to do his job. The government has imposed salaries increases that are lower than what the two parties had agreed upon, before negotiations broke down.
Instead of ending the lockout, the government gave legitimacy to it. In fact, this is a measure which it has itself used on several occasions to shut down Parliament. The government knows full well what it means. It means that people cannot work and provide the service for which they were hired or elected.
My grey hair speaks volumes about my age. I belong to the generation which wrote its first love letters on paper, not on the Internet. In fact, I still do so. If I am sharing this information with hon. members here today, it is so that they understand the importance of mail in people's lives. To illustrate that importance, I should mention that ever since people began to write, the exchange of letters has played a critical role in discoveries and in the understanding process in a society.
Letters are not only important to people like me and my colleagues. They also play a key role in the creativity of many artists. Georges Dor used to sing:
 If you knew how lonely we are at the Manic 
 You would write to me much more often at the Manicouagan 
 If you do not have much to tell me 
 Write the words “I love you” one hundred times 
 It will be the nicest of poems 
 I will read it one hundred times 
 One hundred times a hundred is not much 
 For those who love one another. 
As the words of that song tell us, in remote areas such as the Manicouagan, where workers built a new part of Quebec, letters have always played a critical role and they still do. They have also inspired our artists. That is why we cannot understand Canada Post's decision to impose a lockout.
People in love can no longer write to each other since Canada Post imposed its lockout. The workers could continue to deliver these letters, but they can no longer do so.
Letters bring joy. There are love letters, friendship letters, postcards, and birthday cards. There are also pension cheques, child support payments, tax refunds and so on.
Sometimes, letters are also associated with sad events, such as condolences when our thoughts are with dear ones who are experiencing a difficult time. 
As hon. members may have noticed since the beginning of my speech, I am a sensitive man, and I am proud of that. I want to preserve this sensitivity, because to me it is an essential quality in human relations.
All jobs have pros and cons. In the case of a letter carrier, it is to carry one's bag on a rainy day, in a heat wave, or when it is freezing, which happens a lot in our northern country, and also when the snow falls relentlessly, forcing those who deliver our mail to zigzag their way along the sidewalks and streets of our cities and towns that are buried in snow. But, no matter what, these men and women are always there to do their job.
I was able to see it for myself on numerous occasions, because I worked flexible hours. I had the opportunity to see my letter carrier when he would bring the mail to my house.
After my election, while I was waiting for my riding office to open, he took the time to come and explain the procedure to follow regarding all correspondence with my constituents. 
This brings me back to the beginning of my speech. What exactly are Canada Post employees asking? The answer is simple. They want both sides to negotiate in good faith. They want the clause setting salaries for postal workers to be withdrawn. They want the lockout to end immediately, so that they can start delivering mail again and serve the public, since that is the reason they were hired. Finally, they want the previous collective agreement to remain in effect until the negotiations end and an agreement is reached.
Canada Post is not a bankrupt corporation that must urgently restructure itself at the expense of workers, as too many companies have done in the past. 
No, Canada Post is a profitable business that has a duty to listen to the public and to its employees. 
In closing, I wish a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to all francophones across Canada. 
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the member opposite, and I do believe that there are a lot of love letters going around: between the big union bosses and the ex-union bosses on the NDP front bench. That is where the love letters are being sent this week.
Earlier it was said that our government has never stood up and said that it has created full-time jobs. It was asked what percentage of jobs have been created. The Minister of Finance said in question period that we have created 560,000 new jobs. We are the only country other than Germany that has already replaced all of the economic output that was lost during the recession. I think our government can stand on firm economic ground. Canada has had a great recovery from the recession, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
I have a question for the member. We have heard from a lot of NDP members who are standing up here and questioning the fact that we brought in back to work legislation. I would like know, if the NDP ever were fortunate enough to form government, would there ever be a situation when that particular party would bring in back to work legislation, if not in the Canada Post situation?
[Interjection]
Réjean Genest: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
It is important to understand that, in this case, Canada Post employees did not choose the situation they find themselves in right now. It is Canada Post that decided to impose a lockout. 
Canada Post decided that Canadians would no longer receive their mail. It is preventing letter carriers from working. The Government of Canada went one step further by setting lower salaries. The workers did not need that. They make the economy run. They are the engines of the economy—
The Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. member so that we can hear other questions.
The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the hon. member for Shefford for quoting the great poet and songwriter Georges Dor, who put into words the situation that was experienced by thousands of Quebec workers during the 1960s, on the remote jobsites of Manicouagan. That project is a great achievement. It is a major part of our heritage and also an expression of our culture. 
Speaking about expression, let us not forget that, in this House, we can express our opinions and ideas freely. Members opposite are free to make up causes for this dispute, just as they have the right to say they believe in Santa Claus. However, they also have the responsibility to look at the reality, and the reality is that a lockout was imposed.
I want to ask my colleague what he thinks of the behaviour of this government, which prevents the two sides from negotiating in good faith and coming to an agreement.
[Interjection]
Réjean Genest: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that we have a government that does not know how to listen and that does as it pleases.
Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on this side for their passionate presentations, and I am appalled by the old socialist doctrines expressed over and over again by the NDP, with clear Marxist-Leninist overtones. We have heard that 97.7% voted for a strike. That is very close to 99.9% of some failed socialist administrations.
Until when will the NDP keep Parliament hostage instead of serving the interests of Canadians? Let Canadians have their mail.
Could the member please explain to the House how he can justify his party turning its back on the rest of Canadians and so clearly taking sides with the union bosses and not with the workers and Canadians?
[Interjection]
Réjean Genest: Mr. Speaker, I could turn the question back to the hon. member. That is precisely what we are asking. Why does the government not end this dispute by simply ending the lockout and reopening the doors for business?
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf, and as the critic on francophonie, allow me to first wish a happy national holiday to all Quebeckers. This day has been called the national holiday for the past few years to be more inclusive of all minorities in Quebec. My age is betraying me here. I am sometimes a little nostalgic and I miss what used to be called Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Today, I feel a great deal of empathy for all the francophones of this wonderful country who are celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Happy celebrations to them also.
It is no secret that, before May 2, my life was totally different. I wore two hats: I was a teacher in a Trois-Rivières high school, and I was the union rep for the teachers at that institution. Therefore, I have some experience in collective bargaining. I negotiated at least four collective agreements, each with a term of five years. They were referred to as “institutional peace”. At the end of each of those negotiations, and despite the clashes and the differences of opinion, we always managed to find a win-win solution and both sides could come out of the process with their heads held high. They may not have obtained all that they wanted, but they had improved their lot. 
On May 2, a majority of voters in my riding elected to me to represent them in this House. I was perhaps a little idealistic in thinking that I was coming here to help create and draft legislation that would ensure the well-being of all Canadians. In the few minutes that I have, I am going to show how Bill C-6, now before us, contains major flaws that make it unacceptable. Since yesterday, there is broad consensus if not unanimity in the House on the importance of getting postal workers back to work. The Conservative Party, the NDP, the third party in the House and postal workers themselves all hope that the workers can return to work. Everyone hopes they will go back to work. Why is that not happening? Probably because this specific dispute involves a lot more than just the conflict at Canada Post. 
Canada Post is a very large corporation. Yesterday, I listened with great interest when the Minister of Labour described this corporation. It became clear to me that what we have been debating for hours will set a precedent. Indeed, whether it is another crown corporation, a private venture, a small, medium or large business, or any type of business in this country, what is going on right now is setting a precedent. The government is setting the rules for future negotiations.
While I was preparing these notes, I put my history teacher hat back on, to see when these mean unions were born. Of course, I am being ironic when I use the term “mean”, because that word was used in reference to me during many years. I suppose it will be used again against me in the next few minutes, in addition to the term “socialist”, but I have no problem with that.
At the beginning of the industrial revolution, at a time when those who had money were creating businesses, workers were not listened to by owners. Their working conditions were harsh, their living conditions were miserable and they did not have any access to the sharing of wealth. Whenever they would, individually, try to meet their boss to improve their plight, the door would be shut, or they would just be ignored. So, the solution came naturally. The only way for workers to have a balance of power was to get together and create unions. And how did the employers of the day—at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century—react? Their initial action was to try to pass legislation to prevent unionization.
Thank goodness, they did not succeed in that respect and the union movement was able to continue to develop. A second attempt was made to pass legislation preventing the right to strike. It seems to me that, 200 years later, we are not very far from those actions in the current dispute, since the strike at Canada Post was a very modest one. We are talking about rotating strikes designed to stop mail delivery for one day in one region of the country, and then in another one, so that the whole economy would keep running and businesses would continue to get postal services. At the same time, it allowed employees to show to the public what their working conditions are, while also putting some pressure to support their demands.
Fortunately, unions have made a lot of ground since the industrial revolution, with the result that working conditions are now much better. The work week is reasonable—with the exception of the current one—, living conditions are much improved and wages are decent. As regards salaries, Bill C-6 includes a despicable discriminatory measure whereby young workers would not enjoy the same treatment as more senior workers. It is strange that the government would propose, here in the House of Commons, a bill containing measures that members of Parliament would not accept.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke, who is not here right now but who is the youngest member in this House, the hon. member representing the neighbouring riding of Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who is the dean of this House, and I, who am somewhere in the middle, all receive the same salary, because here we have understood that, regardless of age and experience, the ideas, the values and the work of each member are of equal value and deserve equal remuneration. I cannot figure out why we would not provide for others what we are providing for ourselves. Yet, such is the nature of Bill C-6.
Who benefits from a fair and equitable negotiation process and a win-win solution? Everyone can benefit. Canada Post employees of course, but also management. It would benefit from having a positive working environment for many years and from objective management practices based on a mutually accepted agreement. Moreover, the employees of other corporations in Canada would also benefit, because that successful process would serve as a model. 
Let us not also forget the whole category of precarious jobs and self-employed workers, whose numbers are constantly growing because of technological progress. Since these people are alone, they can hardly make demands. However, they are affected positively or negatively by the outcome of the collective bargaining process carried out by major unions.
And here is the icing on the cake. Labour standards provide that the union has the right to strike, while the employer has the right to impose a lockout. In principle, these are the two ultimate negotiation tools. However, these negotiations have been going on for eight months. We have been told for the past two days that it is terrible to have negotiations that have been going on for eight months. Discussions and negotiations are two very different things. One does not have to have been very involved in negotiations to know that the first few months are spent getting to know each other, developing a rapport and putting the demands on the table. Eight months is a very short period to negotiate a collective agreement. 
In the escalation process, the biggest pressure tactic used by the union was to begin a rotating strike. The reaction was swift: not only a lockout, but the suspension of the collective agreement, which includes workers' rights and benefits. And they would have us believe that this reaction is fair. 
Unfortunately, I am going to stop here, because time flies. However, I will be pleased to reply to the questions and comments of hon. members.
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his election and I thank him for his comments. 
As the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, I am concerned about the thousands of important documents for immigrants and Canadian citizens that are blocked because of the strike, because of the action taken by the big bosses at CUPW, that radical union. 
I am hearing the New Democrats laughing. Maybe they were involved in encouraging the CUPW bosses to block the office of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in Sydney, Nova Scotia, today, barring 700 public servants who have nothing to do with this dispute from going in and doing their work on behalf of Canadians. As a result, there will be further delays. 
There are Canadians who desperately need their proof of citizenship, permanent residency cards and citizenship grants. They are waiting to go overseas with these documents. All of that is being held up by the big union bosses in the radical CUPW union, which is being defended by the NDP for narrow ideological reasons. 
I want to ask the hon. member how he can justify an illegal action that prevents public servants in my department from doing their job on behalf of Canadians.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question. 
I simply want to point out to him that the day after my election I was invited to meet with the Picazo family, which was dealing with an immigration issue that needed to be settled very urgently. That family was threatened with deportation within four or five days. With the NDP team, I managed to reach the minister's office to try to obtain a stay. I did that without postal services. I used the telephone, the car, the computer and, particularly the useful help provided by MPs in each riding. 
If an immigrant needs help, I think that every member of this House, regardless of party affiliation, will provide that help. 
Andrew Cash: Mr. Speaker, like many members in this House, I have received emails describing that even though there were no rolling strikes in Toronto, Canada Post was not staffing stations. Consequently small businesses along Dundas West were not receiving their mail.
 It is unbelievable to hear the hon. minister say that somehow we are thwarting small businesses when Canada Post has not been staffing sorting stations and small businesses were not getting their mail before the lockout. Now there is a lockout, and that lockout is up to the government to deal with.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I will answer by quoting a short statement made by Claude Mercier, who is the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers for the Mauricie. He provides a small sample of how Canada Post works in my riding. In his letter, he says that, as regards service to the public, the mail was not delivered in some areas of Trois-Rivières last Friday, because it stayed in the letter carriers' sorting cases and the management had decided not to use replacement personnel.
Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I too have been involved with a union for a number of years. I was a school teacher for 34 years. I was also involved with a political liaison between the Alberta Teachers' Association and the Government of Alberta. There are a lot of things that can happen when one gets people together and one gets them to work. 
One of our concerns is that Red Deer was one of the places that did have rotating strikes, and we have felt all of the ramifications of that particular action. We have also had a lot of people inform us that they have considerable concerns as well.
But we have had people on both sides of this issue. I have had some communication from a fellow by the name of Cam who is concerned. He disagrees with some of the things we are saying. He does not like the “winner take all” arbitration, but he is also saying that we should be ordering the employees back to work. These are the kinds of things that we see. We see a lot of different concerns. 
A lot of people are trying to get communications out. They put ads and so on into newspapers, but the only way that gets to the community is through Canada Post. They go through the effort of producing the papers, collecting the ads and everything else, but they are having difficulty getting the communications out. 
I would also like to talk about one of the events that will be happening in--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. I regret that we are running very narrow on time. 
The member for Trois-Rivières has 30 seconds left in his response.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, even though I did not find the question in there, I am pleased to be part of this brotherhood of teachers with my learned colleague. What seems most important in what he said is that when we are part of a union, we can bring people together, closer, and we can create winning conditions. 
It seems to me that we, in this House, should set an example. Being unable, after two hours of debate, to put forward a motion or an amendment that would get the support of all parties sends a very bad message to the public.
Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to wish all Quebeckers a happy national holiday, in particular the people of the riding of Laval—Les Îles, with whom I would really have liked to celebrate tonight, but since the government has prohibited this—we know what is going on, we understand—it will not be possible. They will understand the reason for my absence.
The government decided to extend the work of the House without regard for Quebec MPs or their constituents. It preferred to interfere in the negotiations between the postal workers and Canada Post, by forcing the workers back to work under unacceptable conditions, rather than allowing us to go and celebrate with our constituents. 
I am here tonight in order to stand up for the workers of Canada Post who are fighting in good faith to obtain sound working conditions and a negotiated collective agreement. They are faced with the possibility of seeing the government impose salaries that are lower than those that were offered by the employer. I am also here to stand up for all workers who could be facing the same fate because of a government that has no values and does not want to amend its bill.
Before continuing, I would like to specify that unlike Canada Post, which has locked out its employees and deprived the public of an essential service, postal workers never took Canadians hostage. The rotating strikes they held delayed postal delivery by one day at the most. Their goal was to force Canada Post to negotiate. But the employer's reaction was to close the door to negotiation, impose a lockout on its employees and interrupt all mail delivery.
This is a manoeuvre that is putting the most vulnerable people in a difficult if not precarious situation. In spite of the lockout and the threat of legislation imposing a return to work with lower salaries than those proposed by Canada Post, postal workers are continuing to provide mail delivery in my riding. Pension cheques, social assistance cheques and child benefit cheques have been delivered so as to limit the damages. The postal workers are not doing this for money, but out of respect for Canadians who may well depend on those benefits for their subsistence.
I said “respect”, a word that seems to mean nothing to the Conservative government. Government interference and the prospect of special legislation to force postal employees back to work leave the door wide open for the employer, which realizes it no longer has to negotiate in good faith and can hand its dirty work over to the government.
The message to workers is clear: accept the offer of the employer, which is taking away the gains that employees have been able to achieve, not by forcing Canada Post's hand but by bargaining. Today, the government, on whom these workers should be able to rely to stand up and protect them, will impose an even worse settlement on them than Canada Post's offer. It is important to point out that Canada Post is not on the verge of bankruptcy, far from it. It generated nearly $300 million in profits in 2009, and yet it is claiming that it cannot provide its employees with sound working conditions or new employees with fair wages. That is a tough pill to swallow when the corporation pays its CEO almost $500,000, not to mention a performance bonus of more than $150,000, which would climb even higher under this bill. I am certain, by the way, that he still collected his paycheque during the lockout.
Canada Post is a profitable, reliable and indispensable postal service, and contrary to what pro-privatization forces would have us believe, no alternative involving the private sector could ever be adequate.
In addition, the Canadian public does not agree with privatizing a low-cost, high-quality postal service.
I wonder what the government—which is supposed to serve the public and respect its will—does not understand about that.
Finally, I am concerned about the precedent that will be set by this interference. Who will pay the price next time? Unionized workers have every right to expect their contract to be respected. They have every right to expect their employer to negotiate fairly, justly and in good faith. By introducing this bill, the government is opening the door to a dangerous practice that would allow employers to gut worker's rights with the blessing of the House of Commons, or at least one side of the House of Commons.
The Canadian government must set an example in terms of equality, safety and respect for workers. This should be a country that makes its citizens proud and not a land that turns the clock back on the gains made by taxpayers for benefit of company CEOs who already profit from the current system.
Happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to all French Canadians.
Julian Fantino: Mr. Speaker, as time wears on it appears that the focus of the discourse is becoming increasingly confused. Let me try to bring us back to some important facts.
I would like to suggest that we also focus on the defining offer by Canada Post. Employees hired in the future would be offered wages and benefits that are superior to those offered by competing logistic and delivery companies. 
There has been a lot of debate about whether this is a strike or a lockout. I just draw the attention of the hon. members to a June 12, 2011, media advisory from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The union held a press conference saying that workers in a number of locations would be out on strike that night. It itemized a number of areas as well.
I also wanted to also address the definition of “strike”. A strike is the collective organized cessation or slowdown of work by employees to force acceptance of their demands by the employer. Most jurisdictions require that for a strike to be legal, it must be approved by a majority of the employees in a secret vote. I do not recall that this was ever done.
I believe it is the most vulnerable Canadians who are most affected by this stoppage. That includes those with disabilities, veterans, and new Canadians. Does the hon. member honestly believe his party is helping vulnerable Canadians and small business owners by dragging out the passage of this legislation?
[Interjection]
François Pilon: Mr. Speaker, we are working for all workers across Canada. We are not just doing this for the postal workers. And we are doing this because we thought that the government on the other side would act in good faith, take the wage clause out and take the lock off the door.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I was just sitting here with my computer when I received an email. I would like to read it. It was sent by a letter carrier from the GTA. 
She says: “I am working in Mississauga, Ontario, for Canada Post. I have been working in this company for almost 29 years, both inside the postal plant and as a letter carrier. I have been listening to the government channel and would like to comment on a few things that they are attacking.”
She continues: “First of all, we did not want this lockout. We wanted to work and our high-paid upper management are making these decisions. As a letter carrier, I was in this week to deliver the cheques to our customers that the government is claiming were not delivered. Please report this to them.
She goes on to say: “Ask our government MPs and our upper management to sit in our shoes for a day or two. I think their opinions would change. We're happy with what the MPs are doing when they're saying 'unlock the doors for us to work and force Canada Post to negotiate in good faith'.”
This letter carrier from Mississauga says there is a need for Canada Post to unlock the doors and for the government to not interfere in this collective bargaining process. I am asking if my colleague can comment on that.
[Interjection]
François Pilon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.
As I said earlier, we are here to ensure that people can negotiate collective agreements, not have ones that are imposed by the government. All we are asking is that the government take the wage clause out and take the lock off the door.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I just got a message on my BlackBerry. The sender is wondering if this is a debate between members or a debate between BlackBerrys.
Seriously, the member talked about extending the work of the House. It seems to me we are debating a hoist motion and we are not even debating Bill C-6. If they want to stop extending the business of the House, let us get to Bill C-6. How about it?
[Interjection]
François Pilon: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comment from the hon. member opposite.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to wish the people in the Louis-Saint-Laurent riding, all Quebeckers and all French Canadians across the country a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
Today, throughout my riding, thousands of people are celebrating their shared values and pride at living in the beautiful province of Quebec. I hope that today was everything they hoped for.
I cannot say the same for myself. Rather than celebrating with them and taking advantage of the festivities to meet more residents in my riding, I have to listen to the government repeatedly attack the rights of Canada Post employees and justify their anti-worker measures with very questionable arguments.
Like many of the hon. members, over the past few days, I have not stopped receiving phone calls and emails from concerned citizens, from people who are wondering what this government is getting us into.
On one side of this dispute, I see people who are fighting for better job security and, on the other, I see a government with irresponsible policies that is seeking to impose an unfair contract on workers and do everything in its power to lower workers' wages. 
Last year, in 2009, Canada Post made a profit of approximately $281 million. Its President and CEO earns almost half a million dollars a year with a 33% bonus. And what is being asked? Workers are being asked to make sacrifices that will impact their families.
This government must understand that it is not its role to act as management for Canada Post. It should not have even become involved in this situation since the workers have the right to negotiate with their employer and are able to come up with solutions.
After workers have fought for decades for a fair and equitable work environment, I am wondering whether this government wanted to get involved in the dispute just to create a precedent and move us backwards.
We are lucky to have one of the best postal services in the world. Canada Post employees would like nothing more than to return to work. They have always been there for Canadians across the country, from coast to coast, in summer and in winter. Today, we must be there for them. It is a duty.
We want to work with the government to find solutions but we will not play its game. The workers deserve respect and they have the right to negotiate with their employer as equals.
The reason I am standing here today is that the thousands of men and women who every day brave all kinds of weather deserve better than this special bill. They deserve better than a watered-down pension plan, which will from one day to the next force them to change their retirement date, a date they had been looking forward to for years. After providing decades of good and loyal service, thousands of Canadians must make radical changes to their plans.
What about the promises management made to them year after year? The commitments made in successive collective agreements? Poof! Gone up in smoke. It is not fair to change the rules of the game in such a fashion.
Canada Post workers deserve better than a government that does not hesitate to separate them into two camps according to their age. In other cases, we have heard government members insist that the same rules should apply to everyone. But in this case they have taken the opposite position: they are unabashedly advocating a two-tier system, a position that tells the workers of my generation that their contribution is not up to par and will never be truly recognized.
By imposing these vastly inferior conditions on new employees, this government is digging a wide trench between the generations. It is creating serious divisions between young and older workers and will have created a more troubled work atmosphere when the mail starts to move again throughout the country.
And above all, these workers deserve better than a government that treats them the way they have been treated over the last few days, that is, as second-class citizens. What has struck me most from the beginning of this debate has been the contempt that certain members of the other side of the House have not hesitated to show towards thousands of Canadians who have devoted their lives to their community for years.
The government did not hesitate to depict them as people who are refusing to work, when the opposite is true—it is management that has put a lock on the door and brought all postal service in this country to a sudden standstill.
The government did not hesitate to attempt to turn the public against the postal workers, presenting them as the killers of the Canadian economy, a privileged caste profiting from the cost of stamps, when the opposite is true: they are productive members of the Canadian economy who generate substantial revenues for the government.
These citizens who wanted to continue working are involved in their communities and proudly serve their fellow Canadians, rain or shine.
The government did not hesitate to twist the knife with its special bill that imposes wages that are lower than those in management's last offer. This just does not make sense. The workers kept the postal system going despite their frustration with the slow pace of negotiations, and restricted themselves to rotating strikes that minimally impacted the public. The employer initiated a lockout, depriving millions of Canadians of their postal services and, as my colleagues opposite like to say, that really hurts the Canadian economy. 
What does the government do in this situation? It punishes the workers and rewards Canada Post management by reducing the offer that was on the table.
If this government really believed that this lockout was adversely affecting the economy, it would not act this way. It would end the lockout instead of punishing the workers, who acted in good faith throughout this situation.
At present, everyone wants this conflict to be resolved. That is all the employees want. They want the lockout to end so they can go back to work and continue to serve the public.
This bill, however, is not about resuming mail delivery or protecting the economic recovery, or any other reason given by the government. No, Bill C-6 is about eroding some of the most fundamental rights of Canadian workers. This bill is about sending a message to workers across Canada; they are being told to keep quiet because this government will not hesitate to interfere if they want to exercise their rights.
Today, I would like to remind this government that it must support families and help them pay their bills. That is not a favour, it is its job. It is a duty. Unfortunate, the government seems to have forgotten this. 
Today, it is attacking the postal workers. Who will be next? Who will be the next victims to have their rights violated in this way?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech.
As the member well knows, our government is concerned about the effect that the Canada Post work stoppage is having on the Canadian economy and the economic recovery.
A number of emails and BlackBerry messages have been shared. I have had numerous messages, but I think it is important that I share this one with the member and would ask for her response.
This is from a constituent who owns and operates two helicopter companies, and therefore pays corporate taxes as well as personal taxes. She asks me to speak on her behalf in Parliament with regard to the current postal strike. She wants them sent back to work, as this is seriously affecting her business in terms of receiving payments from her customers and sending payments to her vendors. She should not have to incur more costs to do business, like paying FedEx or Greyhound bills, just to be able to keep operating. 
Why is the NDP trying to block the process of back to work legislation? They are basically closing the doors on this opportunity. Why are they doing that and hurting the Canadian economy? Why are they disrespecting the majority of Canadians who want this settled?
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond to the constituent who wrote to you. In fact, this is not a strike; unfortunately, this is a lockout. The workers should not have to pay for this decision, which was made by management. Canada Post just has to unlock the doors and end the lockout and the situation will work itself out.
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the last person who spoke to briefly explain what the future could hold if a two-tiered pension system is implemented, or what it would mean in terms of employee relations within a union where some workers, because of their age, would clearly be discriminated against and condemned to a certain life of poverty when they retire.
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. Clearly, as a young woman, I cannot help but feel terrified by the idea that this type of precedent could be set at Canada Post. Frankly, young people have the right to their place, the right to jobs with good working conditions and decent salaries. I am truly terrified at the idea that a decision could be made that would create such a gap between the generations and that would have such a negative effect on working relations between employees.
Jim Hillyer: Mr. Speaker, we do not blame the unions. We do not blame the postal workers. There is one sole organization that has the ability to let the postal workers go back to work and that is the NDP.
I have a letter from Roy Wood, a small businessman. He says:
 As of right now I have 4000 “Spring Special” post cards, stamped and addressed......and just sitting on the shelf. 
 We have to be very careful and calculating with our marketing dollars.... We are losing revenue every day those cards sit. ...will it do me any good to cross out spring and write summer on 4000 cards? 
When they do not have business, it is not just he who is losing money, but his employees who do not work are losing money too. We want to ask the NDP to please stop this political stunt and let the post get mailed. 
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I can only respond in the same way as I did earlier. It is not the workers' fault. This is a lockout. The only thing that is currently preventing these employees from working and contributing to the Canadian economy is the locks on the doors. Unlock the doors and the mail will continue to be delivered and the situation will resolve itself. Let the parties negotiate.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a sad Saint-Jean-Baptiste for us, and I also find it pathetic that the government has failed to listen to our requests in this matter.
A few seconds ago, I heard the hon. member opposite ask why. One of the reasons we have embarked on this marathon is to show everyone this government's true nature. People will hear about it in the news, 20, 30 or 40 times, and in the end they will understand the government's hidden agenda to privatize the postal system. I say hidden agenda because the government is trying to make us believe it is intervening for the sake of efficiency in the interest of the workers and average citizens. In reality, however, the government's sole motivation is to make Canada more appealing to its friends in big business, on whom it bestows all kinds of tax credits.
Bill C-6 is a disgrace. It is not complicated: the bill is an abuse of power, plain and simple. Now we are seeing the Prime Minister's true colours. I urge all Canadians and Quebeckers to stand together in solidarity instead of fear, because we can all ask ourselves who will be next. Which workers will the government muzzle next?
The Conservatives would not have introduced this bill in the days leading up to the election, because there is no question that the vast majority of Canadians respect the rights of workers. This kind of bill would not go through on the eve of an election, only at the beginning of a government's mandate. The Conservatives have no hesitation perpetrating this kind of abuse. Instead of bringing the parties together, the government is taking an adversarial position against the workers. I remember a statement the Prime Minister made on election night about wanting to govern in the interests of all Canadians. I remember him saying that.
A strong, stable majority government, please.
The government is setting out to shatter our society. Does the government have a hidden agenda to sell off all our resources and the workforce? Are we facing a government that objects to public postal services for purely ideological reasons?
The government is looking to dismantle Canada Post, that is quite clear. It would prefer to privatize postal services, which would have disastrous consequences for Canadians. There is no private replacement option that could fulfill Canada Post's mandate. On the contrary, service levels would diminish but would cost more.
With a crown corporation that makes more than $280 million in profit, how can they be talking about profitability concerns and costs that would be too high for Canadians to bear? Postal services are efficient and affordable, and I think that all Canadians hold these services dear.
While more and more Canadians are using email physical mail remains an essential service and one that Canadians hold dear. But the Conservatives seem to believe differently. I use email all the time but my real mailbox is quite often filled to the brim. I easily receive about 20 pieces of mail a week, which amounts to about four pieces being sent through the mail every working day. I do not believe it is a dying service.
Postal workers are aware of future challenges and they have amply demonstrated that. Rotating strikes were respectful of the public. Pension cheques were being delivered. 
 On June 3, Canada Post workers started a rotating strike. They are fighting for better job security and fair wages. They refuse to be the victims of tactics to unfairly take back their money. They refuse to allow the rights of 48,000 employees to be violated and have their families suffer the consequences. Canada Post belongs to us all, to all Canadians.
We are lucky to have one of the best postal services in the world. Seniors need to receive their pension cheques and small businesses need to send their bills.
The government needs to take the damned locks off the doors. We are supposed to defend the people who make this essential service work. That is why we are here. Hearing the Conservatives talk about the businesses that are suffering from the lack of service, I would like to remind them that SMEs are run by ordinary citizens and that they also have collective and civic consciences. They are sometimes able to be patient. I would be curious to poll them.
In any case, we do have to bear in mind that the Conservatives look out for rather big businesses like oil companies and big banks, which do not have a social conscience. With its attitude, the government is trying to create an environment appreciated by the big business lobbies. We all know this. Let us stop fooling ourselves. It has been very clear from the start. This is why I became interested in politics three years ago. When I became a card-carrying member of the NDP, I said to myself that this could not be, that we had to stop it. This government takes its orders from big business, and is out of touch with ordinary people. That is why we are here.
I would like to remind members that the CEO of Canada Post earned $497,000 last year and, in addition, he is up for a 33% performance bonus. That is obscene.
How can we ask people to make sacrifices when others are paid that kind of money? That is mind-boggling. That is the right word. We often use that term. We say about everything and anything, that it is mind-boggling. That sure is incredibly mind-boggling. This was put to us seriously, no kidding.
Postal workers do not drive luxury cars or live in mansions. They are ordinary people who have good working conditions because they are well represented. Today, the government wants to break them. That is what they want to do.
Obviously, the government sees nothing wrong with this and it even wants to give more money to the workers' managers, who are asking for a bit of help with this special bill. 
The Conservatives cannot see past the end of their noses. In fact, they do not see past their wallets. Short-sightedness is their speciality. For example, last night at around 10:20 p.m., I heard someone blaming the NDP for creating a carbon exchange because it was going to increase gas prices. That is like dancing on the deck of the Titanic or pretending that there are no problems, that there is no pollution. They have been short-sighted from the outset. Their current desire to privatize the postal system is short-sighted. They claim that it will save money. Come on. Why do they not just admit that they want to go play golf with their friends? 
Underestimating the magnitude and scope of the measures against postal workers will create an atmosphere in which all workers will feel as though their rights are threatened. It will create a Canada where, one of these nights, a server at Tim Hortons will hesitate to complain about her working conditions. Yes, she has less protection than letter carriers and other postal workers. However, because the government is trying to break letter carriers and postal workers, this server will feel threatened. She will sell donuts and never ask for a pay raise. I guarantee it.
This is also the case for a cashier at a service station just off the 417 where we go to fill up at 3 a.m. Is he protected? How will he feel if this is done to the postal workers? And what about Raoul, who works on the 18th floor of the office building next door and who vacuums with his earphones on? He must also be telling himself that, if this is being done to letter carriers and postal workers, things will soon not be so rosy for him either. 
These workers are not unionized. They are already in a corner. Imagine how these citizens, who are often new immigrants, will gradually lose hope. It would be different if we were at least telling everyone that we need to pull together in difficult economic times. But, no. The government is going to buy F-35s because it is cool. It is true. I imagine that going to dinner with the directors of large aerospace and military equipment companies must be much more exciting than eating Timbits with Huguette or a sandwich with Raoul. 
I hear the members opposite talk about the people being held hostage and suffering from this postal situation. But let us be clear: this is not a strike, it is a lockout. I will say it again. This is like a game of table tennis: strike, lockout, strike, lockout. We all know the truth—there were rotating strikes, these guys got impatient and said, “No, we will create special legislation,” and that was that.
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the longer this work stoppage continues, the more economic losses are incurred.
Would the member opposite please explain to Canadians why his party does not care about the economic recovery. Would he please also tell Canadians how long he would like to see this work stoppage go on before the losses are too great?
[Interjection]
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I can only applaud the member's dedication to her party. Honestly, it is admirable that she continues to repeat these comments. It is a real act of faith.
But we all know that is not the situation. Let us stop there, since that is not the situation. If there is anyone who truly cares about their constituents' future and the economy in general and wants everyone to be able to make ends meet, it is us. It is not true that we do not care.
The reality is that there was a power grab on the other side, and we challenged it. That is what this is all about.
If the member would like to ask me her second question again, she should go ahead. I seem to have forgotten it.
Frank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, I met with CUPW last week in Guelph and every single member said they just wanted to go back to work. They wanted to go through normal negotiations, mediation, arbitration if necessary, but they were not allowed to.
I wonder if the member would speculate as to why Canada Post has refused to do that. Does he think there might have been any collusion with the government in maintaining this position?
[Interjection]
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would love to tell the member that I know exactly about this, but the reality is that even my mother knows. Everyone knows that something obviously happened somewhere. 
I do not want to sound too candid about this but it was a candid strike. People know they are on strike, but they did all they could so that the strike would not affect everyone too much. We all know how it was. It was great and then out of the blue, suddenly, bang, bang, it became a lockout. Was something organized behind it? I would say so. Obviously it is the case. I am not that experienced in politics, but my mother and my daughter know too.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the theme that my hon. colleague just raised. There are other ways to make sure that the mail gets moving and that would be to pick up on the union's request to Canada Post to end the lockout, let the workers go back to work under the current collective agreement and then continue bargaining a collective agreement. Government members seem to be suggesting that there is only one way to resolve this matter with that effect and that is to pass this draconian legislation.
I want to point out again that this legislation is not legislation from a government that is interested in a fair result. A government interested in doing that would not have prescribed in the legislation a lower wage rate than management was prepared to offer at the table. I have not yet heard a cogent explanation from the government side as to why it would see fit to interfere in that process.
I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on those concepts.
[Interjection]
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and I would also like to thank the other two members who asked questions. I am still not familiar with the procedures and customs here.
It is clear that if the government were to agree to take the threat out of this bill, the workers have already said that they are ready to work with the previous collective agreement to come to a negotiated settlement.
Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the thousands of postals workers who have been locked out by Canada Post. There are three postal depots in my riding, one in New Westminster, one in Coquitlam and another in Port Moody. I would like to thank all of the workers in those depots. I have talked to many of them and know their good work. I know how hard they have been working and how much this affects them and what it means to them.
Now we have proposed legislation by the government that, if adopted, will force those workers back to work. The legislation put forward by the Conservative government basically makes a mockery of the fair collective bargaining processes that thousands of Canadian men and women have fought so hard for.
I have had the honour and privilege to rise in the House many times to speak on critical issues facing our country, but few issues have motivated me more than the issue of pension protection. I believe everyone has the right to retire with dignity. As a society, we not only accept this but have also worked hard to ensure it by legislating public pension plans. 
Working families are not looking for a free ride. They have bargained their pensions in good faith with their employers, diverting their wages into pension plans to have some measure of security upon retirement. This legislation denies those workers the fruits of their labour.
We should be bringing employment and the standard of living up, not tearing them down. We should be supporting family-sustaining jobs, not promoting a race to the bottom. We should be building a better world for our parents and our children, not pulling the rug out from underneath them. This legislation is the first volley of what, no doubt, will be a long and sustained attack on public pensions across our country. 
However, do not take it from me. My office has heard from many in my riding who would be affected by this legislation. Here is what they say. 
Kerisma, a full-time letter carrier in Coquitlam, notes that since the last contract had expired, she, along with her colleagues, has worked to help Canada Post meet and exceed target goals for performance and revenue. She believes that Canada Post has not negotiated in good faith and that this legislation rewards the corporation, one, for refusing to address health and safety concerns; two, for refusing to negotiate; and, three, for locking out its workers and creating this unnecessary halt to the mail.
Kerry is a 17-year employee at Canada Post, who says that his pension is his only hope of living above the poverty line when he retires. He says that they have been subject to large cutbacks in every agreement since he joined the postal service and that if they lose any more, we will have one of the world's worst in the public service. All they are asking for is fair treatment.
Another postal worker in my riding expressed her frustration with the time value system through which workers' current pay is established. Parcels on mobile routes and withheld mail are not included in the calculation, giving postal workers more mail to carry and forcing them to work through lunch to complete their routes on time and to avoid discipline for working overtime. She wants to know why the government is attacking postal workers. Government jobs should be good, respectable jobs that we can be proud of.
Michelle has been a letter carrier for 20 years in New Westminster. She loves her job. She is a single mom with two children who struggles to make ends meet. Her route has 1,233 points of call. After starting at 6:30 a.m. every morning, she is often not finished her route until 5 p.m. when her children arrive home from school. She delivers more mail now than she did 10 years ago, and that does not include the pounds of flyers. She worries about the next generation of postal workers and whether her job will even be viable employment for future workers. She has generously invited the Minister of Labour to accompany her on her route some time, and I would be happy to facilitate such a visit.
Shannon, a nine-year employee, is concerned about her sick benefits and pension plan. She says that the physical impact of doing her job takes its toll on her body. She knows many co-workers who require surgery from work-related injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and knee and hip degeneration.
William, a letter carrier in New West, has worked for Canada Post for several years. He supports a wife and two children. He would like to retire with Canada Post but fears that a forced collective agreement would make that difficult.
Mirko is a 16-year postal worker veteran. He has two kids and a mortgage. He has seen many changes since he began as a letter carrier. He says his route would take an average mortal 10 hours to complete, for which he receives 8 hours of pay. Three years ago, ten and a half routes were eliminated from the area and everyone's route was lengthened. Injuries went up. Sixteen years ago he delivered two trays of about 1,000 letters on his route. Today, he delivers an average of three or four trays.
Leanne is a letter carrier in New Westminster. She has been employed by Canada Post for 19 years. She is 39 years old. She was just re-elected as the secretary-treasurer of the Royal City Local for a third term. This means that she works in the union office at least 10 days a month, doing the financials and the many other office duties specified in her local bylaws. She fully believes that the only reason she is not severely injured from her duties as a letter carrier is the simple fact she gets a break from the physical aspect of delivering mail when she works for the union.
New Westminster, B.C., part of my riding, is a quickly growing community. Indeed, she mentioned that she was looking out the window on East Columbia Street and watching the high-rises go up at the old brewery site as she was typing her email to me. She says that even though they are delivering to many more points of call in the city and to all others in her local, Canada Post has restructured their routes and cut the number of routes in every office for the last several years.
In September 2009, the New West depot was restructured. The end result was that 86 routes became 75, with a wave of management's magic wand. They lost 11 full-time employees, plus one relief carrier, in their depot. Every route suddenly had hundreds more points of call. This meant they were spending hours more every day on the street. They were carrying more pounds of mail every day. They were working 10, 12, even 14 hours a day. They were delivering in the dark, in the snow and on steep hills.
How did Canada Post react? It gave them ice cleats and headlamps.
Through the winter season, approximately one-third of the letter carriers were injured on the job and were either completely off or unable to do their full duties. Canada Post responded by forcing those who still happened to be able-bodied to do compulsory overtime on other routes after they had finished their own.
Canada Post challenged every WCB and WorkSafe claim put in by the members. Many were denied. Many members stopped reporting the injuries; they simply gave up.
Leanne reports that she has been left with plantar fasciitis and wakes up with foot pain every day. She says she can handle all of this, but what she cannot tolerate is the fact that she did not see her five-year-old son during the first week of their new routes.
She goes on to talk about her son and the impacts on him, the fact that she does not see him, that her parents and grandparents are involved in raising her son because she has to work overtime. She talks about being sick and getting hurt on the job. She talks about how Manulife, the third-party disability management provider, is involved in every case and questions every single claim workers put in.
The point here is that the physical and mental health effects of their jobs are affecting them and their families. 
The biggest issue she faces now is being legislated back to work. Having that crammed down her throat is something she is appalled by.
These are moments that will define a generation. How will we look workers in the eye when we leave this chamber? This draconian legislation tears down decades of collective bargaining legislation that people in this country have worked so hard to put in place. We have an obligation to honour the agreements we make with workers.
We have an obligation to honour the agreements that we make with workers. We have an obligation to protect pensions. It is the right thing to do. Along with our concerns about protecting pensions, we must act to protect good wages for all workers.
Earl Dreeshen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments. 
As I had mentioned earlier, I was a union political liaison person with the ATA in the province of Alberta, so I do understand a lot of the different things that go on between negotiating parties.
I would like to read something I have just received. It says:
 Hello Earl, I am a Canada Post employee here in Red Deer, and I have been watching the debate on resuming postal services very closely. 
 I, and my colleagues are very disappointed that this bill is taking so long to pass, and that the NDP is holding things up as they are. I am sure you are all getting very weary of this debate by now. 
 I constantly speak to my colleagues at Canada Post and we all want to go back to work— 
—If members will recall, Red Deer was part of the rotating strikes—
 —we are all waiting patiently for this bill to pass so our lives can go back to normal. The fact is, even though CUPW says they cannot come to a deal with Canada Post, the truth is the vast majority of us are happy with Canada Post's last offer and would have happily accepted it. We are at the mercy of CUPW and feel we are caught in the middle of this vicious time. 
 As part of my daily mail route is delivering mail to many small businesses, there is no doubt in my mind that business is suffering because of the postal stoppage. It is very frustrating times when the all of us 'little people' want to do is to get back to work and take care of our customers, and try to win back the business that is no doubt been lost because of this disruption. 
 Any further delay on this bill passing by the official opposition is irresponsible, and all it will do is continue to hurt small businesses, citizens, and thousands of Canada Post workers who rely on the mail system flow. 
 Speaking on behalf of myself and my fellow posties, we wish you luck and speed in getting our postal service flowing again. 
I ask—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.
[Interjection]
Fin Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, that was quite the question. It seemed like a fairly long statement.
I can certainly empathize. I have heard a number of comments. I have had a number of emails and letters from constituents, from carriers, from postal workers. They have also expressed their frustration. They simply want to have a negotiated settlement that is fair. They do not want the government to impose a deal. They do not want the government involved in this, but want to let the two parties have a negotiated settlement.
I received an email from Barry, who visited my constituency office just the other day to express his frustration with this legislation. He is a 36-year employee of Canada Post in Coquitlam. He said he had tried to contact the Prime Minister's Office to discuss this bill, but when he phoned the office hung up on him. That is how a 36-year veteran of the postal service is treated. When tries to get through, they hang up on him when he mentions that he is a postal worker. Barry is extremely frustrated, just as I have heard from some of these others. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant flaws in the back to work legislation is the fact that the government is taking the position that the postal workers are not worth the amount of money previously agreed with the Canada Post Corporation. In fact, a salary has been set within the legislation that is actually less than what Canada Post offered. 
When I listened to the email response from the Conservative member, the first thought that ran across my mind was the employee referring to the fact he was receiving a better offer from Canada Post than in this back to work legislation.
I ask the member to comment on that aspect of the legislation, which we ultimately believe could be questionable in terms of whether or not it is against our Constitution and free bargaining rights.
[Interjection]
Fin Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, this deal is worse than what they would even get at the table from Canada Post. The government is offering wage rates lower than what Canada Post offered.
It tramples on collective bargaining rights in our country.
As well, it supports a tax on the postal workers' defined pension benefits plan.
Also, it promotes a two-tier wage and benefits system. 
This legislation is an attack not just on postal workers but also on wages, benefits and pensions of all Canadian workers. That is why we are making a stand. That is why I will continue to be in the House every day, as long as it takes, to get a fair negotiated settlement not only for our postal workers but for all our Canadian workers.
Mr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to start by apologizing to my constituents in the riding of Laval for missing the various Saint-Jean-Baptiste festivities taking place throughout the community. I am here today to stand up for workers' rights.
On June 3, postal workers began rotating strikes. They are fighting for safer working conditions and decent wages. They offered to stop the rotating strikes if Canada Post would agree to abide by the old contract while negotiations were ongoing. Canada Post refused to do so. The employer instead decided to lock the workers out and to shut down postal service. That is why Canadians and small businesses are no longer receiving their mail.
It is important to keep in mind that this is not a workers' strike but a lockout imposed by the employer, Canada Post. Workers have the right to negotiate with their employer in good faith. But that is not the case here. The government wants to impose a labour contract on employees. What the government is doing does not give both sides an opportunity to reach an agreement. Furthermore, the government is proposing an agreement with even lower wages than Canada Post's offer. 
What type of message are they sending? This debate is not only about mail, it is above all about the workers' right to negotiate a collective agreement. Who will be the next group of workers to see their rights trampled underfoot in this way?
Which leads me to ask the Conservative caucus and more precisely the Minister of Labour if the ultimate objective, the government's true objective, is not simply to create a precedent, a very dangerous one in fact, in order to destroy and annihilate the union movement in Canada.
Canada Post workers want a very simple thing: they want to deliver the mail, to work, quite simply. For the moment, they cannot provide the services they were hired to provide. This raises the following question: why can they not go to work? The answer is very simple: there is a lock on their employer's door. There are locks on all the mailboxes throughout the country.
Canada Post has a mandate to fulfill for the entire population, including people in large cities like Laval and Montreal. Laval residents are already dealing with big problems, because it is difficult these days to get around on the island of Montreal where many Laval residents work. Since the government is not investing enough in infrastructure in the greater Montreal area, the residents of both the south and north shores are suffering.
It would be possible to prevent further problems for the people of Laval, Montreal and the south shore. The government could encourage negotiations and work with the opposition to make the bill acceptable to all sides in this labour dispute. 
Canada Post has decided that the Canadian population would no longer receive its mail. In addition to Canada Post preventing the letter carriers from working, the Government of Canada has decided to add insult to injury by setting lower salary levels. These workers did not need that. These workers make the economy go round. These workers are the engine of the economy. They are consumers and taxpayers. They contribute to society, as opposed to the big corporations that are always getting bigger and better gifts from the government. 
The time has come to show some flexibility and withdraw the unfair provision regarding workers' salaries.
We understand that the government is in no hurry to remove the locks from the doors, because it likes locks. It locked up Parliament several times because it did not like the way things were going.
The solution to this deadlock is simple. We are asking the government to work with us to encourage negotiation in good faith between the parties in this conflict. We are asking the government to withdraw the clause that sets the salaries for postal workers, and to put an immediate end to the lockout so that mail carriers can resume delivering the mail and providing service to the population. That is what they were hired to do. We are also asking the government to allow the negotiations to continue until a new collective agreement has been signed.
Canada Post is not bankrupt. No urgent restructuring is required. Canada Post is a profitable undertaking with a responsibility to negotiate with its workers. The time has come to put an end to the lockout.
Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I note there have been a few people reading emails from constituents into the record. I have a few from people who are very upset. I will read one. It states, “We are very upset with the Canada Post work stoppage. This is affecting communication with our senior parents. My mother does everything by mail. She cannot use a computer. My father will not receive a gift for Father's Day. My child will not get graduation photos to family and friends, let alone gifts for graduation.We, the little people, affected by this strike are very upset. We appreciate the efforts of the Government of Canada in this matter. We will support you and the Government of Canada in this matter. I was a federal and provincial employee, but I understand, enough is enough. It costs and hurts us”.
I have another one here that reads, ”I hope you are taking the message to Ottawa that Canada Post has to get workers back on the job. As small business owners with an online retail business, we rely very heavily on the delivery services of our products to customers via Canada Post”.
They are asking that we work to get Canada Post back to work. I have also received a number of tweets. I want to share a couple of those as well. One is from a constituent in Carstairs who says, “Keep up the good work. My family has very important mail that we cannot get right now. Very disappointing for our son”.
I have another one that I want to share. It reads, “Thank you for your work. I might not use Canada Post much, but my clients do and, therefore, that means the cheques are in the mail”.
I just want to point out that that would be a hashtag NDP fail. What do the NDP say to these individuals who need to have postal service so they can get their businesses working and get their families' mail? 
[Interjection]
José Nunez-Melo: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member across the way would be surprised to know how many emails I have received from all over Canada, from workers who are demanding that the government put an end to the lockout so that they can receive their mail. That is the only solution: if the government puts an end to the lockout, the negotiations can resume properly and everything will get settled.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there is a question I have been wanting to put for quite some time and I would be interested to hear the hon. member's response.
Earlier in the evening, the Associate Minister of National Defence raised a very interesting point which I am not sure really came home to everyone in the chamber. He suggested that the salaries that had been negotiated for the postal workers should be clawed back to the level proposed in the legislation because they would be more comparable to private couriers. Perhaps he showed his hand out of turn from what the PMO would have wanted. It leads me to believe that this is the first step. Maybe the Conservatives are setting the salary range for a sell-off and to privatize Canada Post.
We have been informed in this House that it is a mere $857.50 per postal worker that they are seeking. I have just learned that the government, along with the Government of Alberta, have just gifted almost $1 billion to Shell for one project to try to meet its carbon target.
The government can give $1 billion to Shell, but it cannot give $857.50 to a postal worker? Would the member like to comment on that?
[Interjection]
José Nunez-Melo: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and honourable member from our side of the House.
You should know that I come from a union background and that I have some experience in this, as I lived through the imposition of a law by the provincial government of Quebec. Let me say this at the outset: when salaries are being negotiated, it is not advisable for one party to have the upper hand. We went back to work dragging our heels.
Their ultimate objective here is to put an end to the union movement, privatize the business and offer ridiculous salaries.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before we continue with debate, I will give a helpful hint for some members. There are often a lot of members who would like to get up on questions and comments and, with only five minutes, it is good to keep your question at around a minute and that gives the respondent about the same time. We might be able to get three questions in on questions and comments.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Joliette.
Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers held a rotating strike so as not to prevent Canadians from receiving their mail. The union offered to end the strike if the company would agree to keep the former collective agreement in effect during the negotiation process; however, Canada Post refused. Why did it refuse?
Employees are locked out; they are not on strike. Their right to strike has been taken away, and this is unacceptable in 2011. Locking out employees does not seem like a good idea when negotiations are underway. We must not forget that Canada Post belongs to all Canadians. Why is the government imposing legislation that will give the workers lower salaries than what was offered by Canada Post? Why decrease their purchasing power when we know that the cost of living never stops increasing? You can see it at the grocery store each week. 
We are asking the Conservative government to respect the rights of workers. We are hoping that what is happening at Canada Post is not a prelude or a severe warning to all Canadian workers. We must allow both parties to come to an agreement for everyone's well-being. Will the Conservative government allow this to happen?
We know that a lower salary means a lower pension. After I was elected, employees in my riding asked me to protect their jobs and to ensure that Canada Post was not privatized. They explained to me what they are experiencing and told me about their concerns. They said that they have been feeling the pressure for a long time already. My role as a member of Parliament is to listen to them and bring their message to Ottawa.
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, who do the hon. member and the NDP think they are helping by causing this delay in getting our postal workers back to work? Because they are not helping Canadians. In fact, 70% of Canadians are against this. They also are not helping postal workers. 
I have done the math, and 25% of the annual increase is lost every day that the NDP delays the postal workers getting back to work. That means that, in four days, the entire annual increase for the postal workers is gone as a result of the NDP's delay in getting our postal workers back to work.
[Interjection]
Francine Raynault: Mr. Speaker, the mail may be late, but we must protect the rights of workers. I know that a large part of the population agrees with us and wants the workers to be able to negotiate a real contract and not have one imposed.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I know there are many people watching this debate with curiosity. We are looking for ideas. I understand there was some movement, in that the New Democratic caucus has provided some potential amendments to the government caucus. I think there seems to be an appetite to find out what kinds of ideas might be flowing. The leader of the Liberal Party talked about constitutionality, and we have talked about the wage factor and other aspects of the legislation.
Is there any way the member could share with the House ideas the New Democrats have that they would like to see in the current legislation?
[Interjection]
Francine Raynault: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have participated in a debate in the House. It is quite interesting. In light of what we are going through and what our employees are currently going through—because they are our employees—I believe that we absolutely must support their actions. They want a contract that is signed in good faith. We have to support them in this.
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, my question is simple.
All members agree that workers have the right to draw a pension and to live comfortably and safely. They are entitled to that because they have worked for their retirement pension. My question is as follows. What will be the impact of such legislation on workers' pensions?
[Interjection]
Francine Raynault: Mr. Speaker, reducing their wages will mean that their pensions will be smaller, and thus they will have less money when they reach retirement age. This week, we spoke several times throughout almost an entire day about the poverty of seniors. Therefore, I do not believe that we should decrease workers' salaries because they will then retire in poverty.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague realizes that we are not even debating Bill C-6; we are debating the hoist amendment.
I also wonder if all the speeches we have heard for the last two days will be repeated again when we actually debate Bill C-6. 
[Interjection]
Francine Raynault: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will repeat what we have said: it is to protect workers.
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to take advantage of the few minutes I have to try to explain the concepts that some of my Conservative colleagues have obviously not understood, even after several hours of debate.
We are here today to vote on a bill forcing workers to abandon their right to bargain, forcing them to return to inadequate health and safety conditions at work, conditions that need to be improved, and forcing them to be quiet.
This back-to-work legislation means that workers are losing ground and that their rights are being rolled back. We have said this repeatedly in the House, but apparently the words have not made it to the other side of the chamber.
Because of this bill, workers will be deprived of the right to negotiate their working conditions, a right they acquired decades ago. Please note the word “negotiation”, a word the leader of the government needs to examine more closely.
We have to discuss and debate to arrive at an agreement that will satisfy both parties and be fair to both of them, because even if one of two parties has more power, for instance if it is in majority at the bargaining table, the spirit of democracy and justice should dictate that it listens to what the other side has to say, to learn from the experience that informs each of their statements. But this government clearly has nothing but contempt for the word “negotiation”.
For several months now postal workers have negotiated to obtain better working conditions. They made concessions and they agreed to listen to what their employer had to say. They were willing to accept the collective agreement that was in force. They were ready to live with it so that things could move forward.
They demonstrated more commitment to their work and dedication to their fellow citizens than their legal obligations required. And what did the government do in light of these concessions? What did the government do in return for their dedication to public service and the citizens of this country? It treated them with contempt, ignored them and gave them short shrift. And what is even worse, it is offering postal workers even less than what they had obtained in their negotiations with Canada Post. It is proposing a lower salary and poorer working conditions. Why impose worse conditions on the workers than those Canada Post had agreed to?
Let us come back to the reason Canada Post is giving for refusing the union's demands: the argument that agreeing to these demands would supposedly render the company financially non-viable.
Given how broadly Canada Post defines its financial viability, we can therefore assume that the provisions agreed to by management did not directly or indirectly jeopardize Canada's or Canada Post's finances.
And yet, the government decided to retract these provisions. Why? The answer is simple: for profit. This bill trades the security, health and quality of life of devoted workers and their families for profits larger than the $281 million Canada Post made last year. The government is trading the dignity of our workers for a few million dollars extra. Does the Prime Minister think that this is in the best interest of our country?
Has he perhaps forgotten that a country is not a bank? This country is not a pile of money; it is people who work and dedicate themselves to this country, people who have already made concessions. 
Where are this government's concessions? Where is this government's dignity? I do not know. I do not see them in this bill. All I see here is a supreme insult to all the workers in this country who get up every morning to keep this country running, to make sure the mail gets delivered, to take care of the sick, to manufacture goods, to teach our children and to ensure that our society and economy do as well as possible. The truth is that the workers we are talking about have shown more concern and respect for Canadians than this government has.
But contempt is common on the other side of the House. Take, for example, the fact that this government was found in contempt of Parliament. We have not forgotten. The contempt this government has for postal workers who did everything they could to continue to provide service to the public even while they were on strike is unacceptable.
Who will be next? Who will be the next to be humiliated and sacrificed in the supposed best interest of the economy, an interest that we clearly do not define in the same way at all?
Who else will be silenced in the name of these supposed economic interests? Or, should I say, who else will be silenced in the name of this government's interests?
Here is one email I received:
It has been a long haul with Bill C-6, and it's with pride that I see men and women standing in defence of what is right, not only for postal workers but for all workers who don't have a voice.
I would prefer not to repeat yet again what this government has been denying for hours now, but we have no choice. It authorized a worker lockout. It prevented workers from doing their jobs, even though they were willing to continue doing work that no essential service legislation required them to do.
Then the government proposed legislation forcing employees back to work, to do a job they did not want to stop doing in the first place. Incidentally, the government took away some of their rights. The right to collective bargaining, the right to a safe working environment, the right to retire at a deserving age, the right to sick leave, the right to retirement benefits pensioners can live on and not just get by on, all of which are and should remain fundamental rights in this country.
Since this debate began yesterday, all of my NDP colleagues and I have been receiving constant emails of encouragement and appreciation. Emails asking us to fight, to continue standing up for the rights of those who live and work in this country.
Now it is my turn to take this opportunity to thank all those people for their support. They serve as constant reminders of why we are here, why we rise in this House one after another and why we are prepared to stay here as long as necessary. 
We have repeatedly heard the Conservatives argue that Canadians gave them a clear mandate to justify their behaviour in this House. I think they are sadly mistaken. I see no clear message. Thirty-eight percent of Canadians voted for the Conservatives. But, as I see it, the clear message and the message that should be obvious to anyone who can add or subtract is that 62% of Canadians voted against the government.
Since the hon. members do not seem inclined to hear the voices of those Canadians, I will make their voices heard here. This morning, I got an email from a woman telling me how proud she was for voting NDP, how heartwarming it was to see all of us, here in the House, standing up for principles that she holds dear, such as the right to free collective bargaining, equal wages for equal work, decent pension plans, public services for all Canadians and fighting back against this unfair attack on the working class. She urged us to keep up the fight against this right-wing government, which, in her words, has shown nothing but contempt for the working class and ordinary people.
And there are others.
 It says, “My family has watched the debates and we are all amazed and grateful that you will stand up for us, to not be bullied by Canada Post and the government into accepting an unfair contract. Thank you for standing up for who has a right under the law to free bargaining.”
Another says, “Keep on speaking out. Keep up the fight. Keep making clear how the crisis is one which has been manufactured by the Conservative government.”
Please listen carefully to these words. We have heard many Conservative members refer to a strike. Once again, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. As my colleagues have repeatedly pointed out, there was a rotating strike. It had a very moderate impact on mail delivery.
However, the lockout is having more than a moderate impact; it has paralyzed mail delivery. This lockout was not chosen by postal workers; it was a choice made by the executives at Canada Post, under the authority of the state, the authority of our government.
The constant use of the word “strike” rather than “lockout” by my government colleagues shows their obvious and dishonest intent to mislead citizens, to have the responsibility for this situation rest with the workers rather than the government.
The Conservatives have often talked about their concern for small business. All of us here in this House are concerned about small businesses that are being adversely affected by the absence of mail delivery.
My Conservative colleagues have been reading emails from small businesses demanding that mail service resume. But no one asked for this lockout at the outset, no one besides this government. Why not let them know once again who is really responsible for this situation, who supported the lockout, who is really adversely affecting small businesses, who is damaging our country's economy now? The answer is simple: it is the government.
Our hon. Prime Minister is doing harm to small businesses. Our hon. Prime Minister is doing harm to this country's economy. Our hon. Prime Minister is doing harm to this country with a pointless lockout he has the power to end and an unfair piece of legislation. He is not trying to find a solution that would resolve this matter, which would be to take the locks off the doors.
Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we know that close to 70% of Canadians support this legislation. They support seeing Canada Post back at work. They support getting their mail delivered.
I have a question for the member opposite. It was only a few short months ago that we saw the Liberal Party of Canada totally ignore Canadians and remain out of touch with Canadians, and we saw what happened to that party. It is a shame to see the NDP members so quickly turn their backs on what Canadians want, refuse to be in touch with Canadians, and instead follow their own left-wing ideology.
When will they look at what Canadians want, put aside their political rhetoric and what their union bosses are asking for, and actually work for Canadians? That's my question.
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that many people hope to start receiving their mail again. That is why I would very much like to ask the parliamentary secretary, even though it is not her turn to respond, why she does not call on her leader to remove the locks. That would resolve the problem and mail service would resume.
Frank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, I have never been part of a union, but in my past life I negotiated plenty of collective agreements, usually acting on behalf of management. We always entered those negotiations with goodwill, with the intention of there being a win-win scenario at the end, realizing that good faith had to be maintained between the parties because they had to live together and work together afterwards.
I am wondering if there is value in letting the workers go back to work and enter into regular mediation-arbitration negotiations, and I am wondering whether that kind of relationship, that good relationship, is retrievable or not, as opposed to forcing this draconian legislation on CUPW right now.
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely true. It would be much more acceptable to remove the locks and to ask the parties to resume negotiations to preserve a good working relationship. I had working conditions imposed on me in 2006 and I can tell you it creates an abysmal working environment. If the locks were removed and negotiations resumed, I think the working environment at Canada Post could be salvaged.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what the link is between workers who negotiate and make gains and the rest of the Canadian population.
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this bill is very significant. We are debating what will happen to Canada Post workers, but the underlying debate is about the future of all Canadian workers.
If we agree to let workers' rights be violated even once, we open the door to the government intervening in these issues and imposing working conditions on workers whenever there is a strike or other problem. We are fighting here to preserve all workers' right to negotiate, not the just the right of Canada Post workers.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if she has in her riding any local insurance offices and small businesses, the type that the NDP campaigned on representing. A concerned constituent in my riding of Blackstrap wrote me today, saying that:
 ...we look out for all types of people; seniors, farmers, students, families, small business, churches...We rely on Canada Post to send our clients their insurance policies and other necessary communications. For many younger individuals and urban families we can send any correspondence by email. However, for those such as seniors, farmers, rural businesses and rural families they do not have such a luxury. These individuals rely on the communications sent through the mail via Canada Post...These seniors and rural individuals are now without the documents that would confirm that their interests are protected or are without notice of potential risks they should be aware of. 
Does the member have in her riding such small businesses as the NDP claims to be representing? I would be interested to know. 
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, of course there are small businesses in my riding that are affected by this situation. That is why I feel that Conservative members should ask their leader to end the lockout and take the locks off the doors so that Canada Post workers can get back to work, deliver the mail and resume negotiations.
Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the member for Québec, I would first like to address the 500 Canada Post workers who demonstrated in Quebec City last Wednesday after they were locked out. I understand their frustration and I would like to say to them that I am here in the House of Commons to stand up for them and to pull out all the stops to oppose this special bill, which would deprive them of their legitimate right to negotiate their working conditions.
I was unable to celebrate Quebec's national holiday with them this year. Although I am not present in body, I am with them in spirit. The NDP has promised change. We have promised the people that we will do politics differently. It is for that reason that we are here. We take our duty to represent them seriously and, in the face of injustice, we must stand up for their rights tirelessly, day and night.
I am proud to stand up for the rights of workers and the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians. What is happening right now is very important. We must take action to defend the middle class and fight the disparity between rich and poor. We must defend the progressive values of this country. We must defend the right to negotiate. This is a lockout, not a strike. Postal workers opted for rotating strikes.They chose a moderate means of securing better working conditions. That is to their credit because it had a minimal effect on services. Postal workers cared about their fellow Canadians.
Then, management decided to declare a lockout and put a complete stop to services. That is why Canadians and small businesses are no longer receiving their mail. The postal workers did not want a general strike but they never imagined that the employer would declare a lockout.
To add insult to injury, the Conservative government staged an unprecedented intervention by introducing this special bill to force employees back to work under harsher conditions than those that were on the table. I would like to give an example. It is as though someone was earning $12 an hour and asked his employer for $15. Then, the government stepped in and now the person is making $10 an hour. Is this acceptable? Is it normal to be concerned about such a situation? I think so. I think it is frightening.
People do not just want minimum wage jobs. They do not want to worry themselves sick because they cannot make ends meet week after week, month after month. They want jobs with fitting wages. Families want to be able to count on an income that allows them to pay for a few hours of leisure time and, thus, actively participate in the local economy. They want to have quality time to spend with their loved ones. Canada Post employees deserve to have a decent salary and acceptable working conditions. They are not the only ones, and that is only natural.
I also checked the blogs and other types of social media to see what the public thinks about this. I would like to share some of what I read:
 With this lockout, the government is showing that it can do absolutely anything it wants with us. For now, only Canada Post is affected but, one day, they may decide that you were very kind to contribute to your retirement fund but that the money would be more useful to them than to you, and you will be left with nothing. That is what happened in the United States and is likely to happen in Europe and Quebec. If we do nothing now, we are opening the door to other excesses. 
And it is a member of the public who said that. Another person wrote:
 The postal workers want to deliver the mail. They are demonstrating against this bill that takes away their right to negotiate their next collective agreement. 
Yet another person added the following:
 The Conservatives are again demonstrating their Machiavellian talent, this time by exploiting people's ignorance. Let us put aside the conditions and demands of the postal union. Mail carriers decide to hold rotating strikes in order to protest and put a bit of pressure on the employer. What is good about these strikes is that they get the employer's attention without the public noticing much of a disruption in service. That is to the credit of the postal workers. What does Canada Post do? It locks them out almost immediately. It is the employer, and only the employer, that has caused the total shutdown of the postal service in Canada. However, the average person still does not understand what a lockout is, or maybe has only a vague idea of what it is. He only knows that his cheque is not being delivered. The public blames the messenger and that is a mistake. 
I completely agree with what people are writing in blogs, and I urge them to continue their posts. I invite everyone to continue feeding us with such information. We will continue to fight for them. 
As I was saying, we knew that, with a majority, the Conservatives would only obey one law: their own. By taking this action, the Conservatives are showing that all they have to do is pass laws. They do not even care about the Supreme Court, which, in 2007, reaffirmed that the right to negotiate is a fundamental right. 
It is shameful. What we must not lose sight of is that this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what this government plans on doing. It will continue to give bonuses to Canada Post's CEO and to others who are already earning a more than acceptable salary. However, in the case of the far larger number of workers at the next level down, it will make massive cuts, widening the already great divide between rich and poor. In fact, the swift and heavy-handed means it is currently using with this special law may be used in all cases. What is happening to postal workers may happen to a good number of public servants and other workers.
Those who might be tempted to applaud the government because it is supposedly fiscally responsible might want to think again. The government is not fiscally responsible, not in the least. This government and this measure are not about fiscal responsibility. Canada Post is a very productive crown corporation. Unlike many businesses, it has dramatically increased its productivity over the past two years. In addition to being able to offer decent jobs, this strong productivity has also generated profits and contributed substantial amounts to the public coffers in dividends and taxes.
People who are thinking about privatizing or deregulating Canada Post are on the wrong track. Multinationals calling for that only want to increase their profits and their market share. What do the people want? A report commissioned by the federal government in 2009 was very clear that people do not want Canada Post to be privatized or deregulated. In a democracy, the people should prevail and that is that.
I would like to remind the members that when this government violates workers' rights, when it flouts the country's laws and institutions, and when it does not honour its commitments to the people, the NDP will be there to keep it in line. We are a united opposition of people who know what it means to work to make ends meet.
That is why I am asking the government to listen to the people. I am asking it to respect workers, who also want to benefit from this country's wealth. I suggest it see reason and not impose this special legislation.
I hope to return to my wonderful riding of Québec with good news. I continue to have hope, because hope springs eternal. I know one thing: more than 60% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservative Party. I know that the people support me and that they are likely disgusted by what the government is doing right now. I want them to know that we will not give up the fight.
Julian Fantino: Mr. Speaker, the more this protracted debate goes on, the more obvious it is becoming to me and I believe to many others that this is just a failed attempt for the NDP to demonize Canada Post, an organization that was chosen as one of the national capital region's top employers for 2011. Some of the reasons for that award are that it starts employees at three weeks' vacation and that it even offers a five-day marriage leave for newlyweds, as well as five days to take care of family. There are a whole lot of other benefits. On it goes. 
On the other hand, we have significant hardship being caused to Canadians generally. I just want to mention one, if I may. OneMatch uses Canada Post to send buccal swabs to do the typing for people who submit online applications to join OneMatch. These are for tissue and organ replacements and blood typing for people who are desperately in need of this.
I wonder if the hon. member could indicate whether she agrees that the work stoppage at Canada Post is directly affecting the life of every Canadian. Why are this member and her party continuing to stall the passage of this legislation? Why do she and her party not want Canadians to receive their mail?
[Interjection]
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
Like all other members on this side of the House, I would like the minister to make a call and have the locks taken off the doors at Canada Post. Then service could resume and people could stop going on about how terrible this is. That is what needs to happen. We need to continue to defend the working conditions of these people, who work tirelessly and who are being wrongly blamed for this. It is terrible that the work of these people is not being recognized. They have the right to negotiate their collective agreement. But they are being denied that right and then people are saying that it is their fault the mail is not being delivered. That is what is so terrible.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the government side of the House keeps claiming that Bill C-6 is in response to a strike. This side of the House and in fact the entire national media say it is a lockout. Until we get this basic fact straightened out we are not going to move very far forward on this debate.
I encourage members of the government and my hon. colleague to review the stories in the national media. CBC, CTV, the Globe and Mail, National Post, all the newspapers and media outlets of note say it is a lockout. Even the New York Times reported, “the lockout effectively shut down the country’s postal system.” The foreign press is watching us and agrees that this is a lockout. 
I wonder if my hon. would comment on this.
[Interjection]
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for pressing that point because it is the most important one.
In fact, we want the Conservative government to say that this is a lockout and not a strike. If it could at least acknowledge that—as the media,the public and the members on this side of the House have—perhaps we would not need to spend the entire weekend here in the House debating this issue. That would allow for some progress. The government clearly has a mental block. It is refusing to listen to us, and we cannot even imagine how it is treating the people that it is ignoring on this issue.
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all Quebeckers a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I would also like to thank the people of the Châteauguay—Saint-Constant riding for organizing festivities for this wonderful holiday. Clearly, I would have liked to have participated but the situation we are addressing here today prevents me from doing so. I hope that my constituents will understand and will not mind my absence.
We have been here since June 23 to hold an important debate on the government's bill to force the Canada Post employees on lockout back to work. We are here on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, which is celebrated by all Quebeckers, because the government did not want to take a break on this day that is so important to nearly a quarter of the members of Parliament. This government continues to show its contempt for the people of Quebec.
There is a reason why most Quebeckers did not vote for the government party in power. The people of Quebec strongly disapprove of the Conservative's actions and values. They are not fools. The actions and values of the party on the other side of the House are light years away from the values shared by most Quebeckers. The results of the most recent election show that this is true. There are only six Conservative members left in Quebec. With the type of decisions, bills and other strategies announced in the Speech from the Throne, the Conservative party is at risk of being completely wiped out in Quebec.
The government claims to be the government of all Canadians but the people of Quebec have this strong feeling, if not the certainty, that the government is leaving them out in the cold. Perhaps it is because of the way the government invests in infrastructure in Conservative members' ridings and proves indifferent toward ridings that do not have a Conservative representative, such as the Montreal region, where aging infrastructure under the government's responsibility is not being adequately maintained. If, for example, the Champlain Bridge were in the riding of the current President of the Treasury Board, it would have been announced long ago that this bridge was going to be rebuilt. I am certain of this, and Quebeckers are too.
During the election campaign, some Conservative candidates openly stated that it is normal for Conservative-held ridings to receive more investments than the other ridings. This is scandalous. Thus, the current government has a long way to go to endear itself to Quebeckers. It is not going to do so with the policies it has announced: there is no significant action with regard to the environment; they want to dismantle the gun registry; they want to build prisons for young offenders; they are buying aircraft no one wants; they give subsidies to big business, banks and oil companies. In addition, they are reducing taxes for large businesses while small and medium-sized businesses, which create almost half of all new jobs, receive no consideration. This government is clearly the government of the wealthy, the privileged and big business. Employees and workers are scorned by government. Bill C-6 is another fine example of this.
It is clear today that this government does not respect workers. If need be, we will forget about all other national holidays in the coming years in order to defend workers' interests. This government will ruthlessly advance its political agenda, even if they have to ignore MPs from Quebec again. But we will be there to block all similar bills. We have been blocking this scandalous bill since June 23 and we would continue to do so until the next Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, if we could. We will do everything to delay Bill C-6, which is completely unacceptable and disrespectful of employees in general. I said in general, because this is just the first step by the government to chip away at employees' working conditions. In this instance, it is attacking the working conditions of postal workers. But which group of workers will it attack next?
In terms of this labour dispute, the government is saying that it wants to end the strike so that the economy is not harmed. It is also saying that it is not biased and that it is imposing conditions that are fair and equitable. What about this is fair and equitable? Does the government believe it is fair to side with the employer and impose lesser conditions than the employer was willing to concede? Is it fair to propose two classes of workers and keep younger workers from having the same wages and benefits as the others?
People are not stupid. Despite the misleading language being used by government representatives, people understand that this government is clearly biased in favour of the wealthy and employers.
People know that the government has a single goal: to privatize crown corporations so that they can reduce services and make more profit. Then a handful of higher-ups can receive huge salaries at the expense of services and workers' rights.
Canada Post is a very profitable crown corporation. We have the impression that this lockout was a government scheme to impose a labour contract that would gut working conditions for Canada Post employees to begin with and then for other groups.
I would like to focus on this scheme to impose a labour contract without consideration for workers' rights by briefly reviewing the events that we are concerned with here today.
On June 3, postal workers began rotating strikes that did not interrupt mail delivery. They simply wanted to use a legitimate pressure tactic to force the employer to advance the negotiations that had been going on for months. The union acted responsibly and with due diligence. The employer responded initially with a two-day-a-week lockout, which was also legitimate. 
However, it did act irresponsibly by imposing a permanent lockout a few days later with the blessing of the government. It was good timing for the government because the end of the parliamentary session was in sight. The government thought that it would take the opportunity, a little while later, to set conditions that would benefit the employer by imposing terms that were less favourable than those that management had been prepared to give its employees.
And the government would like us to quickly pass this special bill, the way it is? I have said it before and I will say it again: we will do everything in our power to stop this outrageous bill. We will not help the government resolve the impasse that it alone has created and has blamed on the union.
I find it unfortunate that the Conservative government is holding Canadians hostage by putting the blame for the impasse on the union and the official opposition.
How can what started as a rotating strike end by causing great harm to Canadians? The workers chose to hold rotating strikes in different cities so as not to block mail distribution. The rotating strikes did not have much impact on businesses or at least they had less of an impact than a general strike would have. Even the Minister of Labour admitted that the rotating strikes had little effect on mail delivery. A spokesperson for Canada Post said the same thing. It is Canada Post that imposed the lockout on workers who, today, can no longer report for work to deliver the mail.
Now, Canada Post wants to establish a strategy to reduce operating costs. The employer wants to decrease the wages of new employees, reduce sick leave coverage and decrease contributions to employees' retirement, health care and security plans.
Bill C-6 imposes a salary cut on young workers and a salary increase lower than the cost of living and lower than the offer made by the employer on all workers. It also seeks to impose a new pension plan. It is a threat to the working conditions that were hard earned over the past few years and to the negotiations of previous years, a time when negotiations were permitted. Today, the government is taking away the workers' fundamental right to negotiate their working conditions.
 The special bill the Conservatives have tabled is unacceptable, that cannot be said often enough. Even if we repeated it a thousand times, that would still not be enough. This bill will set a precedent and will put all Canadian workers at risk. It will give complete power to employers, including the power to impose working conditions on their employees, all with the complicity of the government, and the employees will be unable to bargain their own terms. Workers and unions are being told to give in to unfavourable terms proposed by their employer, or they will have terms that are even worse than all the concessions the employer was demanding imposed on them. And worse still, they will be forced to bear the blame for the deadlock their employer has put them in. They are being told that the government will favour the employer and in fact will reward it, even if the employer is guilty of holding the public hostage. Workers are being told they will be sent back in with a special bill that comes down on the employer's side.
 If we do not find a solution to the lockout that has been imposed, the terms of employment in the previous collective agreement could still be continued. So let us allow the parties to negotiate without holding the public hostage as the employer and the government have done.
 We are also very aware of the concern and worry that Canadians are feeling, and we understand that the lockout at Canada Post and the interruption of mail delivery is causing hardship. I repeat, however, that this is because of the lockout imposed by Canada Post, with the complicity of the government, that is preventing the workers from going back to delivering the mail. This situation could end tomorrow morning if the government lifted its imposed lockout and allowed the employees to go back to work on the terms in the previous collective agreement.
 There was no urgency for imposing this special legislation. We can end the lockout by allowing the parties to bargain in good faith. The government will not succeed in making the workers bear the blame for this deadlock. The Canada Post Corporation is the one that locked the employees out, and it is the one that has caused these consequences. So why is this government rewarding the employer by coming down clearly on its side?
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke about holding Canadians hostage. Yet tonight we are debating an NDP-led motion that would significantly delay this very important piece of back-to-work legislation.
I have received many comments from constituents in my riding regarding the necessity and the importance of postal service. They speak of holding Canadians hostage. I wonder if the member opposite could please explain how delaying this important legislation would help get around that.
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I will say to the member that we are trying to resolve the situation for the employees of Canada Post. How can we do that? We have said it dozens and thousands of times: open the doors, stop the lockout and allow the employees to go to work. That is how this deadlock can be broken.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the speech given by our colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. Clearly we are in a situation where a crown corporation has imposed a lockout. That is undeniable. Everyone understands that, at least on this side of the House.
 The government has supported the lockout with a draconian bill that is going to impose terms that are simply intolerable. These are terms that will not be negotiated. This is an affront to the dignity of the workers of Canada. That is not tolerated on this side of the House.
 What does my colleague think of the idea that a collective agreement must be negotiated rather than imposed by a bill?
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Yes, negotiated terms always provide a better work atmosphere than a situation that is imposed. I was a union representative in recent years and I was acquainted with people who had had terms of employment imposed on them by special legislation, and the atmosphere that produced was simply unliveable. It created enormous tensions within the company and significantly hurt productivity. It is therefore important, and in fact essential, that there be a negotiated employment contract, not one imposed like this, particularly not by this method.
The employer was prepared to offer better terms and the government is imposing worse terms. That is outrageous.
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, over 90% of the union employees voted in favour of a strike. Because they felt that negotiations were going nowhere, they implemented rotating strikes. That is their right. Canada Post, as the employer, implemented a lockout. That is its right.
The federal government can implement back-to-work legislation. This is about representing the majority of Canadians. Who are the NDP representing?
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, we all represent Canadians. We represent large and small businesses, but also, and most importantly, the workers. We want justice in this country. We want favourable terms for workers, not terms that are imposed. We represent the workers. We represent the majority of the people, not the big businesses and the wealthy in this country.
[For continuation of proceedings see Part D]
[Continuation of proceedings from part C]
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this conversation, having listened to so many of my colleagues illustrate not only the history of workers' rights in Canada but the clear and present danger the government, in its treatment of postal workers, represents to all working people across this country.
 This is a proud moment, not only for me personally but for New Democrats across the country and for the four and a half million people who gave us a clear and solid mandate to stand up for working people. I invite the Conservative majority to see what it looks like when there is a stable, solid, dedicated New Democratic opposition when things go wrong. Gone are the days of having the red-flag-waving surrender monkeys sitting in these benches. One “boo” and they were gone to their weekends. We now have an opposition that is dedicated to standing up for what is right in this country. 
I am also quite encouraged to join with many of my new colleagues, whom I have been most moved and inspired by. One would think that after many hours of debate, some of our newer members, and maybe some of our older members, might be feeling some fatigue. Yet every time I tune in, and every time I come by the House, not only are we not fatigued, we are gaining in our energy and enthusiasm. 
This must be so difficult for my Conservative friends as we sit through this debate. I almost want to put quotation marks around the word debate, because debates are usually judged on the merits of logic and intelligence. This is not a fair fight we have going on here. Time and time again we have Conservative members standing up with so-called questions, which are more like diatribes. They ask why, if the economy is so important, we cannot get these workers back to work. They know full well that the power rests in their own hands. Rather than deal with the situation, the Prime Minister has gone off to barbecues.
If the economy were so important and so sacred, if it was so necessary, given all the quotations from their local citizens, business owners, pensioners, and charitable groups that are worried about not getting their mail, if all of that were so important to the government, one would think that this government would bother to pick up the phone and tell the head of Canada Post that rather than lock out the workers, which has been done, the corporation should open the doors, get the mail moving, and return to the bargaining table for what has been established, in the highest court of the land, as a proper and fair collective bargaining agreement and arrangement. That has not been established by any measure of Parliament alone. It has been established by the blood, sweat, and tears of working people across this country, year after year, who have fought for the basic right to collectively come together and together rebalance the equation between employer and employee. When the employer does not offer a fair term of work, those people can come together and exercise a democratic right, have a vote, and bargain in what we call good faith.
Does this sound familiar to anybody else? A company comes into a negotiation for a new contract and begins an exaggeration process, a public posture, saying that things are not so good at the corporation. The company says that it is not making much money anymore. Times are tight. Things have changed. People are not, in this case, sending letters anymore. The company begins to amp up the rhetoric and begins to set the stage for what it knows is coming, which is a downgrade of the opportunity it will offer its employees, who are, ironically, the very employees who built the company to its current state of prosperity. The company knows that in its back pocket it has a very powerful and willing accomplice that is waiting for an opportunity as the company sits at the bargaining table, week after week and month after month, not bargaining in good faith or offering a give-and-take situation. It is more a take situation.
 The company knows all that time that it has a hotline to the Prime Minister to say that it is going to lock these guys out and to get legislation ready, which is what was done. The legislation was ready before the lockout even started. When the company does not bargain with its employees in good faith, the government can come in and simply force them back to work under terms that are worse than the terms the company just offered.
Does that sound familiar or ironic at all? The reason it sounds familiar is that there is a sad and sordid tale of business relations with working people in this country. Businesses do this time and time again, but it only works if they have a willing accomplice in government.
It only works if they have a government in their pocket that is ready to operate on their behalf and is ready to side with them. 
As the Minister of Labour—that has to be in quotations—said the other day, “...there are in fact 45,000 members of the union and in reality there are 33 million Canadians”, as if somehow those Canada Post workers, when they went to work that day, gave up their rights as Canadian citizens. How dare a labour minister stand in the House of Commons and take one group of Canadians and exclude those people from our society because they are doing what? They are standing up for their rights. 
We hear constantly from the government that it somehow believes that it has a majority mandate from Canadians, that 40% of the vote somehow equates to 100% of a tyrannical majority, and that this is justifiable in all cases. I welcome the Conservatives to a new reality. I hope this gives them pause the next time they try this, because believe me, my friends, there will be a next time. There will be another dispute. There will be another transgression the Conservatives do not like and their friends on Bay Street do not feel comfortable with. The Conservatives say, “Never mind. Never worry. We have a majority in Parliament. That gives us 100% of the power. We will just steamroll over any other democratic institutions we feel are in our way”.
Note that this is a pattern with the government. There are the so-called arm's-length watchdogs. My friends laugh, but we all remember the case of the nuclear safety watchdog in this country who raised concerns about a certain reactor nearby. When the government did not like what she was saying, it fired her. Lo and behold, a few months later, the reactor went offline. Why? It was because of the very things she pointed out. 
The government must understand that when people stand in opposition to its ideas, that is not a bad thing. Those people do not need to be shut down, cut off, or fired. They do not need to be locked out or forced back to work. Their issues need to be debated and entertained in this place and in the broader dialogue in this country of Canada, because it is through that dialogue that we come to better resolutions. 
New Democrats do not believe that we have all the answers, but we know that these guys do not. It is time for them to get a little humility.
It has been clearly said by many of my colleagues that this goes well beyond the particular interests of the workers of CUPW in the Canada Post dispute. This speaks to something much larger. It is a much larger struggle for people around the world and in this country who for many decades did not have any rights. It was okay for employers to send kids to work. It was okay for employees to die while on the job. It was okay for employers not to pay employees a fair wage for a fair day's work. Those things, through struggle and time and sometimes blood, were established as wrong. It was confirmed that an evolved and advanced society understands that for the good of the economy, for goodness' sake, you ought to pay your workers a fair wage. How radical an argument is that? 
The NDP is saying that fair pensions are good for the Canadian economy, and the government argues otherwise. The NDP says that a fair wage and safe working conditions are good not just for the workers but for the Canadian economy. The government argues otherwise. 
Time and again we see excuses thrown up by the government that suggest that Canadians are not on our side. A friend of mine sent me an e-mail from a person I don't know who lives in my riding that said, 
 Keep on with the good work on behalf of the workers at Canada Post. This proposed legislation punishes the workers for being locked out while they were exercising their right to strike (in a manner that provided minimal interruption of the postal service)...and strangely enough, rewards the employer for the action of locking their workers out (whereby the employer shut the whole postal service down).... SHAME! 
 That is absolutely right.
We are getting many e-mails from members in Conservative ridings, which I quite enjoy reading, that say that they have sent their members of Parliament, their voices in this place, much correspondence on this issue saying that they are wrong, but the members will not read them out. The government somehow will not express that there may be dissent in this country over the idea of locking out employees and bringing in a sledgehammer to force them back to work.
I ask my friends on the government benches to be amenable to the changes the NDP is proposing. Be amenable to the idea that it is not always right. Be very much open to the idea that the arrogance that can come with a majority government can be overplayed and overstated. If the Conservatives continue to do that, New Democrats will be in our seats day after day, pushing them back.
Blake Richards: Mr. Speaker, I noted the member talked a lot in his speech about a number of issues surrounding the work stoppage. I noticed the one thing missing in his comments was an indication about the Canadian public, about the small businesses, charities and other individuals who are adversely affected by this work stoppage. It is very unfortunate that was lacking in his speech. 
I would like to share an email I received from a constituent, a small business owner, who wrote: 
“We hope the government will stand up for Canadian small business owners and ensure that Canada Post, a national mail service meant to serve the Canadian public, needs to go back to work. Our business has dropped immensely since even the rotating strikes, and the uncertainty of delivery service is impacting small business across Canada in different ways. I appreciate your time and hope again that you will take this message to Ottawa and to Canada Post”.
These are the kinds of emails I am receiving. It is affecting businesses in this country. It is affecting individuals. It is having a detrimental effect. This government is trying to put them back to work so we can see the effect on the Canadian public stopped. 
We are all here in this place. We should all be at our homes and with our constituents, visiting with them at meetings and functions over the course of this weekend where we would be hearing these kinds of things from constituents. A number of individuals contacted me in the last couple of days about those issues. They say the NDP members are acting like a bunch of pirates holding Canadians hostage. 
I would ask--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. 
The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. 
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that we check the sound equipment here because in fact I did mention charities and businesses were suffering from the lack of postal services in this country. I will then suggest that my exuberance hopefully carried my voice across to where the hon. member is sitting. 
I would ask the member to do the following, because he has the power to do this, to walk five rows to his boss and tell him to take the locks off of Canada Post, get the mail moving for all those charities, small businesses and constituents he claims to care about because we know where the decision lies here. 
We know that the Prime Minister appointed the fellow at Canada Post, who is doing this right now. The hon. member knows it was the head of Canada Post who locked the employees out and stopped the mail service entirely. We know where the decision lies for the government to have a little humility, understand there is reason for this debate, that the government does not have it perfect and the bill before Parliament is not exactly correct in every single syllable, period and comma. The government should put a little water in its wine, realize it is wrong in this case, step off the cliff and get the posties back to work. 
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, my thoughts tonight are about our asset, Canada Post Corporation. The main asset of this corporation is its employees, the people who work there. That is the main asset that belongs to the people of Canada. 
Is the government taking care of this asset? Is the government respecting this asset? Is the government taking the steps to ensure this asset, these human beings, are well protected and covered in the work they are doing? The profit from the company for the Government of Canada is fairly large and works out to about $6,000 an employee. Why is the government treating these employees in this fashion when they are the main asset of our great corporation?
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, conveniently the Conservatives would very much like to forget the human face in this conversation. It is somewhat ironic the government says that somehow these workers are the problem and yet postal services from around the globe come to Canada to study the efficiencies and the incredible steps that this postal service has made, year after year. 
It also seems somehow that underneath all of this conversation and all of this debate lies an ideology within government that an entire institution can be privatized through starving it, that if it is driven deep enough into the ground so that people start to call out for something else, one would accomplish another thing that had been hoped for in the first place, which is a loathing within the current government for crown corporation and institutions in general. There is the idea that the government has a role to play in any of these places and that the government can do anything well. 
It is strange and ironic to have a government-loathing government, but that is exactly what we have here with the Conservatives. They detest the idea and do not like the nature of this. The government rebels very much even at the idea of debate and fair discussion here in Parliament, but New Democrats live on this stuff. 
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, last night, at the end of his eloquent speech about workers' rights, the leader of the opposition proposed that we take a break in our consideration of the draconian legislation proposed by the Conservative government. That proposal took the form of a motion to postpone consideration of the bill for six months. 
For several hours now, many of our colleagues on both sides of the House, either in their speeches or in their questions and comments, have contributed to our consideration of the advisability of postponing passage of this horrible and counterproductive bill. I myself believe more than ever that we must postpone all consideration of it, for the numerous reasons cited by all of our colleagues.
It is in fact the most enormous bad faith for the government to claim that it has to force the workers back to work when it is this very government, acting through a crown corporation, that is preventing them from working and putting them on lockout.
Apart from the bad faith that has characterized the approach taken by the Conservative government since the outset of the dispute, it is essential that we note the consistent manner in which the courts have sanctioned and penalized the bad faith and misconduct of this same Conservative government in labour relations cases.
The most recent example is a decision handed down only two days ago by the Federal Court, and in a moment I will read several passages from it. The case involved a situation very similar to the one before us tonight. It did not involve postal employees; rather, it was all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The case is entitled Robert Meredith and Brian Roach, representing all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, v. the Attorney General of Canada. The decision was given on June 21, 2011, by the Federal Court. Justice Heneghan wrote the decision. 
In that case, we are reminded that in late December 2008, the Conservative government engaged in a series of fraudulent manoeuvres that it is difficult to distinguish from the situation before us tonight. This same government had legislated to flout the process provided by the legislation, and imposed its own bill to cut back the terms of employment that had in fact been legally agreed to with RCMP members. One crucial point is that the courts found that what the Conservative government had done, in terms of labour relations, was illegal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a fundamental law.
Pages 27 to 29 of the judgment specifically are where we find the references that are most relevant to our work tonight. For those who are interested, I will note that the passages I am about to read are taken from paragraphs 86, 89 and 92 of this very recent judgment, as I mentioned. The judge reviews the terms of what the Conservative government tried to withdraw, by flouting the rights of the members of the RCMP, and concludes as follows, and I am going to read it in English since the judgment is written in that language. 
So the Treasury Board withdrew the issue from consideration of the entity that it had created and refused to negotiate on a good-faith basis.
I repeat, “refused to negotiate on a good-faith basis”. That is the pattern of this Conservative government.
 It continues: “The unilateral cancellation of a previous agreement also constitutes interference with subsection 2(d) rights”. 
Now those section 2(d) rights are, in particular, these.
 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 
 (d)  freedom of association. 
For those who follow these issues, I note that this is referring in particular to two leading cases, two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada: Health Services and Support and Fraser.
But this very recent decision sets a precedent. The Federal Court of Canada has assigned blame to this government and ruled against it. So this is a pattern of behaviour that we are seeing here tonight.
A little farther on, the judge writes:
The financial impact of the ERA was not relevant. In both B.C. Health Services and Fraser the Supreme Court focused not on the significance of the financial impact of the legislation, but of the significance of the impact of the interference on the bargaining process.
Finally, in paragraph 92, the Treasury Board's decision in the ERA made it effectively impossible for the pay council, that was the entity that had been created, to make representations on behalf of the members of the RCMP and have those representations, wait for it, here it comes again, considered in good faith. The judge goes on to say that in her opinion this is a substantial interference which constitutes a violation of section 2(d) of the charter. 
That is repeat behaviour. That is putting oneself above the law.
It is sometimes said, in common language, that they think they know best. That is what the Conservatives think. They believe they can be the judges, they can be the jury, and they can also be executioners. They show contempt for the most fundamental laws. But as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley put it so well just now, therein lies the rub; the Minister of Labour let the cat out of the bag when she said, as she did yesterday, that there are 50,000 postal workers on one side and 33 million Canadians on the other. I have news for her.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all citizens of Canada, including postal workers. We already knew whom and what we were dealing with when this Conservative government became the first government in the history of the British Commonwealth to be thrown out for breaking all the rules and being in contempt of the institutions of this Parliament: the right of parliamentarians to have fiscal and financial information before making decisions, the right to be given documents relating to foreign affairs, our rights to carry out the fundamental democratic mandate we were given when we were elected to this place.
Tonight, we are considering a bill that they are trying to persuade people is essential to force the workers back to work, hoping that the public would be so easily duped that they would forget they are the ones who have prevented and continue to prevent the workers from doing their jobs. On this side, we will support the motion presented yesterday by the leader of the opposition. We believe it is obvious that this bill, draconian or worse as it is, must not be considered, particularly given that it is clear from the decision handed down by the Federal Court of Canada this week, again, that behaviour that is contrary to the basic rules proves the government's bad faith. Yesterday, in fact, I witnessed this bad faith for myself. To be so presumptuous as to say that the workers are on strike, when they are the ones who have stopped them from working, defies all comprehension.
On this side, we will stand up, unanimous in our condemnation of this pattern of behaviour that flouts human rights in general and the rights of workers in particular.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, many times in the debate tonight New Democrats have talked about the possibility of making amendments to the bill. They have taken issue with, particularly, the wage increases that are legislated in the bill. They clearly do not like what the government has chosen. They do not like what Canada Post has put on the table. 
However, two NDP members have mused openly tonight about what they think should be the wage increases. The member for York South—Weston thought that 11.5% over four years was probably a fair deal. The member for Trinity—Spadina mused that 3.3% a year for four years would be a fair deal.
Would the member confirm that the NDP members will be amending to increase the wage aspects either somewhere between 11.5% and 13.2% over four years?
[Interjection]
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, good faith means quoting what people have said in the House properly. That is a pure fabrication and a twisted way of reporting what has been said by people here. On our side, we think the best thing to do, as I said at the beginning of my speech tonight, is to postpone all consideration of this draconian, horrible bill, this bill that is on its face contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for six months.
I have had the opportunity to speak with the member for Essex, who used to be an auto worker. He knows, as do I, that it was thanks to his union and to bargaining, in accordance with the legislation and his terms of employment, that he was able, in those days, to secure adequate wages and acceptable terms so he could raise his family. Why does he want to take those same benefits away from the postal workers?
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, less than two weeks ago, in an interview during the Conservative convention, Stephen Taylor asked the Minister of Labour whether there would be special legislation. The Minister said there would not be because it was too soon.
“The two parties have to make real hard efforts to get a deal themselves”. Continuing, she said, “It's about pensions, it's about disabilities, so it is important issues and we have to have serious discussions around them”.
 Does the hon. member think that the government took that seriously, or is the government more concerned about its ideology, which amounts to violating workers' rights, regardless of the result for the economy?
[Interjection]
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that it is somewhat of both, but there is a third factor. Above all, the Conservatives want their Reform Party base to see that they are finally "delivering the goods", bringing good news for the right wing in Canada.
 Our right wing in Canada has a little problem of credibility. The Conservatives are the worst public administrators in the history of Canada. The biggest deficit in the history of Canada until this Conservative government arrived on the scene belonged to the last Conservative government. We are in the process of leaving enormous debts for future generations, while inflation has been running at about 2% per year since they came to office five and a half years ago. There has been a constant increase in spending, on the order of 6 to 7% per year. This means that their spending increases, for which they are unable to show anything concrete in return, are running at 300% higher than the rate of inflation. That is called negligence, mismanagement and incompetence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members.