2011-06-25

[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
Vote #25
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I can assure you that my comments will be brief. Brevity is the key here. 
We have seen over the last 27 or 28 hours an attempt by the NDP opposition to obfuscate and delay this very important piece of legislation. As a result of its delaying tactics, millions of hard-working Canadians are concerned about their financial futures. In fact, they are concerned to the point that many seniors and many small business people have contacted us continuously over the last 27 hours imploring us to get this legislation passed.
We have a responsibility to protect those Canadians. We have a responsibility to protect the Canadian economy. We cannot afford any more undue delays. 
Therefore, in order to expedite this legislation, I move:
 That this question be now put. 

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Once again I rise to speak on C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.
As has been pointed out many times throughout this debate, this situation was created by the government and its crown corporation Canada Post. It was not created by the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Now we have before us a bill that makes a complete mockery of the hard-fought democratic rights of workers in this country. I would like to make it absolutely clear one more time that I support the right to organize, the right to free collective bargaining, and the right to strike. When workers take a risk and stand up to be counted on issues like fair wages, working conditions, and pensions, all Canadians benefit. 
This situation is the government's own doing. They interfered in a legal labour dispute. The dispute was having minimal impact on the delivery of mail from coast to coast until the Minister of Labour interfered. 
After serving their 72 hours' notice, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers initiated limited rotating strikes. They did this because they knew it would send a message to the employer that they wanted to get serious at the bargaining table. At the same time, the rotating strikes minimized inconveniences to Canadians who rely on postal service across our country. 
That is how the process works. The ability to withdraw their labour is the power that employees bring to the bargaining table. It is the counterweight to the tremendous power that the employer holds in the negotiating process.
When the Minister of Labour then intervened and said if mail service was interrupted she would take action, she sent a clear signal to Canada Post that all the corporation had to do was stop the mail from being delivered and she would give them the legislation they were waiting for. That very evening they locked out the hard-working members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and stopped disrupting mail service in its entirety. 
It is outrageous. As the owner of Canada Post, the government should have told management to go back to the table and negotiate a lasting resolution to this dispute. Instead, the Conservatives introduced this draconian bill that arbitrarily imposes a settlement that is, unbelievably, less than what Canada Post was offering.
I want to quote an editorial from the Globe and Mail from June 15, 2011, about the effects of imposed settlements on labour relations. It said:
 The decision to legislate will not make for a better deal between the companies and their workers. It will mean a sacrifice of labour peace in the longer run. And it will not solve the structural problems affecting either company or its bargaining units--pensions at Air Canada; pensions, and relevance, at Canada Post. The federal government should hold its fire. 
 I could not agree more. The government should have held its fire. It should have waited and let the negotiations work.
Let us be honest with ourselves and with all Canadians about what this lockout and this rollback of hard-earned wages and benefits are about. They are all about money for the government.
On June 10, 2011, the labour minister was chosen to sit on a committee that is mandated with finding savings in Ottawa to the tune of $4 billion per year. Where do they expect to find all those savings? On the backs of public servants, of course.
Four days after being appointed to this review committee, the minister introduced a back-to-work bill that legislates wage increases that are even lower than those proposed by Canada Post in negotiations. It was not even a strike. It was a lockout. 
Why did the minister not just introduce a bill that ordered Canada Post to unlock the doors and let the union continue its responsible job action of rotating strikes that had minimum impact on Canadians?
 Even better, why not do as the union had offered: let them go back to work while negotiations continued? It is because the minister saw an opportunity to take advantage of the postal workers and score some points with the Prime Minister by legislating rollbacks. The wage piece alone in this bill represents $35 million from postal workers and their families.
Canada Post corporation generated $7.3 billion of revenues in 2009. It has remained profitable for 15 consecutive years. In the last 10 years alone it paid the Government of Canada almost $400 million in income taxes and another $350 million in dividends. Clearly the government wants even more. 
Interventions of this type are particularly disturbing because not only do they deny workers their fundamental rights, but they send a message to the management in all sectors that serious negotiations are not necessary; the government will simply intervene and force employees back to work. 
Workers' rights are enshrined in our Constitution, but this so-called law and order government continuously ignores Canadian laws and makes workers pay the price. In the Conservatives' Canada, the rights of workers are always secondary to the rights of corporations. 
I cannot help but think of a similar situation in my hometown of Hamilton. At home, it is the courageous men and women of Steelworkers Local 1005 who are paying the price for the government's corporate ideology as we speak. Here is what happened in Hamilton. The Conservative government approved the foreign takeover of Stelco by U.S. Steel, a takeover that has devastated my hometown and left 900 workers, as well as more than 9,000 pensioners, fearing for their futures.
Let me remind members in the House of the details. U.S. Steel bought Stelco in 2007. The purchase included both Hilton Works in Hamilton and Lake Erie Works in Nanticoke. The Investment Canada Act required U.S. Steel to demonstrate that its investment would provide a net benefit to Canada. In order to do that, U.S. Steel made commitments with regard to job creation, production levels, and domestic investment. Once those commitments were purportedly secured, the federal government signed an agreement that committed U.S. Steel to 31 different promises. U.S. Steel started up its operations in 2007, but it was just a year later that the company began laying off its workers. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Chris Charlton:  In 2009 the government started to ask questions, and U.S. Steel responded with a number of different--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please.
I would ask all hon. members to keep their voices down. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has the floor and it is difficult to hear.
Chris Charlton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, in 2009 the government started to ask questions, and U.S. Steel responded with a number of different reasons why it should be excused from meeting its previously agreed to commitments. For once, the government did not buy the excuses and initiated court action in July of 2009. 
By taking U.S. Steel to court, the federal government acknowledged that it does have a legal duty to ensure that foreign investments provide a net benefit to Canada, and therefore the government does have a role to play in the dispute. Now, production is all but shut down completely, and just like the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, steel workers in Hamilton are now locked out. They are both fighting for fair wages, decent working conditions, benefits, and a defined pension plan. But unlike at Canada Post, the government is completely washing its hands of the lockout in Hamilton. So where is the real similarity between what is happening at Canada Post and at U.S. Steel? Well, this government is picking winners and losers and the price is being paid by workers in our country.
I am proud that union members are not taking that lying down. They are taking a stand for themselves and for future generations. They are fighting against the corporate impulse to race to the bottom, whatever the costs may be, and I am proud to stand with them in that battle.
This is about the future of work for our children and grandchildren, who deserve to earn a decent wage and earn decent pensions after a lifetime of work. Our parents and grandparents were proud to be part of the struggle for our future. Now it is our turn. I urge all members of the House to stand united against this heavy-handed bill for all workers and for future generations.
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here tonight. 
I just wanted to make a comment about the vote. Fifteen minutes ago we stood and had a vote in the House, and if my addition is right, I think there were only 71 NDP members who were here to vote on the motion. I am just wondering if the member could tell us, after 27 hours of filibustering--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order.
The member knows that he cannot refer to who is or is not here. I appreciate that this is in reference to the vote, but I would ask the member to be cautious in terms of referring to who is or is not in the chamber.
[Interjection]
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I would never talk about individuals either being here or absent from their post, but I think the vote was 71 members of the NDP out of 103 who did choose to vote against the bill.
I would like to ask the chief opposition whip, who is actually in charge of making sure her members are here to vote, why, after 27 hours of filibustering, they had the kinds of numbers show up that they did. Is it because those folks do not want to do their work, or is it because they object to the extreme position taken by the party?
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that NDP members are solidly united in opposition to this legislation.
As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, if you have a commitment to allow both sides to arrive at a negotiated settlement, it actually helps to occasionally talk to some of the other parties.
What New Democrats in this House are doing from coast to coast to coast is connecting with the locals of CUPW in their ridings and talking to them about what is at stake in this dispute so their stories can be brought to this House. That is what this place is about. We are representing them in this House, and our members are taking every opportunity to have those conversations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair appreciates all the passion that members are bringing to this debate, but if the Chair cannot hear the member, I presume that other members cannot hear them.
 We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the onset of the debate, the leader of the Liberal Party talked about the importance of amending this legislation.
This is an issue of critical importance, and we look to the government to demonstrate goodwill in terms of the whole collective bargaining process. It is something that we believe not only the workers but even the corporation should have a right to. It is something that this legislation is taking away.
We are all so anxious to hear about the possible amendments the New Democrats might have. I asked a question of one member who indicated that they have already shared some of those amendments with the Conservative government. 
Is the NDP in a position to be more transparent and share those amendments with the viewing public and in fact all members of this chamber at this time?
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate time for us to bring amendments forward is of course in committee of the whole, and we will be doing that.
It is a bit ironic that the member is talking about how the Liberals are all committed to bringing forward amendments and taking this process seriously when in fact what just happened is that the Liberals voted in support of the government.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the members who have been here for a while should remember a certain Nisga’a debate we had in this House of Commons. There were 478 amendments brought by the Reform Party of Canada, which delayed this House for over 64 hours. I remember it very clearly. The members of that party said it was their democratic right to be able to do that. I wonder why they are not honouring the democratic right of the NDP to do something to help workers in this country.
I have a question for the hon. member. We have a new cabinet minister in the country now. It is a misnomer to call her the Minister of Labour, as she is now known as the Minister of Management. I wonder if my hon. colleague could tell us why the Prime Minister would change such an important portfolio.
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, of course that question is very apropos, because as I said in my speech, this is all about making sure that the government's coffers are enriched on the backs of workers.
Canada Post has been paying dividends and income tax to the government. The more Canada Post can save, the richer the coffers of the government. It is completely outrageous that we are paying down the biggest deficit in Canadian history, which was accumulated by the Conservative government right across from us, and Canada Post workers are being asked to pay down that deficit. It is completely outrageous.
 I agree with the member. The Minister for Management needs to take responsibility for her actions. I would encourage her to come back, become the Minister of Labour, and actually help negotiate a settlement to the labour dispute.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you have observed that this is June 25. You have observed that as a Quebecker, I am proud: I have not apologized like the NDP members who showed disrespect for Quebeckers and French Canadians by sitting in the House of Commons on June 24. I thought the celebrations for this June 24 were extraordinary. Mostly, I spent a lot of time listening to my constituents. That is one of the reasons I am proud today that I voted as I did, to move to second reading, and if there are amendments, to get to them. 
One thing is certain: first, people want workers to have rights and want those rights to be respected. In Quebec, people want a negotiated agreement to be possible. What they do not want, for example, is for us to be dogmatic and filibuster for hours and hours when we know very well that the longer we wait, the more harm is going to be done to the postal workers and the public. Today, many in the public are sick of this. That is why there has to be some balance. When the Conservative government is dogmatic and the NDP is dogmatic, everyone loses. That is why the House should sit in committee of the whole post-haste so that amendments can be moved and solutions to the problem found.
 I am noticing a lot of talking. We are in a parliament here. Everyone is standing up and talking. I would like to have a bit of order so we can hear. Or maybe you do not understand my French when I speak; that is probably what it is.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members are talking when I am talking. Is it okay? You are asking for decorum. I would ask you to please make them shut up so we can talk.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order.
The chair would agree with the member for Bourassa. There is a dull roar in the place. I would ask all hon. members to give the hon. member for Bourassa all of the respect he deserves.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I do think it is unfortunate that you understood me better in English than in French. I am going to have to say nicer things in English next time.
One thing is certain: this is a bad bill. The Conservatives keep talking about a strike. It is not a strike, it is a lockout. Clearly the other side of the House does not respect the rights of workers, it does not accept that there is a right of association, and it does not want a negotiated agreement. A rotating strike is strictly a pressure tactic. It is the management of Canada Post that decided to cut mail delivery back from five days to three and then ordered the lockout. Then, as if by coincidence, the Minister of Labour wanted to impose legislation.
 The Liberal government had to enact a back-to-work bill in the past, but at that time it was enacted after a general strike that had lasted two weeks. It was an essential service at the time. It must be understood that 14 years ago there was no Internet as there is today and there was no email and no ability to make payments electronically. The situation had therefore caused a huge number of problems, both for small and medium-sized businesses and for seniors, who wanted to get their mail. Today it is less serious, but a solution will still have to be found.
 Certainly we hope to have a settlement and an agreement between management and the employees and we want workers' rights to be respected, but we also have to protect the public. The government has a majority. I understand that like us, the opposition is rising and presenting its views, but too much systematic obstruction is as bad as not enough. I will say to everyone who supports this opposition that when we stretch the elastic too far, it snaps back and hits us in the face. People are going to be thinking this is not right. That is the difference between dogmatism and pragmatism.
From the outset, we have said that if amendments were made to this bill, we could perhaps work to find a solution. It is unthinkable to tie the hands of an arbitrator, to require the arbitrator, as the bill specifies, to take either the side of the employer or the side of the workers. If that is the way in which we are going to proceed, we may well ask ourselves what arbitration is. Is it just choosing one side over the other?
Of course, we know full well how arbitrators work. They must be given every ability to work with both parties to reach a compromise. Arbitrators represent neither the union nor the employer. That is why we cannot pass legislation that will tie an arbitrator's hands. That is unacceptable.
It is true that salary provisions were included in the bill in the past. But in the current negotiations between the employer and the workers, Canada Post had proposed a salary scale. Why does this bill propose lesser amounts? If the minister is already on the side of management, why did she include in the bill amounts less than Canada Post had proposed?
For all these reasons, we are voting against this bill. But we look forward to the House resolving into committee of the whole in order for us to discuss whether it is possible to come to an agreement.
We are voting against the six-month hoist because the lockout continues. There is no agreement between the employer and the union, yet we are telling the workers that we are going to wait another six months. What are we going to tell Canadians for all that time? This is why we have to find a compromise, and this is why the Liberal Party is the pragmatic party. We are practical people, and we feel that we must find a better way than to hold up Parliament. 
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is waving at me. I suppose he is pleased to see me. So I will wave back. Of course, we can work to protect the interests of workers, but a filibuster just wastes time. We have just spent 35 hours on second reading. If we want to spend another 35, we can and they are going to, but they are in no way serving the workers or serving Canadians. That is why we have to find solutions together. As their slogan says, “Travaillons ensemble”. Let us work together.
Let us find a way together, during the committee of the whole, to see if there is a capacity for some amendments. 
Of course I do not have a lot of trust in the government, for obvious reasons. However, I trust in people, and I believe that people deserve a service. 
At the same time I want to ensure that people realize the workers are also Canadians. When I asked a question to the minister, she said she prefers to protect 33 million people rather than 45,000 workers. These 45,000 workers are Canadians, so I do not know why we have two tiers. Was she saying there are two kinds of citizens?
We must find a pragmatic solution, but night after night of filibustering is not the way to find a solution.
People are saying that there was an election. There is a majority government. We can urge, we can stall, but if we truly want to work together, we must get together in committee of the whole to propose amendments.
People were mad about this filibuster because June 24 is Quebec's national holiday. People were asking why Parliament avoided sitting on a Friday because of the NDP and Conservative Party conventions, but Quebec's national holiday was not important. Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day for French Canadians is not important. We can sit that day.
We must be responsible. We can exert pressure and discuss at length, but there must be an outcome. At the end of the day, we need to serve the public. We can find a compromise, a balanced solution. I hope that we will be able to discuss possible amendments. 
Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the member for Bourassa. This is the same question that his colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt asked in the House. I also asked the NDP the same thing. I think it is very important that we get an answer.
In this place we talk a lot. That's all we do in this place. It's important to match our talk with action. 
We never got an answer about this very important question. The NDP talks a lot about the rights of workers, but as I understand it their own local 232 still doesn't have a collective bargaining agreement. This has been years in the making. As a result, many new hires in the OLO and other parts of the New Democratic caucus are being made as management in order to avoid the seniority that comes with being part of a local.
My question to the member is when will the NDP put in place a collective bargaining agreement for some staff and “walk the walk” as they “talk the talk”?
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will have to live with its own contradictions and will resolve its problems. What I am interested in today, at 12:45 in the morning, is not showing hyper-partisanship, but finding a solution so that we can first respect the collective constitutional rights recognized by the Supreme Court. And then Ms. Mailloux in my riding can receive her mail. I told Ms. Mailloux that it was a lockout that made no sense, but that I was going to make sure that she got her mail. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. At some point, we must realize that too much is just as bad as not enough.
I would like us to stop with the gobbledygook and set aside partisanship so that we can find a solution. We can stretch things out. The members just have to say the same thing all the time. They have been repeating the same thing for 36 hours. We know the arguments. They are always saying the same thing. It sounds good. The members from Quebec all apologized because they were unable to take part in Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, but they are still making the same arguments.
Can we move on? Let us bring forward amendments, and we will work hard. We want to work so that there is service, but we want the workers to be respected as well.
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the member for Bourassa, how he can play petty politics by saying that it is the NDP's fault we were unable to attend Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day festivities. Our leader moved a motion so that we could take a break for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and return to our families. The Bloc Québécois also moved a motion on that. But both times, the Conservative government refused to let us go.
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue must also know that before there are motions, there is Twitter. Some journalists have been tweeting everything we have been saying from the beginning. I said the same thing. 
It is a collective problem. The Bloc started things off and moved the first motion. I believe the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour moved the motion. That is not petty politics; that is a fact. I heard a former nurse say that she has had to work on June 24 in the past and I commend her. We need to be consistent, as politicians and as members of Parliament. A resolution was passed in the House to recognize Quebec as a nation. So, if we can suspend for a political convention—which I understand, for we have all done it—we can also respect Quebeckers, French Canadians, as a nation. So members felt that we should not sit on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, Quebec's national holiday. Both sides are to blame.
Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is actually June 25, but I will not apologize for not being in my riding to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. However, I would like to wish all Quebeckers a wonderful national holiday. I am with them in spirit. I am so proud to be a Quebecker. Let us celebrate our culture and our beautiful language.
Now, to get back to the subject, namely, Bill C-6. I heard the speeches given by my hon. colleagues across the floor. I heard them say repeatedly that the complete shutdown of postal services is hurting the Canadian economy and SMEs and that this must absolutely be resolved. I understand that, because it is completely legitimate.
However, they forgot to mention one important detail in their speeches. The employees of Canada Post never called a general strike. They did not want to stop delivering the mail. Instead, they decided to stage rotating strikes, so that Canadians would still receive their mail. It was the employer, Canada Post, that decided to impose a lockout and shut down mail delivery.
It is even more shocking to see this government try to then blame the workers and the NDP to justify its policy. The employees want to return to work and we know that Canada Post never would have imposed a lockout without the approval of the government and the Minister of Labour, who is currently not here.
The shutdown of mail delivery is affecting the economy. The government has to end the lockout. I am truly shocked to see the government so readily blame every party except his own. 
Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture said that millions of Canadians and small and medium-sized businesses were suffering because of the lockout and that the voters elected the Conservatives, who now have to represent the voters' interests. Are they forgetting that the Canada Post workers also voted for us? Are they forgetting that the workers' families and friends are counting on us? They too voted for us. Are they forgetting that their children are also counting on us? Those Canadians also have the right to have their interests represented in the House of Commons.
We are not talking about a right that is part of some act or regulation. We are talking about a right that is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a fundamental human right that is the key to balancing the power relationship between the employees and the employer, which already has a position of strength over its employees.
Why is the government so bent on denigrating the workers and bolstering that position? This disrupts the balance of the whole structure in the workplace. A society without labour rights, without collective bargaining, is not a free and democratic society. Talk to the many political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in countries condemned by Amnesty International because those countries do not respect these fundamental rights.
Thousands of activists have been imprisoned after devoting their lives to defending labour rights and fighting for the workers in their country. I have a good example. Mansour Ossanlou, president of the bus workers' union in Tehran, spent his whole life standing up for workers' rights. He is now in jail in his country, being tortured.
I know that the hon. members opposite will say that we are not in Iran here. I would tell them that indeed, in Canada, workers have the right to negotiate for better working conditions. They have the right to negotiate for better wages and stable pensions to avoid spending their retirement in poverty.
How dare the government talk about freedom and democracy when it now wants to use its majority—which represents only 40% of Canadians—to force workers to return to work for wages reduced by $875 over four years and pensions that are less stable, with less vacation, less sick leave and fewer benefits? How dare the government use the economic recovery to justify these major cuts?
How can people living in uncertainty and with lower wages contribute to Canada's economic recovery? That makes no sense.
The young people of my generation are getting a terrible message. They are being told that they will not have good wages, good pensions, good benefits or good working conditions, and above all, that they will not have the right to negotiate for better conditions.
Canada Post, as a crown corporation, is well aware that it is not in its interest to negotiate with the employees because the government will take its side. The government will legislate in its favour. That is exactly why today, negotiations have come to a standstill. That is also why we are here today, since the employees have no other choice. We are their only way out in terms of defending their rights. In this situation, the government is not acting in good faith by offering less than what Canada Post had offered its own employees. 
 Canada Post employees are still mobilized in my riding. Despite the rain the day before yesterday, there were about 30 employees picketing in front of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Boulevard post office in Pointe-aux-Trembles. The vast majority of motorists taking that route showed their support by honking their horns or waving. Contrary to what the government is trying to make Canadians believe, the majority of people understand the reasons that pushed the Canada Post employees to go on a rotating strike, however they do not understand why this government locked the workers out.
 A large number of constituents in my riding work in factories, small workshops and the construction sector. They are unionized workers who understand the importance of having good, safe working conditions. They sympathize therefore with the Canada Post mail carriers and employees whose mail preparation procedure will be modified.
 The Canada Post Corporation has already started to change the mail assembly procedure. Some mail carriers in Laval now have to prepare their mail while they walk. The mail carriers will now be required to wear two mail pouches, one on each side of their body. Regardless of the rain, wind, hail, or snow, mail carriers tread the sidewalks with loads of tens of pounds, sometimes loads of up to 30 pounds. How will they be able to regain their balance in a wet staircase or on an icy sidewalk if they are carrying mail pouches hanging from each side of their body?
 The number of on the job accidents will increase and these accidents will become more serious. Furthermore, the government wants to cut mail carriers’ benefits and salaries. What will be the impact of this measure in areas with a lot of exterior staircases, as is the case in Tétreaultville, located in the western part of my riding? 
 “The worst negotiated agreement is better than the best imposed agreement,” according to a popular adage among collective labour contract negotiators. 
 In keeping with their right-wing ideas, the Conservatives want to punish workers who believe in labour relations laws and collective bargaining, and have resorted to entirely legal and legitimate job action in the form of rotating strikes. This government argues that the scale it wants to impose is the same as for federal government public servants. In addition to making a mockery of working conditions, the government has given an arbitrator—who will be intervening in relation to a particular issue—a mandate with no real flexibility. Given the constraints placed upon the arbitrator, his decision is almost predictable. 
 A responsible government only uses special back-to-work legislation as a last resort. This government from the new right wants things its way and is willing to scare government workers in the process. The special legislation will set a precedent in the history of labour relations despite there being no general strike, just a government-imposed lockout.
 For the residents of Pointe-de-l'Île, Quebec and Canada, democracy is not simply about voting in general elections; it is something they experience daily, in the workplace. Unionized workers have the right to bargain and to organize, but also the right to engage in job action. 
 I was disgusted today to hear my government colleagues say that we have no respect for Canadians and SMEs, and that we do not care about Canada’s best interests. I will not allow this government to blame us for its undemocratic practices, driven by the economic interests of companies and employers. I will not allow this government to try and tell Canadians that the NDP is not there for them. We are here not only for the workers at Canada Post, but for all Canadians. 
 We are here for them, for their families and their children.
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two comments—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster on a point of order.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for some time now, the Conservatives have been acting very poorly in the House. I urge you as Speaker to control the Conservative members who are lacking respect in this Parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): That is not a point of order. I would agree that there has been a lot more noise in the last few minutes, but I have been monitoring the debate in this place.
The hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I want to make two comments on the member's speech.
One, she mentioned motorists honking at the strike initiative. She assumed the honking was in favour of the strikers. I suspect it was more likely small business owners going to work, simply honking at the strikers and saying, “Get the hell out of the way; I want to go to work”.
The other thing is that I have emails from postal workers who tell me they were not allowed to vote by their union. They are disappointed with that and are demanding that the union allow them to vote on what they thought was a very good deal. 
I would like to know from the member: How undemocratic is that?
[Interjection]
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, it is surely not as undemocratic as what this government is doing today in this House.
Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the postal workers did not have a chance to vote on subsequent offers and yet they gave their union a 94.5% mandate to strike. The party opposite keeps insisting that was not enough. 
Does the Conservative Party go to the electorate and have an election every time it introduces a new piece of legislation? Would that analogy not be comparable to the kind of nonsense the Conservatives are spouting about a strike mandate?
[Interjection]
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, we are here because we want to stand up on behalf of citizens against this bill that the government is trying to pass. They tried to blame us and told us that if we wanted to attend Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations in our ridings, we simply had to vote for a bill right away, without debating it. I do not think that is how Canadians want us to do politics. That is why we are here today and why we will stay here until the government agrees to debate the amendments we want to propose.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Bourassa set the tone for this next round of debate. You will notice that with the way I speak, things will calm down a bit, we will take a deep breath and bring the debate back down to earth.
Does the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île share my concerns about the situation? I have been a negotiator and a union president. There is some give and take in any negotiation. But as it stands, the bill introduced by the Conservative government is so good for the employer and for the Canada Post Corporation that, even if there are some backroom deals—negotiations must take place, or at least I hope—I think that the employer side has no interest in moving and does not want to move, simply because the government handed it working conditions on a silver platter that clearly put the workers at a disadvantage.
Does she see the same problem I do in what went on on the government side when it introduced this bill that is unfair to the workers?
[Interjection]
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that excellent question. There is no need for me to add anything about the government and the head of this crown corporation. We know very well that the corporation did not impose a lockout without the government's agreement. If that were not enough, it dares to offer inferior working conditions, lower wages and, above all, a wage increase that is less than inflation and less than the increase in the cost of living.
As I said in my remarks, it is normal to have no negotiations going on. The government tells us that it tried and tried again. No, it did not try; it just took the side of Canada Post, let it break off the negotiations and let the workers take the blame. We here have all agreed that it is a precedent. From now on, no employer—CBC/Radio-Canada or any other—will ever want to negotiate their collective agreements to a conclusion because they know that the government, which we are unfortunately going to have for four years, will be in their camp.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to be the next speaker. We are now into debate on the principles of Bill C-6 and I thought maybe some members on the other side who have so much to say in the question and comment period would like to stand up and explain the principles and philosophy behind the bill—
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Is the member saying he does not have have any principles?
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison:  —and defend what the government has brought forward in the House of Commons.
There have been some wild charges by the other side about what motivates New Democrats, what motivates trade unionists, so I am going to start by talking—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I would ask all hon. members to refrain from yelling in the House. There are three or four members who continually interrupt. 
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks on the debate in principle on Bill C-6 by talking about some of the motivations that lie behind my opposition to the bill. 
I will do that by talking a little bit about what a great Canadian did when confronted with a society that was becoming increasingly unequal and was becoming a society where there was great hardship among ordinary working people. That Canadian was J.S. Woodsworth. He began his working life as a young minister. His motivation was not Marxism. It was not labour bosses. It was his great Christian faith which said that he should reach out to his brothers and sisters and his community and to help those in need. 
When he was confronted with the depression that confronted all Canadians returning from World War I and the great deal of hardship, he got caught up in the response of workers in Canada, which led to the Winnipeg General Strike. His conclusion from that was that government, in order to prevent this kind of hardship in our society and in order to bring people together, had to step in and create social programs and labour policies that would lead to a more just and equal Canadian society. He ran for Parliament and sat as the member for Winnipeg North Centre from 1921 until his death in 1942.
His philosophy is one that can guide me in my response to Bill C-6. Some of the key issues raised in the bill are the issue of a living wage and the issue of intergenerational equity. Woodsworth's philosophy was very well expressed in what is known as the Woodsworth grace, and, with the House's indulgence, I will read that grace. It states:
 We are thankful for these and all the good things of life. We recognize that they are a part of our common heritage and come to us through the efforts of our brothers and sisters the world over. What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all. To this end, may we take our share in the world's work and the world's struggles. 
What is most important to me is the line, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”. I know that is what motivates trade unions in this country. It is not to take from others but to build a society where we all have the same ability to raise a family in dignity and in honour and to save for our retirement. What trade unions wish for themselves, they wish for all Canadians. This is the spirit in which trade unions fight, not for union bosses but for their members, not just for their members but for all working people.
Today, the Conservative government tells us that the recession is over and yet we have the largest number of Canadians in our history using food banks, including many families with children and many families where one parent is working. The Canadian Association of Food Banks says that now there are 870,000 Canadians per month are assisted by a food bank. 
Some on the other side would ask me what that has to do with Bill C-6. Bill C-6 would result in a rollback of wages to levels that would not allow a family to avoid food banks. In the case of Air Canada, where the government first suggested intervention, the two-tier wages that were on the table at that time would have started workers at Air Canada at $11.35 per hour. That is not enough in my community for a person with one dependant to pay for the basics of food, clothing and shelter. 
What is on the table in the agreement to be enforced by Bill C-6 is an 18% reduction for new workers, lower than the existing Canada Post rate. What will that bring their wages down to? It will be $19 an hour. I heard many members on the other side say that there are many people who would be happy to work for $19 an hour. I can tell the members that in my community $19 an hour will not support a family. It will not buy housing. It will not pay all the bills at the end of the month for a family. 
What is wrong with Bill C-6, from my point of view, is that it violates the principle and philosophy that was set out by Woodsworth, which is that we all are brothers and sisters in this community. We all deserve the same good standard of living in this country. That is my vision of Canada, that was Woodsworth's vision of Canada and, I hope, that is the vision of all members in the House. 
When it comes to the two-tier wage system, it is clearly inspired by some other model and some other vision where some Canadians who do the same work will be paid less and will not have enough at the end of the month to take care of their families.
The second part of the legislation is the attack on pensions. One of the great problems that was faced in the 1920s and through the 1930s was the absolute destitution of the elderly in our society. We went to great lengths to create the Canada pension plan but, in parallel with that, also private pension plans.
 This attack on pensions will leave workers without the security that they need for their retirement. We will have many seniors, as we do today, who do not have pensions and who will need to choose at the end of the month between shelter, prescription drugs and food. When they make those hard choices, they often end up ill and often end up becoming a greater cost to our society as a whole. Many of them are too proud to ask for help. Many of their families provide that help without them actually asking. We end up with those very families we are suggesting should have a lower wage to start, having to help out their senior parents and having to pay the high cost of child care all at the same time. This is that new term we are talking about, the sandwich generation. What is being suggested in Bill C-6 is that we give those people even lower wages to try to meet those multiple demands in their lives.
Perhaps what is most pernicious for me in Bill C-6 is its effect on intergenerational inequality. My generation has a lot to answer for. Our emphasis on consumerism, excess and privilege for a few has left a society that I am much less proud of than I would like to be. What we are doing is also leaving future generations with an environment in crisis and with debt racked up by the Liberal and Conservative federal governments that failed to make those who have wealth and resources pay their fair share in this country. They are the ones who benefited from the work that all Canadians do and they have had relentless programs of tax reduction in their favour, which has driven up our debt that we will leave to our children and their children. The Conservative government's corporate tax reductions that we have seen go ahead now will only add to that problem in the future.
Bill C-6 again compounds that problem. We are now saying to the new generation of workers that not only are we leaving them these greater problems to deal with, but we will give them lower wages and fewer resources to actually deal with those problems.
What we are back to at the end of Bill C-6 is a difference in philosophy, and that philosophy is not based on Marxism or union bossism on this side. It is based on a wide variety of philosophies, some taking their inspiration from faith and religion, some taking theirs from humanitarianism and some taking theirs from socialist and social democratic traditions. However, what we share on this side of the House is that statement that was included in the grace that I read earlier, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all”. We will take our part in that struggle and work very hard to ensure Canada is and always will be a more equal society.
We have now reached a position, 90 years after Woodsworth was first elected to the House of Commons, where inequality is once again as big as it was when he began his career. The great shame of the last 20 years of Canadian society is that we have slipped back to the 1920s. We have slipped back so that ordinary working families have lost those opportunities for a safe and secure future for them and their children. 
That is why I am very proud to stand here with my brothers and sisters in the NDP caucus. We will be forcing this debate as long as we can to try to make members on the other side come to their senses and see that there is a better way to build a prosperous Canada and a better future for all Canadians.
Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with some of the numbers the member has just cited with regard to the 1920s, comparing the standard of living with today, he would do well to recheck his statistics.
 He would also do well not to pretend that $19 an hour, close to $40,000 a year, is enough to live on in this country. There are many hard-working, unionized and non-unionized people, people, I would hazard, who work in our very offices in this House, who work on that amount or less than that amount and do not have recourse to food banks. We should not take their effort, their sacrifice and the discipline of their lives lightly.
What concerns this member and many on our side is the emphasis on fighting. Why do we need to fight? We were all impressed by the revolutionary fervour of the previous speaker, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, but, honestly, Canadians have not sent us here to fight. They have sent us here to find solutions. 
Will the member opposite not agree that the solution is to vote for this law and put the workers of Canada Post back to work to help their company become the competitive corporation that its management and its workers want it to be, and that the best way to do that is to end this debate, end this filibuster and vote for Bill C-6 now.
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member here in the House. He may not remember but we did actually meet when I was working in Afghanistan and he was also working there. I respect the work he did there.
However, with respect, he is absolutely wrong about who has picked this fight here in the House of Commons.
Canada Post is a profitable corporation and that profit was made by the co-operation and hard work of all those people who go to work everyday to help deliver the mail in Canada. What did Canada Post do? It sought to roll back the wages and pensions of those workers when it was making $281 million a year in profits. When things did not go easily for Canada Post, the government stepped in and imposed even worse conditions than those that were put forward at the beginning.
To me, the blame for who picked the fight here, who locked out the workers and who caused us to stand here in opposition belongs to the other side of this House and not to this side.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have a great deal of respect for the member. I know he is sincere in what he is saying. I accept everything he said and I agree with much of what he said.
The last questioner asked something that was pertinent. I did not agree with his conclusion of why we are fighting. I feel that we need to fight for certain things here. However, at the end of the day I wonder if the hon. member could explain the worth of this fight of who started it, who did not start it, who will finish it and who will continue it. Is it not about finding a resolution? Is that not what we should be doing?
I do not understand. I wonder if the member could explain to me how, after 29 hours of speaking in this House to a motion to hoist the bill and wait six months, who that benefits. It does not benefit the worker, in my book. It does not benefit the public interest. Who does it benefit? Let us stop the fighting and get to resolutions. Let us get to committee of the whole.
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in my speech I did not talk about who picked the fight. The question of who picked the fight came from the other side of the House and I felt obligated to respond to that.
The other part I did not get a chance to respond to was where the $19 an hour not being enough come from. In my community, that figure that was produced by the community social services council that surveyed the costs that a family faces in the community for the very basics of housing, food, clothing and education for their kids. It is not an amount that includes holidays or saving for retirement. It is a very modest income in the major cities of this country. Therefore, that is not a figure that was picked out of the air.
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, here we are in the second day of our debate. What comes to my mind today is this is not about this particular dispute. It is not about postal workers being locked out. It is not about union bosses not giving union members the vote. Those are all red herrings. This dispute and the legislation are about the kind of Canada we want. 
We must look at this debate in that context. Each and every one of us in this room, as well as those who are sleeping or sitting in the lobbies, should take the time to reflect on that. It is not just the kind of Canada we want for ourselves, as my colleague mentioned, but it is the kind of Canada we want for our children, grandchildren, neighbours and people right across the country. 
It is about a living wage. I am not talking about a minimum wage. I am talking about a living wage, the amount of money it takes to support a family, to enable a family to pay the rent, to buy food, to pay for transportation and clothing, and to have a bit of money left over so the family can take the occasional vacation. I am not talking about going to Hawaii or Timbuktu; most families would be grateful just to go camping. 
Those are the kinds of issues we are dealing with. When we look at the challenges being faced by the post office workers, that is the attack the government is making on their right to a living wage.
I have heard hon. members say that some of their constituents make $12 an hour and are very happy with that. Someone who had been unemployed and was able to get a job for $12 an hour would be very happy with that, but would that be enough to pay the rent, to pay for food, clothing and basic needs? I would answer no because I know many people who make that kind of money and they have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.
It is very easy for all us who sit in these hallowed halls. We make a decent income, I would say a more than comfortable income. It is very easy for us to say that $18 an hour is extravagant. We have to ask ourselves, would we be willing to take $18 an hour? 
Canada Post is telling new workers that they can work for Canada Post but it is going to pay them even less than it used to pay. That does not make any economic sense and I will explain why. Workers who are happy, who are not depressed, who are not feeling persecuted or hard done by by the government or their employer, are far more productive.
What signal are we sending to our youth, to new workers? We are telling them that they are not worth as much, that they can work for much longer, that they are younger and they can do it.
I ask my colleagues across the aisle, are there special grocery stores for the young? Young people have to pay the bills and have to support theirs families just like the rest of us. We cannot, in our society, buy into differentiated salaries for the same work.
I absolutely believe in employment equity. Past governments, some that did not have a majority at the time but were supported by others, did away with the employment equity program. We saw the impact that had on the civil service, and we saw the greater impact it had on women.
When I look at what is coming for the postal workers, it is not only a differentiated salary, but now the government is exercising its majority and is being punitive. It is being a bully in trying to impose an agreement. It is setting the salary. It is imposing a salary on workers instead of giving them the freedom to negotiate. That is just wrong.
I also want to talk about benefits. What attracted me to Canada back in 1975 when I chose to make Canada my home was Canada's wonderful health care system. When I was hired as a teacher, I was really pleased with the benefits I had, just as I am sure the postal workers were very happy when they fought for and earned those benefits.
Now, the postal workers are being told that their sick leave benefits are going to be changed and are going to be taken away. That is just wrong. I cannot see how a corporation that is making a huge profit can take away more from the very people who helped it make that profit. Those two things do not coincide. Good corporations know that when they do well the first thing they should do is reward their employees.
A state corporation is under the control of the Conservative majority. Its employees are being told that while the corporation has this huge profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars, their wages are going to be lowered. They are not going to get as much as Canada Post wanted to give them. Also, their benefits, and for good luck, their pensions are going to be worse.
What kind of government does that? The kind of government that hid its real agenda from Canadians when it said it was going to be a kinder and gentler government that would not attack pensions, that would not attack working people. I heard those speeches over and over again, and like any bully, once it got a majority, the cloak came off. Here we are, hardly a couple of months into this new Parliament and the cloak has come off.
 What is this really about? This is about the corporate agenda to privatize public services and public corporations, absolutely. Why else would a government make it impossible for workers to go back to work? The doors are locked and the government is not opening them.
There is no way the Prime Minister could persuade me, or any Canadian, that the government did not lock the doors. The government is responsible for close to 50,000 people not making a living right now. They are outside because they are locked out. Those people do not have health care benefits. There have been strikes even in the public sector that have gone on for months, but the employer did not cut off benefits.
In an email one of my constituents told me that when she went to get her drug prescription, she was told that she had to pay $111, because she did not have that benefit anymore—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
The hon. member for Bourassa.
Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, as a former immigration minister, I cannot accept a reply like that. I hope that the hon. member will be much less evasive. She should have answered the question from the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. There are limits. This is not about taking one side or the other, but there is a certain reality, and services provided to Canadians must be protected.
My question is not complicated. At the moment, we are either blaming each other or talking about principles. We would rather find solutions. Does the hon. member not agree that we should immediately move into a committee of the whole and come to grips with this? We can drag out the time, but we could be working together on amendments instead of dragging out the time. Everyone is losing now, to tell the truth. If we really want to help the workers, let us get into a committee of the whole and find solutions instead of simply holding forth with grand principles. 
Jinny Sims: First of all, it would be very easy to stop all of this today. It could stop in the next 30 seconds. Open the doors.
Secondly, I will say this to my colleague over on the far side: immigrants understand. They know they are being inconvenienced, but I can tell you they will understand once we explain to them. These new Canadians will understand that this is about fighting for rights. They understand that.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I stand here just a few hours after I first rose in the House to speak of this crossroads we are at, previously on the hoist motion and now on Bill C-6. 
In these last 24 hours I have received messages from people in my constituency in northern Manitoba. I have received messages from people across the country. I have received messages from postal workers and from ordinary Canadians.
 Many of these messages are thanking the NDP for standing up for them. They thank us for standing up for the postal workers and for what is rightly theirs as working people: their right to collective bargaining. They thank us for standing up in the House of Commons and raising the fact that what is being talked about here is a fair wage, a stable pension, and a recognition that no matter the age of the worker, or whether they have been with Canada Post for years or are a new hire, they ought to have the same right to a decent living.
In these last 24 hours I have also had the chance to hear from members across. I had the chance to hear humour, the chance to hear belittling, and the chance to hear a whole lot of heckling. That disrespect is nothing to us on this side of the House of Commons; we put with it. But that disrespect is most insulting to the Canadian people and to the postal workers who are on the picket line because they were shut out of their jobs when they decided they would take action by going on a rotating strike. The postal workers continued to deliver the critical mail that was needed by so many Canadians. They recognized that their work is an essential service. And they are now on the lines across Canada stating what we are talking about here today. 
Instead of hearing many parties in the House, most importantly the governing party of the House, say that they are listening, we have heard neglect and quite frankly disrespect and insults. 
What we are talking about here today is more than just what the workers of Canada Post have been calling for in their negotiation. The postal workers, other workers across Canada, and so many Canadians want the approach from government on this service to be focused on people rather than profit.
A few months ago the Canadian Union of Postal Workers welcomed their new president. In welcome, the members voiced their desire to have a positive working relationship. They asked for what they wanted to see: a less commercial and more socially responsible postal service and a management that understands that Canada Post is first and foremost a public service. 
The members asked for respect for Canada Post's legislated mandate to provide and improve postal service while being financially self-sustaining and ensuring good labour-management relations.
They asked for an end to the cuts and privatization, including the national philatelic centres and customer contact centres. They noted this could be done by sharing the benefits and cost savings of modernization with the public and postal workers. 
Finally, they asked for a commitment to work with the federal government to dramatically improve government policy and expectations for Canada Post, as outlined in the Canadian postal service charter.
 These were the requests that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers asked for. They asked for a better service for Canadians.
To me, what pops out is the word “privatization”. Let us make no mistake about what we are seeing here today: an agenda of the government to move in that direction. They closed the national philatelic centres. They got rid of the customer contact centres. They got rid of the Canada Post food mail program and gave it to a private carrier. Now they are attacking the very workers who are asking for nothing more than a fair wage. The workers recognize that Canada Post has made record profits that in many cases have gone back to government coffers rather than being reinvested in not just the postal workers but more importantly the service.
That piece on privatization is not only about the direction this government is taking when it comes to postal service. The question is where does it go next? What other services are going down that path thanks to this government's leadership--or lack of leadership, for that matter? Where will it cut next, whether it be funding, imposing legislation, or taking a heavy hand and saying that Canadians should not have public systems that have been at the foundation of our country, such as postal services, health care, education systems, the CBC, or institutions across the country that bring us together? Where will it stop? What is clear is that it has begun.
Privatization does not just mean poorer services for us. Of course that is a key part of what it means, especially in some parts of the country that are already among the poorest.
We can look at rural Canada. As a rural Canadian and somebody who is proud to say that I grew up in a small community, maybe an average community for Canada, I can say not only how important the postal service is to us as a service, but also how important the postal workers are in keeping our communities connected in bringing home a living wage and raising families in our communities. If we are going down the path of privatization, which this government has proven to be interested in taking, rural Canada stands to lose the most.
I find it highly hypocritical that so many of the members across who were elected to represent rural Canadians, so many members with signed petitions decrying the possible closure of rural post offices or decrying the lack of funding going toward postal services, stand in this House and turn a blind eye to the demands of rural Canadians.
Women we know, many of whom work in the postal service, also stand to lose the most from privatization, women who already learn less money to the male dollar in Canada, a shameful fact, given that we are in the year 2011. That is also the case with the next generation, young people. 
Much excitement is felt when we talk about young people and the energy they bring. Certainly our party is keen on the new group of young MPs. Our voices are here to say that the road this government is taking is feeding off of our generation. It is taking away the foundations of a country our generation would like to contribute to, but also the kinds of foundations our generation needs to be able to build a better future.
Finally, I want to say that this ultimately is not only about privatization but also an attack on working people, on the working class and the middle class.
I will read a quote that came out of the protests that happened south of us in Madison, Wisconsin. It speaks to the draconian legislation that is not too far off from what we are hearing and debating here today. One of the leaders there said, “All this legislation is an attack on the middle class, which blossomed in this country "--much like ours--" as a result of collective bargaining victories during the middle of the last century.” 
Let us continue to a brighter future by supporting the Canadian postal workers' rights to collective bargaining. Let us have a government that stands for my generation and the future of our country.
Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): Madam Speaker, one of the things I find highly offensive about the members opposite is their appropriation of the term “working Canadians”. I represent working Canadians, and many of the colleagues on this side of the House strongly represent working Canadians. Many of them, tens of thousands of them, voted for us in all of our constituencies.
It is highly offensive to my constituents when people like loggers, miners, ranchers, farmers, and tourism operators are not included in their definition of working citizens. These people work very hard and for many of them, a 60-hour week is considered an easy week. Not only members opposite represent working-class folks. We represent them as well. They are voting for us in ever-increasing numbers, especially in rural Canada.
I represent a widely dispersed rural constituency. Internet service is sometimes intermittent. Mail service is very important to the seniors and the businesses in my constituency. Can the member tell us why the NDP is persisting in hurting rural Canada?
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the member's constituency given that it neighbours on my own. What I hear from people in northern Manitoba and quite frankly across Manitoba is that they want voices in the House of Commons that stand up for their communities and do not seek to pillage the very services they depend on, including the postal service. They want to be represented by people who seek to support institutions that hold up our rural communities. In the west there is the Canadian Wheat Board. I would ask the member and his colleagues how they feel about the Canadian Wheat Board, which supports our communities. Here we are talking not just about dismantling an institution that involves all of us. We are talking about an attack on services and on an approach that involves us all working together and recognizing that for all of us to be better off, we need to believe in our institutions and we need to stand up for the people who work in them.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have an email from a young constituent in Nanaimo-Cowichan who said he was opposed to this bill because of the devastation it would mean for future workers of his generation and because of the injustice that would be suffered by current employees of Canada Post and union members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. He felt that this could put his generation's security with unions in addition to the right to bargain into jeopardy as this incident could be used by the Government of Canada as an example of how to deal with future ordeals. 
Could the member expand on what this kind of action means to the younger generation that is looking for well paying jobs and that has hopes for pensions in the future?
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: I thank my colleague for bringing forward the voice of a young person who is concerned about his future. We know that young people form the demographic that does not get involved in politics, but many of them did come out for this election in a big way. Many others say, “Well, why would I? What are the choices being made that benefit me?”
This government is surely helping them to feel that way by standing up for legislation that ensures that young postal workers coming into the workplace will earn far less, 18% or 30%, than do those who are there now and will have pensions that will not be stable a few years down the line. This is no way to invest in the next generation. Members of the government should take a harder look at the future they are providing for their children and their constituents.
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Madam Speaker, we have been waiting for these amendments. I want to make sure that the NDP member for Hamilton Centre and the NDP member forLondon—Fanshawe are not actually participating in creating these amendments, because when they had the opportunity in Ontario, they actually tore apart the bargaining agreements of the 30,000 public servants. They tore apart the contract, cut their wages by $2 billion and forced them to take 12 unpaid days off. So I just want to make sure that those two NDP members are not involved in these--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 
I did say it had to be a very brief question. 
The hon. member for Churchillhas time for a 30-second response. 
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Madame Speaker, I believe it is important to focus on how we are seeing here a replay, to use an example, of another provincial government, the former Harris government here in Ontario. What the rest of us across the country heard was how devastating that agenda was on the working class, on people's communities and on their well-being. If that was a sign of things to come, then many of us are in for quite a ride. 
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. 
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am a new parliamentarian, and I have a practical question that perhaps you can help me with. Is there not supposed to be a minimum of 15 members from the government party to make quorum?
The Deputy Speaker: No, there needs to be 15 members total in the House.
[Interjection]
Alain Giguère: Madam Speaker, we could start with a little reminder: Walkerton. This is what happens when a government places itself at the service of lobbyists and not at the service of the people. This is not an ideology, but greed.
Walkerton is a small town that was having its water tested by the government. One fine day, the Harris government, on the advice of lobbyists, decided to privatize the lab studies. So the private company, which was supposed to do much more for a better price, decided to make it much more profitable. The tests were erroneous and the residents were poisoned.
Unfortunately, this is the type of situation that we are facing. Once again, a government on the right decides to listen to lobbyists rather than face its duties. In this case, on one side, we have a very old Canadian union that was established in 1911. This union has taken part in many conflicts and has also brought many benefits. It created the context of a permanent, professional and non-partisan public service. It was an essential element in 1911. The petty politics of personal involvement were banished.
This union has become one of the best organized, most democratic and most powerful unions in Canada. It was part of many struggles in Canada. Over the years, it has created for itself a good collective agreement, with fair wages for fair work. It also established a defined benefit pension plan, and of course indexing has been added to protect pensioners from inflation. A clause for survivor's allowance, without penalty, has also been added to prevent the spouses of pensioners from falling into poverty. The union even gave same-sex couples the same rights long before any other unions. This is a very rich, very well capitalized pension plan with blue chip stocks in banks, Canadian financial institutions, PotashCorp and so on.
Unfortunately, plans like this one are coveted by everyone across Canada. This was obvious based on how quickly the government decided to intervene in the case of Air Canada. What was the problem at Air Canada? We were told that a strike at Air Canada would trigger an economic calamity, even though the company issued a press release telling everyone not to worry because the strike would in no way compromise the company. 
Yet the government said it had to intervene immediately, that the union had to be crushed, that someone must prevent it from protecting its defined benefit pension plan. That was crucial in the case of Air Canada. The big shots that supposedly saved the company suspended pension contributions. Combined with some bad investments, this led to a $2.1 billion deficit in the fund, an actuarial liability for the company.
We can only imagine what a lovely gift the government was about to give the company. By waving a magic wand, it was going to force the union to come back, to give up its defined benefit plan and, as if by magic, between $500 million and $1.2 million would have disappeared from the deficit. The net worth of shareholders was going to jump by over $1 billion in just one day. Would that not have been great? That is what the Conservative Party is all about: friends first, the people second, like in Walkerton.
The postal institution is as old as Canada. As a joke, we used to say that, even before the RCMP and even before the first settlers arrived, a Canadian post office was setting up shop. That is not far from the truth.
Historically, this public service institution has always played a vital role in Canada. It has always been in operation, whether as the post office department or as the Canada Post Corporation. It has always operated under political authority.
Never in Canadian history has a Canada Post president, a crown corporation or a postmaster general taken action without getting the Prime Minister's approval first, especially when planning to cause havoc and declare a lockout. That cannot be done without the political authority's permission. And I am not the only one to say this.
Just recently, we have seen this with the Gomery commission. The hon. member for Bourassa would be able to confirm that the Gomery commission clearly showed that the Canada Post Corporation had followed the directives from the Prime Minister's Office in the matter of sponsorships. 
So here we are with a big mystery. They are attempting to persuade us that the Canada Post Corporation started the lockout without permission from the Prime Minister, who had no other choice but to take action by imposing special legislation because he thought the lockout was so terrible. Wow! And he is trying to persuade 33 million Canadians of that. Let me just say that the number of Canadians who believe them after finding out the facts will drop. It will drop like a stone, in fact. No one can believe so implausible a story, that the Prime Minister does not know what his left hand is doing while his right hand is doing the opposite. The Prime Minister's authority is directly involved in all this. It clearly means that everything that has been happening is simply an ambush. They have intentionally led the union to a lockout in order to be able to ask for an arbitrator who, under this special legislation, will eliminate the pension plan for the benefit of their friends in power.
Unfortunately for the government, the longer the debate goes on, the longer people outside the House will talk about it and the sooner they will realize that the government's version of events does not add up. I doubt that 33 million people are going to believe, after a week or two of lockout, that the Prime Minister is not aware of what is going on in his own office.
What impact is this having? Some 55,000 Canadians are without an income or wages because of the government's decision. They can not afford to buy groceries or pay the rent. Moreover this is affecting the Canadian economy.
The members opposite are saying there is cause for concern and that it is important to do something about it. That is true. They have to end the lockout, stop making backroom deals and start doing their duty by listening to people and standing up for them instead of serving the interests of their friends and lobbyists.
Gary Goodyear: Madam Speaker, the member hits it on the nose that 55,000 workers are seriously inconvenienced by this. The government is very concerned about that. We are concerned that an agreement could not be reached after eight months. We were concerned about the rotating strikes that cost Canada Post, and ultimately taxpayers, over $100 million, and now the lockout. At the end of the day, what we are concerned about is all Canadians. We are concerned about small businesses that are losing money. There is strong evidence that the economy is being hurt and at a very critical time when the global economy is still fragile.
Would the member see that the best way to end this now, the most firm, complete and final way, is to agree with the back to work legislation, support the government's concern for all Canadians, not just those who are unionized, but Canadians who do not have unions, Canadians who want to go to work are being negatively impacted? As a result, seniors are not getting their cheques and folks are not getting their passports or their visas for family members overseas who are ill. The government is concerned about this on a whole. These workers need to get back to work, and this filibustering is not helping.
Would the member please consider supporting back to work legislation as the final and complete solution to this problem?
[Interjection]
Alain Giguère: Madam Speaker, what the hon. government member is asking of us is not to facilitate a return to work, but to condemn generations of Canadians to no longer have a pension plan that guards them from poverty. That is important to point out. For the sake of small businesses and people who are expecting official documents, why on earth is the government maintaining this lockout? All the Prime Minister has to do is pick up the phone. He just has to tell his guy to end the lockout, that he is the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Davenport.
Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP): Madam Speaker, the government says that it does not interfere with Canada Post, of which it is the sole shareholder. That is a bit of a head-scratcher for many people. Then it turns around and does just that and offers postal workers less than what management offered initially. 
Does my hon. colleague not think it would be fair if the government withdrew the wage clause in the bill?
[Interjection]
Alain Giguère: Madam Speaker, the entire bill must be withdrawn, in my opinion. It makes no sense at all. The government created this mess and wants somebody else to clean it up. It makes me think of a chicken farmer who puts a fox in a henhouse and then decides, very intelligently, to punish the chickens. This is exactly the kind of logic this government is using.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Madam Speaker, what is a real head-scratcher for any Canadian watching this debate is the theme of the NDP speeches. What the members are doing consistently is speaking about anything except what the debate is about, which is back to work legislation. In the last speech we heard about the CBC, about Gomery and about Walkerton. 
The facts are very clear. This is about two parties that for eight months could not come to an agreement. The minister has bent over backward to try to get to some type of resolution. The question that Canadians want to hear tonight is how long will the NDP allow these two parties to hold Canadians and Canadian small businesses that are right now creating jobs for Canadians hostage? How long will those members condone the actions, as the Minister of Immigration said, that are hurting the most vulnerable—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I must stop the hon. member there to give the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin an opportunity to respond.
[Interjection]
Alain Giguère: Madam Speaker, my response will be very brief. All the government has to do is end the lockout. It pulled it out of nowhere, and built it from the ground up, so it can put an end to it. If the Prime Minister is no longer able to pull rank over the chief executive officer of a crown corporation, then my goodness, it was clearly a mistake to elect him.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam Speaker, this discussion and debate has now taken us through several calendar days, although, as we know, the date on the table remains unchanged. I hope our minds do not remain as fixed as the table date of Thursday, June 23.
I will review some of the things that I think are salient about this situation and see if I can shed some light on it, hoping that it does some good to the discussion we have had here.
The first thing is to look at Canada Post. It is the most important public service for delivery of mail and other things that are really important to us.
 As a public service, it is worth noting that it has been profitable every year for 15 years. It is also worth noting that it is facing challenges and its profit margin is going down in competition with other areas, competition with email and with commercial carriers like UPS and FedEx, even though it was able to take over Purolator and run it very profitably.
It is in a challenging situation. One of the reasons it continues to turn a profit, and in the last year I could find was for 2009, a $281 million profit, is due to the dedication and professionalism of its workforce.
We take these things as good starting points for maintaining what we want. I presume we all want Canada Post to be a public service and not privatized. I agree with my friends in the official opposition that there is some risk of that, but I do not think it is as blatant as they do. We have to guard against privatization by ensuring Canada Post remains public and profitable.
Into this we now have, and have had for some time, difficult labour management relationships between Canada Post management and CUPW. The remaining issues on the table, when things fell apart, really had almost nothing to do with the wage issue except for the differential wages for younger workers. Other issues included health and safety issues, which makes sense given what the postal workers go through, as well as staffing issues, sick leave, questions of short-term disability, wages, pensions, benefits, job creation and the ongoing issue of training.
These issues are certainly solvable. I practised in a number of areas of law, but for about three years I practised union-side labour law. I am somewhat familiar with collective agreements and bargaining, working with unions and having long negotiations. Eight months really is not that long as long as a collective agreement can be honoured and stay in place while the parties negotiate.
This is just some of the background that came to me and it is worth looking at it.
We all know the chronology. As things began to fall apart, CUPW instituted rotating strike action, which led, very short days afterwards, to a lockout. I think we all find it somewhat inexplicable that Canada Post management took that route because it brought mail service in Canada to an absolute standstill. We now find ourselves here.
I will start with where we all agree. Then I will deal with what I think are the red herrings where we do not agree. I believe we all agree that we want the mail to move. We all agree that we would like it to move as quickly as possible. I think we probably all agree that we would rather not be here at 2:15 on a Saturday morning. I think that is a presumption that will probably be shared around the room.
On the other hand, despite the occasional moments of lack of decorum, overall all members of Parliament from all parties have conducted themselves with that sense of duty, recognizing that we are here and this issue is important. It falls on us as elected members of Parliament not to just argue endlessly, but to solve it.
I think we would all agree with those statements.
Where do I see red herrings? A couple of them really relate to the larger cultural problem of this place, which is an addiction to partisanship, but I will leave it aside. However, I cannot vote for this legislation as drafted.
 I am uncomfortable with some of the accusations. Some of the members of the official opposition make a good point and then take it one step too far. I find myself thinking it was too partisan, it was a cheap shot. On the other hand, in defending the position of the government legislation, some government members have gone too far. If we could tone that down, it would help. I do not mean to sound like I am preaching or lecturing, and I hope members will forgive me. 
On the other hand, in defending the position of the government legislation, I think some government members have gone too far. If we could tone that down, it would help. I do not mean to sound like I am preaching or lecturing and I hope members will forgive me.
Something that is a problem and a bit of a red herring is that the issue before us is what do we do as members of Parliament to ensure that the mail starts moving, that there is a fair collective agreement bargaining process that works for all parties. That is our job. It is not really relevant to discuss the fact that other workers do not have such a good deal. 
I can say that until May 2 I never had a pension plan, medical benefits or paid vacation time. I have never had any of those things nor have other people in my family, but that is not relevant to what we have in front of us. What we have in front of us are legal entitlements of CUPW negotiated under Canadian law that must be respected. It is not to insult other workers that we respect unionized rights. It is not to divide one set of workers against another.
We have a responsibility to uphold Canadian law and Canadian law says CUPW has a legitimate collective agreement that has been negotiated under Canadian law, which is valid for a very important public service delivery of our postal system. Workers do a fantastic job and one of the reasons they do a fantastic job is that they are in a good union that negotiates well. That is the issue before us.
There are other questions. Does the 2007 Supreme Court decision in the B.C. hospital workers case have any bearing here? I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence said it does not, but I think there are questions. 
I will now come to the difference between us. One group of people in the House believes the best way to get the mail moving is to push through Bill C-6, come hell or high water. One group of people in the House thinks the best way to get the mail moving again is to fight as hard as possible against Bill C-6 in the hope that somehow, while we are in this place in our suspended animation of June 23, there will be some progress somewhere else that solves the problem.
But it is in members' hands to solve the problem now. I made this point earlier today and I will ask my friends in the government to consider it. The fastest way to get the mail moving, which I know is their number one objective, is to change Bill C-6 through amendments that allow all of us in this place to agree that we have respected collective bargaining rights, the labour laws of Canada and Canadian workers, and we have acted quickly in the interests of all people, whether they are small business people or families waiting for cheques.
We should not allow ourselves to be so enamoured by our own rhetoric that we forget that the fastest way to get the mail moving is to amend Bill C-6 so that we can all agree, get the mail moving and go home at some point this weekend.
Michael Chong: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her comments and congratulate her on her election to the House.
It is important for us to put this whole debate into perspective. The Government of Canada is not taking sides in this dispute. This is a dispute between two parties: the corporation and CUPW. Both parties, unfortunately, have not come to a resolution upon expiry of a collective bargaining agreement. 
The government attempted, through mediation, to get the two parties together despite that. There was a series of rotating strikes initiated by CUPW and then on the other side management decided to lock out the union.
What a responsible government would do in a monopoly situation where there are no alternatives for millions of Canadians is to legislate workers back to work to ensure the continuation of this essential service for so many Canadians. When the Liberals were in government, they did the same thing. 
What a responsible opposition would do is not filibuster this legislation. In fact, it would allow this to pass. The problem here is that the official opposition is taking a side in this issue and that shows that the official opposition is not ready for prime time.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, in response to my friend the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, I wish we could put aside whether or not the NDP is ready for prime time or anything. That is not the issue. I do not think it is quite as clear that the government has not taken sides.
As I mentioned earlier in the House today, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations in reviewing Bill C-6 has come to the conclusion that it would violate key elements of the Supreme Court decision and it would set back collective bargaining across Canada. Why would they think that?
There is nothing wrong with back-to-work legislation. Nobody would deny that it is an appropriate thing for government to do. The reason that this piece of legislation is offensive to some principles of labour law is because it is overly prescriptive, it ties the hands of an arbitrator, it puts in place in section 15 a schedule of payment to the workers that is less than what was on the table when negotiations broke down, and it further has a rather bizarre section that suggests that the arbitrator must be guided by the need to find terms and conditions of--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We must move on to other questions.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.
Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills made an intervention that was a pathetic attempt at political spin. He is generally a little more fact-based in his approach.
The government is clearly taking the corporation's side. Rather than dealing with the lock-out, which was caused by the government's actions in allowing management to do this, we have legislation before us that does not address the issue.
Would the member not agree with members who have been speaking over the last few hours that the most prudent and responsible approach that the government could take would be to take the locks off and then allow collective bargaining to run its course? The government should just take the locks off and get the mail workers back to doing what they want to do, which is serving Canada and making the mail--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, I do agree with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster on one thing but not on another.
 I quite reject the notion that the adjective “pathetic” could ever be applied to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. It does not apply all. 
I do entirely agree that the prudent thing for the government to do would be to get hold of Canada Post and tell it to take the locks off the doors so collective bargaining could begin in a free and appropriate approach. 
It was legal for management to lock the workers out. It was legal for the union to apply revolving strikes. The less that we inject ourselves as parliamentarians, and worse as political parties, into a management-labour dispute by taking sides, the better this debate will go over the next several eons.
Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Madam Speaker, during a bargaining process, it is preferable for the two parties to find common ground and reach a consensus. Alas, since the negotiations began, it has been my strong sense that Canada Post Corporation never intended to negotiate in good faith. 
Withdrawing from the bargaining process and locking out employees is disrespectful to workers. A lockout is not a strike. A strike is protest action on the part of workers, whereas a lockout is the temporary closure of the Canada Post Corporation. It is a management decision. 
The Canada Post Corporation opted to wait for the government to intervene and introduce special legislation. This approach robs workers of the right to strike because it leaves them constantly fearing this kind of legislation and, unfortunately, sends a negative message not only to the employees of Canada Post, but to all workers in this country. 
 Forcing workers to go back to work right now will leave them disgruntled and unhappy. This kind of forced settlement will be a bitter pill for workers to swallow and will leave them with a bad taste in their mouths. Not to mention the poisoned atmosphere that it will create between management and workers for the months to come. We are not talking about years here. 
 Let us not forget that several thousand workers have been affected by this lockout. When will the government finally understand that Canada Post employees are first and foremost people with families, obligations and responsibilities? 
 This legislation will strip the union of power when its primary role is to advocate for the interests of wage earners. The union’s second duty is to ensure that information is passed on to wage earners by acting as a liaison between Canada Post Corporation and its employees.
 Canada Post Corporation is pretending to be caught off guard by this situation. That makes no sense. It is Canada Post Corporation that precipitated the situation and declared a lockout. 
 This government’s stance rides roughshod over democracy. What about legislation based on common sense? Workers are being locked out, and worse still, the government gets involved and wants to introduce legislation to force employees back to work. Now we are really seeing the true colours of this Conservative government.
 Canada’s courts have recognized the right of workers to negotiate their employment contracts. Canadian courts have also recognized the right of workers to collectively organize with their fellow workers to have their rights and their employment contracts upheld. 
 The government’s approach is, without a doubt, bizarre. This procedure is going to set a precedent that no worker wants. And who will pay for it at the end of the day? The workers, as usual.
 Instead of showing our workers some consideration and respect, the government is abusing its power and riding roughshod over the rights of workers. It is unfair and it is not right. 
 I do not understand. The Conservatives have a majority government. They won the support they needed. And yet, did they have the guts to tell Canadians how they intended to govern the country? Did they say that they would back the big guys instead of helping workers? Did they say that they would force their legislation through without regard for its impact on the lives of workers? Did they say that they would deny workers an opportunity to negotiate according to the rules of proper collective bargaining? Did they say that they would introduce legislation to deny workers the right to be heard, and that they would chip away at their pension plans? Will they continue to foist draconian measures on Canadian workers who only want their right to negotiate better working conditions to be respected? 
 Out of respect for workers and their families, I believe that the government should withdraw from these negotiations and refrain from using special legislation to get their way, especially when it means siding with the employer. 
 The Conservatives’ approach is all too familiar: it is easy for them to look out for their friends at the expense of Canadian workers. These are the very same workers that helped make Canada Post the postal service that it is today, a service from which we benefit day in and day out. These workers have paid into their pension plans and are entitled, like anybody living in Canada, to receive a pension at the agreed-upon time, so they may enjoy their retirement in dignity. 
 One would expect a little bit of consideration on the part of management, but also from government. Why not leave it up to the two parties to negotiate in an honest fashion, and open up the communication channels? Currently, the employees are not allowed in the distribution centre and have no access to the mail, so they cannot deliver it. The doors are closed. That is what a lockout means. Canada Post has to unlock the doors so that workers can continue with the rotating delivery, just like when the bargaining process began. 
 Now, the government is going after the workers at Canada Post, and they will be the next victims of the extreme decisions of the government. Nobody is interested in a wage reduction or having their retirement age raised by five years. This special legislation will give all Canadian workers cause for worry, and they will wonder if they might be the next scapegoats of this Conservative government. 
 This special legislation will create divisions between two generations of workers, it will be the source of pay and social inequities, and it will weaken labour relations and create a damaging work environment. 
 The message this government is sending to workers is clear: it will not hesitate to side with employers, even if workers stand to lose a great deal. In all situations, employers will be valued over the workers. Workers will not have any opportunity to negotiate fairly because, if they insist too much on having their rights and their contract enforced, the government will not support them. Quite the opposite, it will step in and legislate them back to work. Can you believe this is happening in this day and age?
 These workers paid their union dues for years. The union is trying its best to stand up for them, but what came as a surprise to the workers is that the government, through special legislation, is trying to prevent their union from doing its job properly by not respecting its right to negotiate the members’ working conditions freely. I am afraid this kind of approach will drive apart different generations of workers and also drive apart management and employees. 
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would also like to rise above partisanship in this discussion.
I would really like to know something. Since we are concerned about work stoppages and their impact on the economy, what is the point of this stalling by the NDP? So far, all I see is that we are spending taxpayer money to pay people here, like the pages, support staff and cafeteria workers. It is a waste of time. We should pass a bill to put an end to this dispute. Mail must be delivered and Canada Post must get back to work. What is the NDP's goal by stalling this bill? I would appreciate an answer that does not stray from the point. 
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Madam Speaker, I get the impression that the government wants to blame the situation on the NDP members and on Canada Post workers. What we want is to defend these workers and to recognize that a worker who has the right to belong to a union also has the right to bargain a collective agreement.
I would like to remind the House that Canada Post employees decided to start a rotating strike. Employees in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver took turns going on strike. This slowed down postal services, but mail was still being delivered. I do not think that we should take the blame for this situation.
Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Madam Speaker, my comment is for the members opposite. All day they have shown us their little phones, saying that they have received comments, letters and words from people in their ridings who are protesting the fact that mail service has been interrupted and explained all their problems.
I went to read the newspapers. TVA—and everyone knows that TVA is not very socialist—said that 62,000 letters, including benefit cheques and every other kind of cheque, were being held up and were not being delivered because of the lock out. It was not because of the rotating strike, but because of the lock out. So the government should take responsibility for it.
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Madam Speaker, the government did not require Canada Post to return to the bargaining table and respect the collective agreement of its employees. The government probably does not want to interfere in the affairs of a Crown corporation. But it did not hesitate to table a bill that affects thousands of workers.
Jean Crowder:  Madam Speaker, just very briefly, I have here an email from Victoria, your own riding. It is from a woman who is disabled and dealing with two cancers and a broken arm. She is saying that she is fine with picking up her cheques and she says how much she supports the postal workers. She says that what's more important is that workers are respected and that there are well-paying jobs out there and people paying taxes that help to support people like her. She says, “Just because we are on disability does not mean we are desperately waiting for our cheques”.
I wonder if the member would comment on how important well-paid jobs are to our local economies and for supporting people in our country.
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Madam Speaker, we need to respect the workers, workers in our communities, workers who work outside, no matter what the weather is like, whether the day is hot, windy or bitterly cold.
Earlier I failed to mention the young employees of the Canada Post Corporation. This new generation deserves the same benefits as those our parents and their parents fought so hard for.
Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Madam Speaker, since we do not have the same concept of time in the House right now, I would like to follow up on what I was saying this morning. I was telling the story of a teacher who, although not in the same situation as the one Canada Post workers are currently in, said she was scared of the precedent this would set and the domino effect it will have.
In fact, I have read the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia. I will read an excerpt that I find to be quite relevant:
 The history of collective bargaining in Canada reveals that long before the present statutory labour regimes were put in place, collective bargaining was recognized as a fundamental aspect of Canadian society, emerging as the most significant collective activity through which freedom of association is expressed in the labour context. 
The relevance of this quotation is obvious, but I will elaborate. It is what is at issue here. Canada Post workers have not had the opportunity to exercise what is a fundamental right in our society and in our Canadian history. This ties in with the story I was telling earlier. If we cannot even have this right, what rights will be taken away next? What will be the next situation in which things do not work out and the government decides to use special legislation to resolve the problem?
I would like to give an example of recent collective action in my community. It did not involve unions. I want to make that clear so as not to scare the members opposite too much. It was during the flooding in Montérégie. Two weekends in a row, people from the entire community came to the help of strangers. They did that together, collectively, simply because these are things that could not be done alone. A collective effort was needed. That is why we have unions and workers' groups. They want to have things they are not capable of getting alone. They are not going to get what they want by going to their boss one by one. They have to express their wishes collectively.
The hon. members opposite have asked us a number of times why New Democrat members continue to express their disapproval with the current situation and with this bill. It is simple. Just like workers who come together to make their views known, we too are making ours known. We are doing so on behalf of those in our ridings, whether they be workers or small business people. That is why we are here. This is not a waste of taxpayers' money, this is our job. We are paid a salary to be here or in our ridings when something is happening. Something very important is happening now. These will be very relevant questions over the next four years. If we cannot handle situations like this and answer questions like this now, where will we be in four years? I have no idea, and I don't even want to know. Perhaps I would be better off staying in my riding, rather than being here all night, because I might prefer not to know about any of this. But we are here, and we are now trying to establish what we want to do as representatives of our communities.
Here is another passage from the Supreme Court of Canada decision:
 Recognizing that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and Freedoms]. 
What is at stake here are individual rights. 
We hear a lot of bogeyman stories from the hon. members on the opposite side of the House. They are saying that the NDP members have a leash around their necks and the union leaders are pulling on that leash. But that is not the case. We can see in the Supreme Court decision that this is about the autonomy of the people who came together to make a democratic decision and exercise their freedom of association in order to use this tool collectively. As we have seen over the past few evenings and nights in the House, we now take these things for granted. I may be young, but I know that it is important not to take these things for granted because people have fought for them. Why should we start taking them for granted now and thereby prevent workers from continuing the work that has been started?
Let me go back a little. I was talking about the flooding in my constituency, which has been a great concern to me since the beginning of my mandate. When I first spoke in the House, I had the opportunity to ask the minister whether the army was going to help the victims with the cleanup. But the army did not come to help the victims and that is not its fault because it follows orders. It does a great job under the circumstances. I am bringing this up and I think it is relevant because the government clearly said that the private sector should be allowed to deal with the situation, that things should take care of themselves and that the market should do the same. Why are they not approaching the current situation in the same way? Why does the government not let the union and management work things out between themselves?
I spent the election campaign hearing that the NDP was a party that was going to interfere in everything and that it was not going to let people sort out issues for themselves. Ironically, the government that claims not to act in that way is doing just that, at the expense of our workers, their rights and their pensions.
Once again, I am speaking as a young person. I do not want to come up with a definition of what a young person is, because, in our hearts, we all either are young or see ourselves as young. When young people consider the environment, for example, it is easy to see the consequences because they can be seen. We can see what is happening with the environment. When we consider our pensions and the financial future of the country, we do not see the consequences. That is what scares us: we do not know what is going to happen and we do not understand all the issues. The fact that we cannot see the consequences results in some of those involved thinking that everything will happen without anyone asking questions about the consequences. It is therefore up to us to point out the consequences so that future generations know that the issues are important. 
In our current situation, I have a duty to speak as the voice of the young. And I am not alone. Once again, we are not a nasty union, we are a parliamentary caucus. Just like workers and their unions, we work as a team and for a common purpose. We use our freedom of association to work together in the name of the people, the workers, as the Supreme Court decision described. We will stay here for the night and for as many days as it takes, right up to the end of next week, up to the royal couple's visit. We will stay for as many days as it takes. We missed Quebec's national holiday and we will miss Canada Day if we have to. We have freedom of association and it allows us to be here fighting for people and making our views known on their behalf. We are not nasty trade unionists, we are not bogeymen, we are people who were elected in our ridings to do this job. Our constituents are proud of us and we have nothing to be ashamed of. This is also why we are opposed to this bill. 
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate the hon. member on his election and his speech. Clearly this is a new member who has a good deal of passion. I congratulate him. 
That being said, I have received many email messages from my constituents who are in favour of Bill C-6, including some Canada Post workers. I would like to quote a few sentences from those workers’ emails. 
I will not use their names because I do not want these CUPW members to be harassed by union bosses. However, a postal clerk from my constituency said she feels that legislation is the only hope to keep their jobs. She said their union has not allowed them to vote on any revised offers that Canada Post Corporation has made and that most of them think the revised final offer is fair. She said they wanted to vote, but the union would not allow them to vote. She said they are part of a democratic society and the workers should have some rights but that this is not happening. She said the union has not tried to negotiate a better offer based on the corporation's offer; it is trying to change it entirely. She went on to say that government intervention is the only hope for getting them back to work.
Would the member please comment on the remarks of my constituent who is a CUPW member?
[Interjection]
Matthew Dubé: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his congratulations. I am very pleased to hear him acknowledge my passion for these matters. At the present time, passion is indeed what is needed. 
To answer his question, I will say that it is quite simple. As the New Democratic members have said since the start of this debate, a union functions democratically. Not all the members will necessarily be in agreement all the time, just as not all the people of Canada voted for the present government. Yet we make do all the same. What is more, we express our opinions all the same. 
 I am very happy that his constituent—I do not recall whether it was a man or a woman, and it is not important—expressed his or her opinion to the hon. member. The fact remains that, in a democracy, one cannot always get what one wants. However one must deal with the situation and work within the system, which is what we are doing at the present time.
Irene Mathyssen: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. We keep hearing from the governing party that it had to intervene because negotiations had gone on and on. Well, I have heard from one of my constituents, Dale, who was a postal worker, and his comments are that Canada Post uses this tactic all the time. They stall. They take months and months until the union is in a position where it has to have a strike mandate in order to even start negotiations. He goes on to say that he knows this tactic is used constantly. The whole point is to intimidate people so they can roll back benefits, vacations, sick leave and take away pensions.
Does the member believe the Conservatives are using the legislation to support this unacceptable conduct?
[Interjection]
Matthew Dubé: Madam Speaker, I make no claim to fully understand the intentions behind the bill, but I know that in the present situation the workers are indeed trying to defend their pensions, their wages and their needs. For them, it is very important to be able to have access to these tools. 
When we look at the Supreme Court’s decision, we can clearly see that it underscores that workers must have the right to organize and the ability to work with the tools at their disposal. The bill now being studied will prevent postal workers from doing this. That is why the NDP is opposed to it. 
Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam Speaker, I find the decorum in the House at this moment is preferable to what it was earlier this evening, and I hope we can continue in this way for the rest of this debate. We owe it to Canadians to show one another respect and to show them we are serious about getting to the root of this problem that is affecting a wide range of, if not all, Canadians in this country.
For me, Canada is the greatest democracy in the world. I think we are a model for democracies, both established and western industrialized nations, but also emerging democracies. I think the way we perform in this House, the way we respect one another and debate back and forth, is a message that we send not just to Canadians but around the world. 
I am new to this House, but sometimes I am quite disappointed in what I see here. I hope we can return to positive debate and to being respectful of one another.
In terms of this issue, from my perspective we are facing a regular policy problem. It is a large problem, a national problem, but it is still just an issue of public policy, so it is perhaps best to approach it this way. 
To solve any public policy problem we have to understand the root of its causes. We have to come to grips with the problem we are facing, especially when it is government. We have to say we have taken a critical look at it and we understand what the problem is, and we have to explore a number of options and pick the one which is going to best solve it.
I have been sitting in this House for hour upon hour, and I have heard eloquent speeches and good questions on both sides of the House. The facts seem to be that we have a crown corporation that is critical to the well-being of Canada and that has locked out its employees. That does seem to be the problem at hand. The problem for the government is how we address this.
I will admit that the other side has made some good points. It has said that the lockout may have been prompted by an ongoing labour dispute, that it may have been prompted by what has been described as a series of relatively harmless rotating strikes. But now we have a lockout. It is important to keep this in chronological order. We have a dispute. We have rotating strikes. Now we have a lockout. That is the problem for the government to address.
Members can dispute my position because I am a member of the NDP and the opposition. However, I do not think the evidence and the other sources backing up this claim can be disputed.
 The CBC, a national broadcaster of international reputation in radio and television, calls it a lockout. CTV calls it a lockout. Every article that has been written about this in the Globe and Mail calls this situation a lockout. Global TV calls it a lockout, and my favourite morning reading, National Post, also calls it a lockout. 
If members do not believe our national media, they can look at the international media. When we are checking our stock options in the morning, we might look at Bloomberg. It says it is a lockout. Probably one of the most irrefutable sources in the world for quality news, the New York Times--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 
On a point of order, the hon. Minister of State.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague, but I wonder if you could clarify this. About 12 hours ago the member was giving a speech, and I was in the House. I believe it is almost exactly the same speech. 
I wonder if the Chair would confirm whether members are allowed to give the same speech over again. I know they want to filibuster, and I am okay with that, but I need some clarification.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his comments. Without the blues I am not in a position to determine if that was the case. I am sure the hon. member will consider your comments. 
On the same point of order, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, on Thursday, in question period, the industry minister read the same prepared response five times consecutively in the House. I am certain the Conservatives cannot give us any lessons on--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I believe we are getting into debate. I will ask the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas to pursue his comments.
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I suggest, when we look at these sources, the fact is irrefutable that we are facing a lockout, that the government is facing a lockout, and that is its public policy problem that it has to deal with.
It is critical to recognize the policy problem, because until we recognize what that is, we are not going to be able to solve it. As with any medical disease, we have to understand what we are dealing with before we solve it. I can guarantee that I have a little bit extra that the members opposite may be interested in. Here are some policy alternatives. I will start with what is least intrusive into the homes and lives of Canadians.
The least intrusive measure that the government could pursue is to leave the parties alone and let them work out this labour dispute themselves. The government could stay out of it.
The second measure could be, as the government did in 2008, to get a blue ribbon panel together and let it look at the situation to say, “We have a better solution for this; we think we can help to solve this”.
A third measure, if the lockout is due to lack of revenue, would be to allow Canada Post, for example, to increase its postage rates. 
The fourth thing we could do would be to provide more tax revenue to Canada Post. If it is indeed in so much trouble that it has to lock out its employees because it is bankrupt, we should consider increasing tax revenue.
Another option that has not been considered by the government to deal with this lockout would be to place Canada Post under the direct control of the minister. That has been done in the past. I am sure it will be done in the future. It is an option that the government could pursue.
The final and most dramatic option the government could take to resolve this lockout would be to fire the management, to replace the management if Canada Post is making enough revenue in the corporation. From what I can see in the Canada Post 2009 annual report, the corporation has had 15 consecutive years of profitability. It does not seem that to be facing a profit shortage, so it must be managerial incompetence—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the member. 
On a point of order, the hon. member for Kenora.
[Interjection]
Mr. Greg Rickford: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the member for the interruption because he was speaking. 
I have a concern in tonight's debate and I have let it go as long as I could. I am actually referring to pages 612 and 613 in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, O'Brien and Bosc, concerning displays, exhibits and props: 
 Speakers have consistently ruled out of order displays or demonstrations of any kind used by Members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions. 
I have been a member in the House for two and a half years and I can say that fairly, whether it has been the Olympics or some cause usually centred on a statement in the House, there has been discretion on the part of the Speaker to permit and tolerate it. To a certain extent I even applauded a more neutral kind of exhibit that promoted civility in this House which, as is known by all, I firmly support. 
That said, there has been a real problem over the past couple of days and heading into further debate. There are members in the House right now who are wearing blue buttons that actually have CUPW printed on them. I guess the members support CUPW. 
The thrust, intellectually and as a practical matter and as a matter of the substance of their debates, is to stake out a position for these specific persons. That is simply not permitted. In fact, the rules point out that these props, specifically those on their lapels, are not permitted. 
The fact is that the members are representing constituents who may not agree with the particular position of members. Certainly if one checks any number of sources one would find, as the member said in his speech, there are people on both sides of this debate. It appears that the majority of folks want this legislation in place, but that said, this is unfair to their constituents. I have members of this particular organized labour group in my riding, but I do not think it is appropriate that I make representations specific to them in this House, because in my constituency there are also small business persons and first nations people living in isolated communities who are not getting their mail. There are a host of different reasons why I cannot make representations on my person for a constituent's explicit or specific benefit. 
I am asking, with the greatest of respect, that the Speaker rule on this. These buttons are more than explicit and stake out a claim and appreciably advertise whose position is being taken by members. I will let future electors decide whether they think that was a good idea at the time. It is very clear who the members represent and who they are supporting in this particular argument. 
For these reasons I am asking the Speaker to make a ruling and I hope it will be found that these particular buttons, in the host of ones we have seen certainly over the past couple of years, are inappropriate and out of order and that they will be removed. 
Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I have two things to say.
First, we are beginning to see another sort of filibuster. If you let them speak this long on a point of order, it amounts to a second filibuster. That may be part of the strategy.
Second, I do not see why we should not have the right to wear a button when we have the right to wear a ribbon on special days. I think this is a spurious debate and not a point of order.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If you do rule, Madam Speaker, I ask that you take into consideration the many times that I have personally worn various ribbons. I have worn them for the cancer society, for Alzheimer's disease, for dementia. I have also worn the prostrate cancer tie. 
There were some members of the Conservative Party who supported the Vancouver Canucks in their recent hockey games, and I give them credit for that, even though some of my constituents are Boston Bruins fans or Montreal Canadiens fans. There are all types of fans. Did I wear a hockey sweater to indicate my preference for the Montreal Canadiens or over another team? No, I did not.
If you do rule, Madam Speaker, I ask that you go to the historical nature of what we are doing here and understand that what we are wearing is small and respectful. It is an honourable thing for all of us to do in support of the workers of this country.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I am certain you would be able to see through that. Clearly, those are honourable things to do, and we are not debating those issues. 
The issue is that members opposite came to Ottawa to fix an apparently broken Ottawa, and they are wearing a prop in complete violation of the rules.
The Deputy Speaker: I have heard enough comments, unless there are new arguments to bring to this point of order.
The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
[Interjection]
Mr. Pierre Lemieux: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that there are a lot of precedents on this matter.
 In 2006, we Conservatives had run on lowering the GST. Shortly after having been elected, we wore blue buttons that spoke about lowering the GST. We had a button that said “7% to 6% to 5%”. We had another one that said to cut the GST. They were ruled out of order and we had to remove those buttons.
We are simply asking for the same application of the rules and procedures here tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank all hon. members for their comments. We are in a grey zone because in many cases some buttons or scarves have been allowed. It seems to me from reading the precedents that the test is whether they cause disorder, and apparently they have this evening. I would ask that the buttons be removed. I consider the matter closed.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
Kennedy Stewart: Madam Speaker, as for how a government might end a lockout, I will repeat the six options I just mentioned.
The first option would be to leave the parties alone to let them negotiate in good faith.
The second option would be to select a panel that might be able to advise the government on what to do in this situation.
The third option might be, if the lockout is due to a lack of revenue, to allow Canada Post to perhaps increase its revenue stream, such as by increasing postage charges.
The fourth option the government might pursue would be to provide increased tax revenue, if Canada Post is unable to raise its stamp duties.
The fifth option might be to place Canada Post under the direct control of the appropriate minister.
The final and probably the most direct and dramatic option would be to fire the current management and replace them with a more competent group of managers who could perhaps avoid something like a walkout.
In this list, I did not include back to work orders, which is what we are debating here today directly in Bill C-6. Back to work orders assume that workers are at fault, when in this case it is clearly the management that has decided to impose a lockout.
Bill C-6 would seem to be the wrong tool for this job. That is why I am standing and opposing this bill and am prepared to stay until the end of this debate to make sure that we get the proper policy tool to fix this problem.
While back to work orders will get our postal workers back to work, they are the wrong tool for this job. I am very concerned about the effects of this tool. As we know, from looking at thousands and thousands of different policy disasters, when the wrong tool is picked for the job, it leads to externalities and other problems with negative effects. This is usually the result of governments acting in haste or not taking appropriate guidance.
The worst effects of imposing a back to work order on Canada Post will be the morale of the workers. Canada Post is one of the biggest employers in Canada and one of the most respected organizations around the world. The morale of both the workers and the middle- and upper-level management is going to be devastated. This is because the two sides have not been given time to agree and work out their differences. 
The division that has caused the dispute will not be resolved and will continue to fester if the two sides are not given adequate time to work out this difference. A back to work order will not solve this, and I suspect that if the problem is management, we will be facing this problem in the coming months.
As I said, from my perspective, looking at this and hearing both sides, the most effective solution would be to allow the workers and the managers to work out their differences. If the government considers the economic impacts to be so critical, then it should consider either replacing the current management or moving Canada Post under the direct control of a minister.
Unfortunately, from the debate we have heard and from the bill, not one of these options has been considered or entertained by the government, because I do not think they understand the problem they face.
I have heard from this side of the House hours and hours of talk that this is a strike, yet all the evidence shows it is a lockout. If they are using a tool to fix a strike, they are going to make a mistake. They need to pick a tool that will fix a lockout.
Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC): Madam Speaker, I received an email earlier today from my letter carrier who is a constituent of mine. It reads: 
 Hi Mark, 
 I'm watching the debate live on CPAC with great frustration.... [H]as it crossed the minds of the opposition that the longer the delay the more money [it] will cost each and every member of CUPW in lost wages? Do the Liberals and NDP realize that they are using us as pawns? 
 Regards...your mailman and neighbour. 
How does my hon. friend respond to a letter carrier who considers himself a pawn being used by the party opposite?
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart: Madam Speaker, the problem is twofold. 
The first problem is that the unfortunate person who wrote this note has been locked out. 
The second problem seems to be that the government, instead of acting responsibly and telling the public what is going on, keeps spreading information that this is a strike, and it is not. All of the major news outlets know it. All constituents in most ridings know it. 
I was talking to my mother's household today. They know it is a lockout and remark how bizarre it is that on one side a crown corporation locks out its workers and the next moment the government orders them back to work. 
This is a very simple problem to understand, but the government seems to get it wrong.
Irene Mathyssen: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in all the solutions the member put forward. One of the solutions he did not mention, and this I believe is what the government is after, is the privatization of Canada Post.
I have to tell members that some years ago, my family and I visited relatives in Holland, where the postal service had been privatized. It was fascinating. We had to mail letters and my sister-in-law had to pick up packages. We had to go to three different outlets or stores to buy the right stamps, depending on what was being sent in the mail. Then there were three different types of postboxes, all different colours, where one could post the items. Then of course was the question of delivery, which seemed to be delayed over and over again because, again, it was privatized. The cost of this was higher than here in Canada, at 64¢ a letter, it was less efficient and the frustration among customers was greater. 
If Canada Post were privatized, the government would lose a lot of revenue and we would be very much the poorer.
I wonder if the member thinks that privatization is on the mind of the government.
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart: Madam Speaker, again, from my experience, one does not impose a solution until one figures out what the problem is. 
I looked at the independent blue ribbon panel report. I am new to this issue, but I looked at the report today. This report from 2008 said that Canada Post is held in high esteem by Canadians, who are happy with the services and, in fact, proud of them. There just does not seem to be any reason to dismantle such a good corporation. It is profitable, as has been pointed. For 15 years in a row, it has generated at least a modest profit.
Again, if privatization is on the government's mind, it would only be for ideological purposes. It would not be for any reasons of good public policy.
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Madam Speaker, Canada Post is actually a great corporation and the employees great people.
It is unfortunate to see the kind of debate that has been going on over the last number of days. We have to ask the question, why is the NDP adamantly opposed to even putting the issue before an arbitrator? 
When one side or the other is so opposed to going to arbitration like the NDP, which would just involve someone coming in to make a ruling that would be just for both sides, maybe they are on the wrong side of this issue.
Would my hon. colleague agree with that?
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart: Madam Speaker, I think that might be an issue for another debate, because we are debating Bill C-6 right now, the back to work order. That is what we are opposing here and will continue to oppose.
Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the lockout of workers by Canada Post and the back to work legislation the government is proposing. 
I share the desire for a speedy resolution of the situation and an immediate return to regular mail delivery in this country. That is why my New Democrat colleagues and I are calling on Canada Post to unlock the doors and let postal carriers return to work.
Canada Post is a profitable corporation that earned $281 million for Canadians last year. At the same time, it has been able to offer some of the lowest postage rates in the world, with a cost of 59¢ to mail a standard letter, compared to, for instance, Germany where the cost is 77¢ or Australia at 88¢, or even the Netherlands at 64¢. 
Postal carriers across this country are responsible for the success of the Canada Post Corporation and have worked so hard to turn it into a viable, reliable and, indeed, profitable service that all Canadians depend on. The current back to work legislation, Bill C-6, is a one-sided and unfair approach to resolving this crisis. Instead of demanding that Canada Post returns to the bargaining table, the Conservative government has taken the side of the corporation and presented draconian legislation that makes a mockery of fair collective bargaining.
I oppose this legislation, first, because it offers wage rates lower than what Canada Post offered; second, because it tramples on collective bargaining rights; and, third, because it supports attacks on postal workers' defined pension benefit plan and encourages a two-tiered wage and benefits system. 
Locking out workers and then imposing a contract is not fair and free collective bargaining. 
The resolution to this conflict is clear. Postal carriers are ready to go back to work today. Simply unlock the doors and let them continue to deliver the mail.
This legislation is not just an attack on postal workers but an attack on the wages, benefits and pensions of all Canadian workers. I will continue to work night and day, whatever it takes, to get fair resolution.
The middle class is being squeezed in Canada. Statistics Canada shows that those who earned $41,300 in 1980 still earn basically the same amount 30 years later. A study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called, “Rising Profit Shares, Falling Wage Shares”, claims that real wage gains for the vast majority of Canadians were virtually non-existent through much of the last 30 years. Even more disturbing, the real wages of lower-income people or those making minimum wage are less than what they were 30 years ago.
Meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest Canadians continues to climb. Young workers today cannot expect the same standard of living or wages as their parents or grandparents. This is what CUPW and Canada's New Democrats are fighting against. We need to ensure that new postal workers are able to earn a decent living and enjoy pension benefits. 
We should be working to lift wages, not impose lower wages than were offered at the bargaining table by the employer. Not only has the Conservative government offered lower wages but it also wants to maintain the 10 demands of Canada Post for major rollbacks, including the elimination of sick leave, and deep cuts in benefits and pensions for new hires.
I would like to talk about delivering the mail to Canada's most vulnerable. During the recent rotating strikes, cheques were in fact delivered to the most vulnerable. If we look at what happened last week, Canada Post not only locked out its workers but also stopped all mail delivery, which meant that Canada's vulnerable were not receiving their needed cheques. This would not have happened under the rotating strikes.
To go back to pensions, workers are fighting for their hard-earned benefits like defined pension plans. This is what is at stake. We are talking about how people live in their later years. Will they live with dignity or will they struggle?
My dad, for instance, worked 27 years for MacMillan Bloedel and now is finding that his pension is being eroded and cut back. Is this the same fate that we have in store for those working in one of our most profitable and viable corporations, Canada Post?
The workers of Canada Post have built the organization into what it is today. They are the real, true assets of the organization. They are the people who have made the organization viable, dependable and profitable. 
To really focus on pensions, let me take a moment to talk about another good friend of mine and an issue that is similar to that of many of the postal workers who we on this side have been talking about. My good friend Joel Peppar lives in New Westminster with his partner Jan. He is a senior and a veteran. He has been watching this debate since the beginning, because he too has an interest in the outcome. 
His veteran's cheque, which he relies on each month, is sitting in a mail truck somewhere in the country. He has told my office that he will wait as long as it takes because he feels that it is so important that the workers get what they deserve, that they get a fair deal. So here is a guy who has defended his country and who now lives from paycheque to paycheque, and he wants to support us and the workers in their fight for fairness.
 I know that Joel is not alone. I know there are thousands of Canadians like Joel who also support these workers and their bid for a fair deal. I know that Joel is watching now and wants me to continue fighting the good fight. I find that amazing. He needs his cheque but even he is not willing to put his needs ahead of those of these workers. That is because he understands the difference between right and wrong. He understands when it is critical to take a stand.
I want to mention another email that I received from a constituent of mine named George. He has been watching this debate with great interest. He is a member of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. He, along with his fellow workers, would like to be working right now, processing and delivering the mail. Since Canada Post has locked out the workers and thus stopped the mail service in Canada, he says it is creating great hardship for businesses and families. He goes on to ask if it is just for the Government of Canada, his employer, to punish the workers with Bill C-6. Indeed, since the full mail stoppage was caused by the management of Canada Post, which directly answers to the Government of Canada, should the Government of Canada not be directing Canada Post to remove its lockout order? 
He has heard the argument from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member from Peterborough, that the union membership has not had a chance to vote on any of Canada Post's offers. George says the fact is that 94.5% gave the union leadership the power to bargain for a new collective agreement, which he notes is a much higher percentage than the support the voters of Canada gave the Conservative Party of Canada in the last federal election.
 He goes on to say that he has heard over and over from members of the Conservative Party about the mandate that Canadians have bestowed upon them in their majority government. He says it would be nice to see them respect the membership of CUPW, which has bestowed upon his union a similar mandate: to come up with a collective agreement. 
He asks the member from Peterborough specifically if he would he have Canadians go to the polls on every piece of legislation that is presented in Parliament. I think not.
Pierre Lemieux: Madam Speaker, there is a great irony in the position being taken by the NDP members throughout this entire debate. One of their constant themes is that they are representing the worker, the postal carrier, the lowest person on the totem pole, but as the member mentioned during his speech, the workers are not voting on what has been placed in front of the union. They have no voice. 
What I am seeing is that the NDP members are not giving a voice to the workers; they are giving a voice to what one might say is the management level of the union. I am wondering if the member could comment on why he is supporting so strongly the management level of the union and not actually supporting the worker himself or herself.
[Interjection]
Fin Donnelly: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, and as I think George so eloquently pointed out, the union management has received a 94.5% mandate, an incredibly strong mandate, to be bargaining on behalf of the membership. They have been given a clear mandate to do the best they can to negotiate a settlement that would be best for all the workers in CUPW.
Of course, they cannot do that now. Not only can they not do that, the workers cannot even do their jobs because they have been locked out by the corporation.
 The government cannot do its job adequately, I think, without taking this into consideration.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments, and I also listened to the question from the other side of the House. It is obvious that the other side of the House does not realize that the union is the members; the members own the union, and the union members are workers. Let us get that clear.
 People say they do not have a choice to vote, but they actually voted on the contract. If they did not vote to say whether or not they would support the strike mandate, then unfortunately they did not have their say there.
Anyhow, I want to ask the member a question about CUPW, and it is very important to say “CUPW” because that is how it is recognized. Given the fact that CUPW was doing these rotating strikes and the mail was being delivered, as my colleague said, and then we had the Minister of Labour, Lisa Raitt--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Carol Hughes:  Excuse me, I did not mean to say her name. I apologize on that--
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but she has run out of time. I must give the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam equal time to respond, so he has 30 seconds for a response.
[Interjection]
Fin Donnelly: Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate my hon. colleague's comment and her points. Her points are well taken. Her question about representation in terms of what I think Canada's New Democrats are doing is to be commended, because I have heard from a number of my constituents and a number of members of CUPW.
 I've heard from members like Michelle, for instance, who says: “I'm a postal worker from New Westminster that has sent you many letters. It's 12:30 Friday morning. I've been watching CPAC for hours now and would love for you to send my thank you to you and all your fellow NDP members, the biggest thank you for the fight and understanding of where we are coming from.”
 She thanks us for the fight we are putting up for them. It actually brought tears to her eyes on that evening, she says, to see us standing up here and talking about those things that most of her fellow workers are fighting for. She just wants to pass on how much she appreciates the support we are providing and the comments we are making.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I hear from the Conservatives that they are getting all these letters from various postal workers. I am just wondering if the hon. member would agree that if they have those letters, they could table them in the House so that we could look at them and maybe concur with their remarks, if they wish.
[Interjection]
Fin Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a great idea. I would like to see them. There have been hundreds of emails and letters coming in from across the country. I have certainly been getting dozens. We would welcome getting many more of those from members across.
Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is a grave moment. Yes, I know that it is around 3:33 in the morning. But no matter what the time might be, it is grave all the same. This deplorable situation and this bill, which is totally harmful to postal workers, cannot go on. What is more, all Canadian workers and their families must be respected. Bill C-6 is unprecedented. It will do harm, and it risks leading to a deterioration of working conditions for all Canadians. Is this what the Prime Minister wants? Is this what the Minister of Labour wants? Was this the intention of the Conservative government? I do not think so. I hope not. I dearly hope not. This is why we are here: to set the record straight. I spoke about the time earlier, and I am mentioning it again, to explain the situation to the Conservative government so that it can amend this horrible bill. Yes, this is a grave moment.
Let us once again explain the source of the problem. There was a negotiation process between the Canada Post Corporation and its employees. That negotiation was not easy. Negotiations are sometimes difficult.
 The postal employees could have launched a completely legal general strike in accordance with the rules, but they did not want to go on strike. What they wanted was instead to use certain pressure tactics. Why? Because they like what they do. They want better working conditions. They wanted to work. Their aim was to use these pressure tactics. It is only natural that they should want to bring pressure to bear.
 They also wanted to put pressure on management without hurting the Canadian people. That is most noble on their part and they should be applauded for it.
 After the Canadian Union of Postal Workers began a series of rotating strikes, the union even offered to end the strike if the corporation agreed to keep the previous contract in effect for the duration of the negotiations. Incredible. The workers were even prepared to accept the status quo in the meantime, but Canada Post refused. The officials turned that down. Truly incredible. 
 On June 15, Canada Post decided to lock out all of its employees and shut down mail delivery. What a mistake. What an illegitimate action to take.
 On June 20, the Conservatives tabled a regressive piece of legislation. Let us say it: this legislation is regressive. It would impose a contract on postal workers that includes, among other things, a wage settlement that is lower than what management offered. Can anyone in this House rise and dare call this good legislation? I challenge anyone in this House to rise and say that this part of the bill is good. I challenge all Conservatives to say that this clause is fair. I am speaking of course of the part that includes a wage settlement below the level in the management offer. It is incredible.
 My riding assistant, Daniel Lemire—a nod to him in passing: I do not think he is watching at this hour, he must be asleep, but that is okay—recently met with the locked-out workers in Drummondville. He found people who were idle, frustrated, even very angry at being unable to go to work. Yes, they want to go back to work. First of all, they wanted to go back quickly. They said we should see to it that the bill is passed and they can go back to work. But after all the conditions in Bill C-6 were explained to them, they said, “Hold on a minute.” Now they are worried because the Conservative government wants to pull the rug out from under them and deny them their legitimate right to negotiate in good faith for better working conditions and for the good of their families. 
 The locked-out workers told us that they wanted to return to work. As I was saying earlier, they were not the ones who decided to stop working. This is a lockout. These people enjoy their work. They enjoy providing this service to the public. They are only waiting for the Conservative government to remove the locks from the office doors so they can return to work.
 That way, they can go back to delivering the mail for the good of seniors, SMEs and all Canadians. However, they are not prepared to swallow the affront that is Bill C-6, which the Prime Minister is trying to force down their throats. They want to return to work with respect, dignity and honour.
 Let us talk about postal services in rural regions. The riding of Drummond includes many small municipalities; it is a large rural region. How many small municipalities are there in the riding of Drummond? There are 19 towns in the riding of Drummond. I will not name all of them, but I will talk about the little town of Saint-Guillaume, where I lived for a long time. If my colleagues should have the occasion to go there, I invite them to drop by the famous Saint-Guillaume cheese factory, which produces excellent cheeses distributed all over Quebec and beyond.
 Let me tell you something about town life. The post office is the heart, lungs, eyes, ears and mouth of the town. Towns cannot do without a post office. It is like a primary school or a financial institution. It offers local services essential to the survival of our precious municipalities.
 Unfortunately, this back-to-work bill does not guarantee the survival, viability or vitality of these unique institutions, which enable our small municipalities to continue to prosper. In my riding, the town residents are highly engaged and very attached to services such as those provided by the post office. Consider how essential the postal service is to our seniors, our mobility-impaired people, and our SMEs. There are some SMEs in my constituency, and they are very dynamic and innovative.
 In short, the back-to-work bill tabled by the federal government penalizes postal workers and rewards Canada Post for locking them out. It has to be said that it is Canada Post that has interrupted national mail delivery. It is Canada Post's fault. So what does the government do? It gives Canada Post the carrot and the employees the stick. It should not be that way; that is not logical. This is an unhealthy sign of real bias.
 As I was saying earlier, the bill imposes wage increases that are below those offered by Canada Post, but I will give some actual numbers. Canada Post’s offers were 1.9% in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and 2% in 2014; this is well below the rate of inflation, which is 3.3%. The Conservative bill would further reduce those increases to 1.75% in 2011, 1.5% in 2012, 2% in 2013 and 2% in 2014. It is scandalous.
 Here is some more information. Public postal service and postal workers do not cost the public purse anything. My colleagues mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating: over the last 15 years Canada Post has made profits of $1.7 billion and paid $1.2 million in dividends and income tax to the federal government.
 To summarize the situation, this is not a strike, but a lockout. The government is trying to impose a contract that is not a fair collective agreement. It is inappropriate for the government to intervene and impose a contract on the employees. We will oppose this bill and the government’s attempt to privatize Canada Post and reduce services to Canadians. I would have liked to read an email, but I will not have the time.
 I will say this in closing: let us unlock the doors of Canada Post and finally make it possible to have real negotiations that respect both parties.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's debate. This debate has been going on for a while, and everybody is enjoying it. Those who are not enjoying it, of course, are the Canadians waiting for their mail. 
I notice that the member raised the fact that Canada Post is a profitable corporation. A few moments before, one of his colleagues also raised the point about profits. In fact, the member before thought it might be an idea for the government to fire the management after 15 years of making a profit. So profit is a bad word, according to the NDP.
In the provinces where the NDP have been, such as in British Columbia, my home province, they have certainly suffered. Two terms of the NDP put my province into a have-not status.
I wonder why these members are not more concerned about the people who are suffering. They want to say it is a lockout. Let us pretend that there was not a strike. Rotating strikes are okay. They do not hurt the economy; they do not hurt people. You cannot run a business when it is shut down city by city indefinitely. They have taken $100 million of profit out of Canada Post Corporation already. 
By the way, Canada Post's profits since 2009 have been going into the transformative changes that will make sure Canada Post exists for these workers in the future.
[Interjection]
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some interesting comments, to which I listened closely.
Despite everything, I would like to read the email I received, which I mentioned earlier. It provides a very good response to him. This lady is a letter carrier who has been locked out by Canada Post. She took part in the rotating strikes that were legitimately organized. She has lost her salary, since Canada Post does not want to bargain with the CUPW bargaining committee. She says she wants to work, like all the other CUPW members who are locked out. However, she does not think that the repercussions of the few days of strike activity organized by CUPW have been as significant as what Canada Post has imposed not only on all postal workers, but also on all Canadians. In no way was it the aim of those workers to take the population hostage.
It is very important to remember that the workers want to work and that this was a rotating strike, not a general strike. They could have called a general strike, but this was nothing but a rotating strike, precisely in order to minimize the inconvenience to the public. Who made the problem worse? Canada Post did, by—
The Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. member so we can move on to the next question.
The hon. member for Bourassa.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I heard the same speech from a different member of Parliament. I had hoped that the member for Drummond would tell me whether the recipe for poutine came from there or Victoriaville, but I guess that will remain a mystery.
More seriously, they can drag out the debate as long as they want, but I am not sure that we are being effective. Committee of the whole is where things are resolved, when we propose amendments.
What amendments does the member for Drummond have to propose? Is he prepared to allow the House to go into committee of the whole so that we can discuss the amendments? I am not asking him to read what he is told to read, but I want to know what he really thinks. Is he prepared to make amendments?
[Interjection]
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bourassa, who is the funniest member in the House. It is pretty incredible. Sometimes he talks a bit too much, but I am saying that on a personal level. Since it is so late, I thought I would throw in some humour. 
What is very important is that we remember the clause in one of the old settlements done by the government. This clause in the agreement between the Canada Post Corporation and its workers ensured that there would be a good work environment in the future. This is lacking in the settlement proposed by Bill C-6. A clause should be added to ensure that there is a healthy work environment after the situation is resolved.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by highlighting the fact that unionized workers at Canada Post were locked out by their employer. They were willing to continue to work with minimal delays. They were willing to deliver pension and disability cheques. They were trying to minimize public inconvenience because they believe the postal service is important to Canadians. It was the government that locked them out. Now small businesses are hurting and people are becoming more and more frustrated because they do not have access to the mail system.
The issue is that the members opposite, the members of the government, simply wish to stomp on the rights of workers and prevent them from negotiating an agreement with their employer. The government wants to force them back to work with this draconian legislation. The whole thing smacks of a setup: the workers are locked out, this creates a mail stoppage, the public is upset, and the government is able to use the lockout as a propaganda tool.
This also gives the government the opportunity to implement Bill C-6, to force workers back to work and cut costs at Canada Post. What is in Bill C-6 is a deal that is far less than the inadequate contract offer made by Canada Post.
I am very afraid for the workers at Canada Post, in fact for all those who work for crown corporations and as public servants in this country. If this legislation passes, their right to bargain will also be placed in jeopardy because this bill undermines Canadians' rights to collective bargaining and the legitimate expectation that there be fair treatment of workers by their employers and by their government. This right is protected in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would also like to point out that this government claims bargaining is the best way to achieve a settlement for workers. They said this when they introduced their so-called pay equity bill. However, what we are really seeing is Conservatives undermining collective bargaining, leaving workers without the ability to negotiate a fair and appropriate agreement with their employer.
This back-to-work legislation reflects this government's true anti-union, anti-worker agenda. It is quite clear they are planning to chisel away the rights of workers--all workers. They want to take away the right to bargain for fair wages, safe working conditions, and pensions. It is pensions that are at the centre of this. 
This outright attack on unionized workers sends a chill down my spine. I fear for public sector workers and employees of crown corporations, and indeed all workers in this country. Who is next? The CBC, the voice of Canadians, a part of our cultural history? Will employees of the CBC see wages and benefits rolled back? The National Gallery? Parks Canada? The Canadian Wheat Board? Of course, we know the government is trying every underhanded tactic to dismantle the Wheat Board.
Despite what some members opposite may choose to believe, unions have been very good for this country. We have all benefited from what they have negotiated at the bargaining table. It is not just fair wages. Unions have been on the forefront of human and equality rights and environmental protection. They also work for better pensions, health benefits, reasonable hours of work, and much more.
It was union negotiations that brought about the weekend. Interestingly enough, it was the CUPW's strike, the strike of 1981, that established maternity leave rights and benefits that set in place the opportunity for families to ask for and negotiate maternity and paternity rights across this country. The ability of young mothers and fathers to have time to stay at home to look after their infant children is owed to the men and women of CUPW, who went on strike for 41 days to gain those rights.
We know workers' rights are regularly threatened because employers do not just try to reduce wages, they attempt to cut corners. Unions are there to protect the health and safety of their members, to ensure they have fair wages, and they are treated with respect. Union members are not greedy. They are voters, and they elected us to represent them in this House. They deserve our respect, just as every Canadian deserves our respect. By attacking their rights, we are attacking all Canadians.
Now I would like to outline some of the issues of the current labour dispute. First, Canada Post management wants to eliminate sick leave and impose an inferior short-term disability plan that does not provide sufficient protection for short-term illness.
It also poses major problems concerning medical privacy. Recently the union offered to refer the issue to a government appointed arbitrator. CUPW believes that the current sick leave plan is adequate. It functions well and there is no need to change it.
Workers' health and safety is key. Postal workers deserve the right to work in a safe environment.
Canada Post also proposes a four-year agreement with wage increases and a cost of living allowance which will not provide sufficient protection for the wages of postal employees. CUPW believes the wage offer is too low considering the current annual inflation rate.
The people of this country know that food prices, the cost of energy, housing and prescription drugs just go up and up. Everyone is struggling, including postal workers. To add insult to injury, employees hired after the date of signing the Canada Post proposed collective agreement would have a starting salary 18% less than the current starting rate of the letter carriers. This would create a two-tier pay structure for the same job. That is far from fair. Canada Post has already cut many more jobs than is justified by the reported decline in volume, a decline that we know has been much exaggerated by the corporation.
As a result, there has been a significant increase in voluntary and forced overtime and a reduction in regular full-time positions. This harms workers and their families.
Changes need to be made. This entire situation needs to be handled differently.
The words of those directly affected by the strike are salient to this debate.
 Karen sent me an email just yesterday. She said:
“I am a postal worker in your riding in London, Ontario. I've been watching the debate about the bill online and wanted to ensure that the NDP speakers knew some of the following details”.
“The corporation has demanded numerous rollbacks throughout the bargaining process despite the fact that Canada Post Corporation has made record profits for the past 16 years. CUPW members across the country voted 94.5% to go on strike because we do not believe these rollbacks are necessary. CUPW decided on rotating strikes in order to impact the public as little as possible. CUPW also informed the public in advance as to the locations that were going to be affected. Once the 72-hour notice was given, the employer immediately discontinued our benefits. On the date of the first rotating strike, provisions of the collective agreement were also discontinued; part-time hours were cut immediately and full-time hours were cut in half the following week.Many plants across the country are currently full of mail because the hours were cut and the mail could not be processed. But postal workers continued to sort and deliver the mail despite these harsh tactics by CPC. CUPW agreed to stop the rotating strikes if CPC reinstated our collective agreement. The Canada Post Corporation refused! Then CPC locked out postal workers across the country, affecting all Canadians. They did not inform the public before making this decision”. 
“We are not on strike, we are locked out. CUPW has been reasonable throughout these negotiations, CPC has not. The issue of health and safety is very important to CUPW members because we have one of the highest rates of injury in Canada”.
I also heard from Geoff, a retired postal worker, who wrote:
“I and my brethren are very concerned about the obvious and predictable union-busting tactics of this ruling government. When the Conservatives got into power with a majority, I feared many things for our country's future, and sadly they are already taking place at breakneck speed. One of these things was that it would be glaringly anti-labour and this has obviously come to pass in the tabling of back to work legislation against Canada Post workers. I think it is incumbent upon the opposition party to hold this legislation up so as to force Canada Post to come up with something resembling a reasonable contract offer at a time when good jobs are disappearing all over the country. I watched my last 10 years in the post office, as routes got even longer, the route measurement system was systematically abused and we were carrying ever larger loads on ever longer routes, leading to more frequent injuries on duty”.
“Please stall this bill and get meaningful talks back to the table”.
Contrary to government assertions, many Canadians know that this is an unfair lockout by Canada Post aided and abetted by the Conservatives. Canadians want their mail. They want their mail sorters and letter carriers to get back on the job.
 I call on the government to withdraw this unfair legislation and unlock the doors of Canada Post.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. These people have been locked out and that is why Canadians are not getting their mail. Could my colleague could talk about the outrageous bonuses that the CEOs receive? The company wants to reduce the wages of the workers who are busting their backs out there and yet CEOs are getting big bonuses. I am wondering if my colleague can speak to that. 
We need to remind colleagues on the other side how many unionized workers are actually out there because those who are actually part of the Canadian Labour Congress, which they are affiliated through, number over three million and I know there are many more that.
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. Some 55,000 postal workers are out of a job. They have been locked out. All they wanted was to secure their pensions, to secure a livelihood for their families and to do the work they do best.
My colleague mentioned bonuses. I would like to refer to the reality in this country. We know that the CEO of Canada Post makes in excess of $600,000 per year and the profits of Canada Post last year were $281 million. Surely there is room in that fiscal reality for a proper settlement for postal workers so they do not have to worry about feeding their children and receiving their pensions.
I would also like to remind the House that the banks last year made $22 billion in profit and $11 billion of that went to CEO's compensation and bonuses. It seems to me that there is a rather skewed notion of fairness in this country.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have followed this very closely over quite a few hours, as we all have. This was started with a speech by our Minister of Labour who talked about the comprehensive process, that there had been bargaining at the table for many months. There had been conciliation. There had been arbitration provided by the government. We looked at the rolling strikes and I think people are diminishing the impact of those rolling strikes. We have heard from our Minister of Health how that really impacted. She understands better than anyone in the House how much the north relies on the delivery of food, diapers and the essentials of life. Because business people were unsure about what was going to happen, it was just like having a strike. 
Does the member opposite believe it is now time to pass this legislation, get mail to the north, let our businesses get back to work, and it is time to not pick sides any longer. Let us get this legislation passed.
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker,my colleague talks about picking sides, but the government already did. It picked the side of the corporation. It allowed the corporation to lock out its workers and then it brought in legislation that supports the corporation.
The Canada Post Corporation locked out its workers. The union members of CUPW are being punished with back to work legislation, legislation that reduces the stingy offer that Canada Post made. 
I referenced an email that I received earlier in my remarks. That individual who works for Canada Post said the Canada Post tactic is consistently to refuse to negotiate until it gets a strike mandate from the workers.
The government talks about eight months of negotiations. There was no such thing. Canada Post would not come to the table. It did not come to the table until the workers had no choice but to take the strike vote and then it locked them out.
Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post made nearly $300 million in profits in 2009. To be exact, it made $281 million in profits in 2009. 
We do not have the numbers for 2010, which is actually a little surprising. I thought those numbers were supposed to be released two months ago. We are a little surprised and have to wonder why these numbers have not yet been released, and whether there is any connection with the current labour dispute. 
In any case, we are talking about nearly $300 million in profits in 2009 and 15 years of profits. Canada Post has turned a profit for the past 15 years.
Also, as we heard earlier tonight, Canadians are satisfied with the services offered by Canada Post and with what this crown corporation represents to our communities.
There were rotating strikes that partially, but never completely, interrupted postal services. However, the employees were willing to continue working under the conditions of their old collective agreement.
Looking at all this, we wonder where the problem lies and what crisis made the Government of Canada allow Canada Post to lock out its employees—this is not a strike; it is a lockout—and deprive all Canadians, including small businesses, but really all Canadians, of a service that they appreciate, that they need and that is vital.
Where is the crisis that, on top of all that, is making the government want to impose back-to-work legislation that contains many completely unacceptable clauses? Things like pensions, for example, come to mind. Several issues are unacceptable. For instance, it is imposing wages that are lower than what Canada Post itself was willing to offer. 
We do not understand what is happening. The Conservatives talk about the best interests of the Canadian economy. Yes, the economy is important, essential and vital, sure. However, this expression reminds us of the best interests of the nation. Our question is, best compared to what? Compared to the interests of Canadians, to the interests of workers?
We in the NDP believe that the economy exists to serve people, and not the other way around.
 When we hear the Associate Minister of Defence questioning the right to strike, as we heard yesterday, and when we go over events that led workers who exercised their legitimate right to strike and who were prepared to go back to work to be locked out, we have doubts. We shudder, even. We wonder how far this government will go and who will be the next victim.
 I am thinking, for example, about the people—and we see this a lot in Quebec—who are fighting for unions at Wal-Mart. What is going to happen, not only to those people, but to many others who want to use legitimate, recognized methods to secure acceptable living and working conditions? What is going to happen to them? Who will be the next victim? What treatment does the Conservative government have in store for Canadian workers as a whole?
 With this bill, the government is targeting not only the postal workers, but all of us. That is why all of my colleagues have received so many emails from people who wanted to testify to this and who feel threatened themselves. I will not read you an email, but I will tell the House what a taxi driver told me a little earlier. I do not imagine he belongs to a big union. He told me to stay the course because the people need us.
 I say to that taxi driver: yes, I am going to resist with all my strength, along with my colleagues in the NDP caucus, and we will be here day and night to resist and to stand up not only for the postal workers but for all Canadian workers and all Canadians. Because we cannot allow this government to undermine workers' rights in Canada, nor can we allow this government to undermine the Canadian postal service, a service that all Canadians believe in, which is more than a service, it is an institution.
 We know what the post offices represent in our small towns and villages all across Canada. Mostly, it is the presence of the government in all the regions, from coast to coast, as you say in English. A settlement like the one that Bill C-6 intends to impose will create a situation at Canada Post that will be terrible and intolerable, poison labour relations and undermine the excellent service that all Canadians have come to expect.
Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to welcome this new member to the House. I am wondering something about her speech. The New Democratic Party has historically been very open to union leaders and is known for its ties with them.
How can she think that her party has an objective position? How can she think that her party represents all Canadians? Surely there is now a party that represents a sample of the Canadian population and that thinks about the interests of all Canadians. How can she think that the NDP truly represents Canadian interests?
[Interjection]
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. This question gives me the opportunity to reiterate that the debate is not about union leaders, but about the workers and their families, their children, their parents and all Canadians. It does not concern just a small group, like Canada Post managers, the big banks or major industries, but all Canadians.
This gives me the opportunity to repeat the argument I made earlier, namely that the economy exists to serve people, not the other way around.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the profits that have been made over the years at Canada Post. In fact, for the last 15 years there has been considerable profit. She asked why on earth the efficiency of Canada Post and the fact that Canadians are very happy with their postal service is never mentioned and why it is not front and centre.
I wonder if perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the government and the corporation wants to create the impression that somehow workers are not doing their job and that somehow Canadians should be dissatisfied. It certainly helps the government in terms of its propaganda in regard to Bill C-6.
[Interjection]
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question.
It is clear that this legislation is sending the message that the workers are guilty in some way. It is Canada Post workers who are being punished by this legislation and who are being offered wages that are lower than what the employer offered them.
We are punishing them as if they were guilty, while throughout the process, their behaviour has been completely legitimate. They were prepared to return to work by accepting the conditions of their former collective agreement, while they were actually doing a job that Canadians appreciate.
I like to say that Canada Post is an institution that is respected across Canada. Why do we now want to punish the workers? I am at a loss for words.
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to wish a happy Fête nationale to all Quebeckers who celebrated this great holiday yesterday. I am sure that right now in my constituency there are still people celebrating, even though it is now 4:15 a.m. I would like to say hello to them. Perhaps they are watching me before going to bed. 
 Unfortunately I was unable to be with them for the Saint-Jean-Baptiste festivities. For that I would like to apologize. However, I am certain that the people in my constituency fully understand the reasons why I am here today. We have been obliged to remain here, in this House, and it is very important to explain the reasons for our absence from the riding.
 It is very simple: we cannot let this bill pass without standing up for the workers of our country. I am also very proud of what our caucus has done today and in the last few days. The members of our party have indeed stood up together for the country’s workers. For it is not only the workers at Canada Post that will be affected, but all the workers of our country. 
 This bill sets a dangerous precedent that reveals the hidden agenda of this government, that being the privatization of public services. The NDP has always fought to preserve what we have achieved and to maintain our good public services, and that is what we are doing again today and what we may be doing again in the days to come. In spite of what anyone may say, Canada Post cannot and will never be replaced by a private corporation that will continue to offer the same good universal services as those offered previously. 
 The government seems to be taking only some members of the public into account. In the last 24 hours—and even more—of this debate about postal workers, I have not seen a single member of this government rise to talk about and stand up for postal workers. One might think that the hon. members on the other side of the House take mail carriers for second-class citizens and believe that they deserve no better than other Canadians. They constantly tell stories about people not receiving their letters or their cheques, about small businesses in difficulty. If it is so important to them to get the letter carriers back to work, all they have to do is call the CEO of Canada Post and ask him to unlock the doors so that the workers who want to work can finally return to work. 
 That is in fact what the workers were doing before the lockout, before Canada Post decided to close the doors: they were working, engaging in rotating strikes that were doing virtually no harm to Canadians. Even the Minister of Labour said that there were not many complaints and that no major disruptions had resulted, as the Conservatives are trying to claim. 
 The postal workers were very respectful, for they know that the service they provide is essential to the lives of many people. That is why they took care to demand their rights while ensuring that service to the public was still provided.
 Here the government is once again trying to divide Canadians. It is once again trying to pit two groups against each other. In this case those groups are the postal workers and other Canadians. I would like to remind the government that the letter carriers and postal workers are Canadians as well, and that they too deserve acceptable living conditions, consideration and respect.
 The Conservatives like to give examples of people suffering from this lockout, but I have also received messages from letter carriers who are pleased with our work and who admire the battle we are now waging for them. One letter carrier in my riding wrote me a message this morning that has given me even more energy to keep up this fight. In his message he says that he is recently retired from the postal service and was always well treated by Canada Post, but that now things have gone too far. He feels that the government is turning back the clock. He says that he lived through many strikes and that they are what gave him what he has today. He wishes to thank our leader, my colleagues and me for what we are doing for them. It is signed Robert, from Sherbrooke.
 I want to reassure my constituent and say to him that we will continue on until this bill is amended and made acceptable to all the workers of this country.
 This bill is retrograde—and “retrograde” is no harsh word I am using here. No, for not only has the government had the nerve to create a special bill to send the workers back to work, but it is sending them back with worse conditions than those already offered by Canada Post. How dare it make the management offer even lower? I totally fail to understand the government’s approach here. As my constituent said, the government is turning back the clock with this sort of measure. 
 If the government were serious and really wanted the mail to finally move, it would take the locks off the doors of Canada Post. 
 But how do we expect Canada Post to bargain with its employees when the government wants to impose a bill that dictates the employees' wages and working conditions? This is nonsense. The government is telling the employer that it does not need to bargain with its employees, the government itself is going to decide for them what conditions they deserve, and they will not be able to bargain, they will only be able to accept the legislation. I cannot get over what this government is doing. I say to myself that at this time of night, surely I must be dreaming, because I do not understand how the government can be introducing a bill that is this disrespectful.
 I am happy to be here in the House at this late hour to fight for the rights of these workers, who have the same rights as all other Canadians. I really do wonder how the members who are going to vote for this regressive bill are going to be able to look their letter carrier in the eye the next time he comes to deliver a letter to them. If I were in their shoes, I would be ashamed. I will be proud to greet my letter carrier and to be able to tell him I was here in 2011, and I did everything in my power to ensure that he could continue to have decent working conditions.
 I would like to quote Denis Lemelin, the president and chief negotiator for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, who said: “… we make no apologies for refusing unreasonable concessions demanded of us by a profitable company.”
 Over the last 15 years, Canada Post has made $1.7 billion in profit. And this is the corporation that wants to cut its employees' wages and take more money out of their pockets, when it is making profits and its executives are again going to pocket bigger bonuses, one of them amounting to 33%, if I recall correctly. 
 So I condemn this bill as it now stands and I will be voting against it.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning. The member gave an enthusiastic presentation, although I would question the accuracy of it. 
We all know the reason we are here. It is not because of rotating strikes, a lockout, or even the government legislation. We are still here because of the NDP's stubbornness in not allowing this legislation to go forward and these things to move ahead.
I have a bit of an emotional reaction to what the NDP is doing. I come from Saskatchewan, a province where the NDP has done massive damage over the decades. Pretty much everything it has done in my province has been negative for the province. For many years it restricted land sales in agriculture. It nationalized and almost destroyed the potash industry until it was sold to private interests and now it is one of the major industries in the world. When it comes to resources, one of the failed provincial leaders made the statement that they were going to be left in the ground until there were better prices. By the time the resources began to be extracted, Canada was decades behind its neighbours who had developed them.
I have watched New Democrats represent special interest groups over the years, and I saw it again these last couple of days. They are not really that interested in the workers, they are interested in the union bosses. We see that in other areas. In agriculture, for example, earlier one of the members mentioned the Canadian Wheat Board. We see that they are not interested in farmers but in the leadership.
It was really brought to the fore this evening during the vote. We saw that the New Democrats themselves are not all that interested in this. It is more of an exercise for them to show off for their union bosses. We saw that only 70 of their 103 members voted in favour of their own motion. 
I am wondering if he can comment on why his own members are not interested in supporting their position.
[Interjection]
Pierre-Luc Dusseault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
In his speech, my colleague strayed a little from the topic we are discussing today. I would like to assure parliamentarians that all the New Democratic Party members of this House have stood firm and will continue to do so throughout the days to come by voting against the bill, which is not respectful of workers. It is not just Canada Post workers who will be affected, it is all workers in Canada. The NDP is not just on the side of the union or the union bosses, it is also on the side of all workers in Canada. That is why we will continue to fight, for days and hours.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I very much liked the hon. member's speech, and I am interested by one aspect in particular.
That is the relationship between the union movement and progress in society in general. Could the hon. member talk a little more about that? It would be very helpful.
[Interjection]
Pierre-Luc Dusseault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his excellent question.
That unions have allowed our society to make great progress is a fact. The person who wrote to me also mentioned that in her 15 years of hard work she defended their interests and managed to get decent working conditions that let them lead a decent life, as every Canadian would wish to do. This is in part due to the unions who succeeded in defending their interests and in winning concessions from their bosses, who often do not view their employees with much respect.
Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly correct the record. The member said in his speech that members of the government have not mentioned the postal workers. I was here from 8 p.m. last night until 6 a.m. this morning, and I can say that we did hear members of the government speak the voice of postal workers. That did happen. 
I heard an opposition member for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect say that it is a democratic right to hold up the House to speak that voice. We acknowledge that, but there is a democratic right and then there is just right, and this is not right. 
It has been a productive debate, do not get me wrong, but it became repetitive at about 3 a.m. Now it is 24 hours later. Canadians find it frustrating.
Speaking as a new member of Parliament, it is very frustrating that the Liberal colleague who is sitting way down there asked a question that did not get answered. He asked a direct question. It did not get answered. 
 When will the opposition quit beating its chest at the expense of Canadians and end this debate by bringing forward its solutions or by voting for this legislation? 
[Interjection]
Pierre-Luc Dusseault: Mr. Speaker, allow me to reassure the hon. Conservative member. If he makes no concessions, we will not accept this bill and we will keep saying what we have been saying for several days, as long as the government refuses to budge. We will do so until things change.
I would also like to tell him that we are ready to introduce amendments in due course, when we are in committee of the whole, if necessary. I will be very pleased to work with all hon. members.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak on this critical issue. 
The workers of Canada Post have been locked out. That is right: they have been locked out. They are not on strike. They have been locked out. 
This is not a strike. The workers are “locked out”, a term should give us all nightmares. I am sure we all remember very clearly that not so long ago the Prime Minister himself locked parliamentarians out of the House of Commons. 
It was not the fault of Canadians that parliamentarians were locked out and it not the fault of Canadians that the workers at Canada Post are locked out. In our case, the government locked us out. Is it not a coincidence that it is the government once again that has put the padlocks on? Canadians are the ones who are affected when the government padlocks government doors. 
Postal workers want to go back to work but they cannot. Why can they not go back to work? They are locked out. Heck, posties even tabled a proposal to keep the old contract in place in negotiations. Canada Post refused and shut down the mail service. Canada Post locked its workers out.
Five days later, to compensate Canada Post for locking out its workers, the Conservative government introduced legislation that imposes a contract with an extremely regressive wage settlement. Given the fact that it takes time to draft such legislation, one can only conclude that the government was prepared to wreak havoc on the workers. One can only conclude that Canada Post was aware of Bill C-6 and willingly chose not to negotiate in good faith. 
That is a shame. Workers got locked out and now we are trying to force them back to work. They did not go on strike.
Let me refresh your memory on this regressive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
This government has put forward a one-sided and irresponsible piece of legislation. With the bill, the government wants to impose an agreement in which wages are lower that those that Canada Post had offered. That is unacceptable.
Another important element of this debate is the move to defined contribution pensions. The phenomenon is blatantly one-sided. If defined contributions are absolutely as necessary as we hear, it would seem logical that management at Canada Post would be happy to lead by example and change its pension plan first.
Do not hold your breath, Mr. Speaker. These plans are far worse than defined benefit pensions. There is not a CEO in Canada who would trade a golden parachute for the gamble of the defined contribution pension.
For the benefit of those who are just taking in this debate, I will explain what a defined contribution pension is. With a defined benefit pension plan, an employee receives a set monthly amount at retirement. The amount received is based upon the participant's salary and length of employment. The retiree receives that amount plus cost of living increases every month for life. 
These are the kinds of pensions most of us are familiar with. These are the kinds of pensions that allow seniors to live in dignity.
The great advantage of the defined benefit plan for an employee is that the employer bears the risk of market downturns and actuarial mistakes and is responsible for topping up deficiencies at the time of retirement. This allows individuals to retire knowing to the penny the kind of lifestyle they will be able to maintain. 
Confident that they will be able to afford a reasonable retirement, these people can plan their lives accordingly. They will not have to worry if they want to put kids through college or university. They will not have to worry that they might not be able to afford to retire and have to save every cent they can to guard against that.
In contrast to traditional pensions, where the amount of the benefit is defined, there is the defined contribution plan. This plan is so named because it is the amount of the contribution that is defined. Employees contribute a portion of their salaries into a retirement account where it can be invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, et cetera. Some companies make a matching contribution up to a certain percentage. The account grows through contributions and investment earnings until retirement.
In a defined contribution plan, there are no guarantees about how much, if any, of your money will be left when you retire. The risks are placed squarely on the individual employees. We know what happened with the economic downturn that the Conservative government did not believe was coming. 
These pensions can be profoundly different for employees who have very similar work histories. Here is an example. Imagine that a person retires at a time when markets are performing well. Due to good fortune and impeccable timing, that person's benefit will be higher as a result. If another person with exactly the same pension and roughly the same amount invested retires six months later but during a market downturn, that person may find benefits dramatically reduced by comparison. 
It does not sound very fair. It is pension roulette, at best. We saw that in the recession. Many pensions around the world saw reductions in benefits of up to 40% in 2008. That is not good news for those retirees, to be sure. 
I have had many calls from seniors who, holy crow, had to start selling their homes and moving into apartments. They did not even know if they could afford the rent. We have too many seniors living in poverty in Canada as it is. The trend to defined contribution pensions could well place even more seniors in poverty in the years to come.
Where is the commitment on the part of this government to actually do something about this phenomenon? From this side of the House, it does not appear to exist at all. This attitude is the antithesis of J. S. Woodsworth's famous line, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.” 
Take a look at the horrible lockout that miners in Sudbury went through recently. They spent a year on the picket line fighting the introduction of defined contribution pensions for future hires. We should think about that. These hardrock miners understood that the shift in pensions would be such a gamble for future hires that they sacrificed a year of income, delayed retirements for a full year, and walked picket lines in the heat of the summer and the cold of the winter. 
My husband was one of those miners. They showed dedication and the courage of their convictions. Those miners fully understood the spirit of Mr. Woodsworth's quote.
That obviously is nothing the Conservative government can relate to in the least. This was about the future workers in the mines and the future workers in all other jobs. Again, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”
I cannot get it out of my head. It speaks of the disconnect the government has with everyday Canadians. If the government operated under that mantra, we would either be debating legislation to change the pensions for this place to defined contribution schemes or, at the very least, debating a more balanced piece of back-to-work legislation. 
However, we are not, and it is nothing less than a national shame.
In closing, I will reiterate my objections to the way the government has so obviously taken sides in this dispute, the dangerous debate about the privatization of Canada Post that is a side effect of the lockout imposed on Canada Post employees, and the risky proposition of defined contribution pensions. 
We need to stop this race to the bottom that has gone on for far too long in Canada. We need to see the value in an economy that is defined by its human capital; an economy that values good-paying jobs, instead of attacking them in order to validate the desire for cheap portable labour; an economy that is not all about sweetheart deals for the business elite and nothing but concessions from hard-working Canadians.
We have heard the government say that it wanted to have a stable government and that is why we went into an election. Let me tell members what a stable Conservative government means: unstable wages, unstable benefits, unstable pensions, unstable services, unstable employment, unstable economy and unstable life. 
Shame on the Conservative government. 
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, it was the NDP and the Liberal Party that forced this unwanted $300 million election upon us, and it was Canadians who chose a strong, stable, national majority Conservative government. That is how we came to be here, and I am very grateful, because that is how I find myself in this hallowed chamber.
This is not about picking sides. I can assure the member that the Conservative Party values the hard work of our postal workers. It is really about the economy, as I heard at the door and as I am sure everyone heard at the door. 
There are still too many of our neighbours who are looking for work. In Canada we have had a very successful economy over the last number of quarters. I believe it is for seven quarters that we have had consistent growth, and that growth compares very favourably with the rest of the world. We need only look at Greece, where they are holding out their hands again for a second round of funding from the EU. The United States is looking at possibly entering a second recession. We are doing incredibly well in Canada.
Does the hon. member not honestly feel that by having the workers go back to work and getting mail delivered, we might actually improve the economy?
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate to the member to take the padlocks off. 
The CEO is appointed by the government, just as senators are appointed by the government, and we can see what happens there. We just have to look at the legislation on climate change.
I would say to my colleague that we are not advocating just for the postal workers today, but for every worker. The fact is that the government is trying to instil something, and it has indeed picked sides. If it had not, it would have asked Canada Post why it does not allow the postal workers to continue negotiating with the collective agreement they said they were willing to continue with. Instead the government said it would allow Canada Post to lock the workers out and would then force them back to work.
The postal workers want to go back to work, but you have locked them out.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Mr. Royal Galipeau: Have you locked them out?
Carol Hughes:  I have not.
The Speaker: I think the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans is reminding the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing to address comments through the Chair and not directly at members. I am sure we will all keep that in mind.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs when she asked if the workers should not go back to work and get the economy moving, she was absolutely correct. We reiterate once again that the workers did not shut the doors. It was the corporation that shut the doors, knowing full well it would have the full support of the Conservative government in its needs on that.
Why would a Conservative government institute wage language in legislation, stipulating wages lower than the corporation was going to offer? Why would it do that? It is almost unprecedented, except for the 1975 wage and price controls. The Conservatives went absolutely berserk when John Turner and Trudeau did that in 1975. 
Why would the Conservatives offer lower salaries for working people in this country, when the corporation itself offered higher salaries?
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, it is a race to the bottom for the Conservatives, as I said in my speech. It is awful that they are picking sides.
The Conservatives have been talking about the economy. If they are really worried about the economy, why are they giving big corporate tax cuts? They are looking to support their corporate tax cuts. I know what they are trying to do. 
They are looking at selling land associated with heritage sites attached to lighthouses. These are heritage sites. Then there is the vulnerable persons check. If the Conservatives are serious about the economy, why is it that my constituents have to wait three months or more for a vulnerable persons cheque? Jo-Anne Parsons from Kagawong has waited three months for a vulnerable persons cheque. She is not able to work without it.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for the opportunity to speak tonight, because on behalf of the entire House of Commons, I want to wish good luck to the Canadian women's soccer club at the FIFA Women's World Cup tournament, which is to take place in Germany on June 26 at 11 a.m. eastern time. Soccer is one of the world's greatest games. The Canadian women will do all of us proud.
One thing about being here for a while is we get to notice trends within the Conservative Party of Canada. 
It was not too long ago that RCMP officers negotiated through their pay councils a 3.5% increase. That took over six months of negotiation between the pay councils, Treasury Board, the public safety board and the Government of Canada. Just two days before Christmas in 2009, the public safety minister said in an email that the negotiated 3.5% was gone and was arbitrarily down to 1.5%. It was done just like that. 
These are not ordinary workers. These are the people who keep our streets safe, yet arbitrarily, without discussion and without consultation, that 3.5% went down to 1.5%.
The Conservatives talk about getting the odd letter from a postal worker saying that workers did not have a chance to vote. We have asked them to table those letters, and I am sure they will in due time.
They worry about democracy within a union. I would remind those members, as a long time unionist, that the union is probably one of the most democratic institutions in this country.
Here is something that is not democratic: the agriculture minister said very clearly on May 3 of this year that when it comes to the Wheat Board, he would not hold a vote by farmers to decide if the Wheat Board should keep its monopoly. What happened to democracy for our farmers?
After RCMP officers and farmers, who is next? It is the postal workers. Who will be next after the postal workers? 
Members can mark my words. If the Canadian Wheat Board goes down, supply management in this country will go down. The Conservatives received a letter from John Manley that said he is looking forward to the ending of the supply management system in this country. That was written in May of this year. 
If the Conservatives were true to supply management, they would have removed it from the discussions at the Canada-EU talks, but they did not, so this will be happening--
[Interjection]
Hon. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the question of relevance. My hon. colleague raised the issue of the Wheat Board, but we are hear to talk about Canada Post. 
His question is about democracy. A vote was taken on May 2. We campaigned on the issue of the Wheat Board, we were elected on it, and we are following through on it. 
I ask the member to stick to the issue at hand.
The Speaker: The first part, about relevance, was a point of order. I would encourage the member for Sackville--Eastern Shore to keep his comments relevant to the bill before the House.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, that is correct, but this is like a jury. I am building up a case as to the trend of the Conservative Party of Canada. I do thank you very much for that.
The reality is that the postal workers were locked out. If the Government of Canada is truly serious about ending the postal concern, it takes one phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada to the appointed person on the board to end it and send it to arbitration. Canada Post will present its side, CUPW will present its side and the arbitrator will rule. 
However, the Prime Minister will not make that call. He has created a crisis where there was none. We have seen this before, again and again. We have to ask ourselves, why are the Conservatives doing this?
I encourage anybody listening out there on CPAC and here in the House of Commons to read the book by John Steinbeck called The Grapes of Wrath. People would pick a bushel of peaches for 5¢, and another family would come by and say they could do it for 4¢, so the family at 5¢ was gone. It is the rush to the bottom, and it goes on and on.
There is a reason I am so passionate about letter carriers. When we came to Canada after the destruction of Europe and the onset of the post-war depression of Europe, we were my father and six kids, along with three other kids, nine of them in total, and he finally got a job with Canada Post. He was a letter carrier for many years. He was proud to wear the uniform of a postal carrier. 
That was in Postal Station L, in Marpole in southern Vancouver, and for years he delivered the post to some of the richest people in the Lower Mainland along Southwest Marine Drive. My colleague from B.C. knows exactly where that street is. The folks down there treated my father with great respect. Every Christmas my dad got turkeys, hams and envelopes of money because the people were very proud to see their letter carrier bringing the mail in an expedient fashion. My father and his colleagues were very proud to do that work.
My dad made a living wage. My dad was able to have medical and dental benefits. He looked after a family of nine on his salary. Of course, my mother was working as well. They also had a group home that supplemented the income, but it was because of that job that they had the chance--and Newfoundlanders know that word--to look after their families and become productive members of our economy.
We hear about the economy from the Conservatives over and over again. In her speech the minister called this particular situation a “strike” three times, which it is not; it is a lockout. It is amazing that the Minister of Labour could confuse a lockout and a strike, unless the Conservatives are trying to mislead the Canadian public and trying to blame the workers for the situation.
I do not believe that the Minister of Labour drafted the bill. I cannot believe in my heart of hearts that somebody who is from Cape Breton and knows very well Davis Days and what happened to coal miners and steelworkers in the great island of Cape Breton could draft such draconian legislation. I do not for a second believe that the Minister of Labour did that. I honestly believe that her directions came from higher above, either the PMO or the office of the Privy Council. It did not come from her. I would almost bet my next paycheque on it, because I do not believe a woman of that calibre would draft such draconian legislation.
The reality is that we are here now exercising our democratic right to hold the government to account and stall this legislation as best we can. 
I can't help but notice the Conservatives complaining that we are filibustering and talking into the edge of the night. I remember very clearly the Nisga'a Treaty. My friend over there from York knows it very well. There were 478 amendments, and they slowly crept up out of their seats for each one, making the person recording the names a very tired person by the end of it. 
At the end it was Nisga'a 478, Reform zero. The treaty came through. It turned out to be one of the finest treaties for aboriginal people in this country, yet the Reform Party at that time filibustered and kept it going for a couple of days. They defended their right to do that, and the rules of the House said they had every right to do so. 
This is exactly what the NDP is doing right now. We are standing up for working people in this country. We heard about the farmers, we heard about the RCMP, now it is the letter carriers. Who is next? Who is next on the agenda, CBC employees? We already know the wheat board is going to be gone soon. Who is next on the hit parade?
The Conservatives put us into the biggest deficit we have ever had in this country and now to pay for it they are asking hard-working, honest to goodness Canadians to reduce their salaries, reduce their benefits, reduce their pensions in order for the Conservatives to balance the books when they made the financial mistakes themselves. I say shame on the Conservatives for picking on the working people of this country to pay for their mistakes. 
If they truly wish to balance the books I have many other ways they can do it. They can start off by getting rid of the Senate. There is $100 million dollars right there they can save. There are many other things. They can get rid of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. There is $11 million dollars they can save. I can go on and on about where they can save money and not touch one public servant in this country in terms of honest, hard-working people in this country. 
We in the NDP will never apologize for standing up for Canada Post workers and their allies in the country from coast to coast to coast. When we see injustice in the country, you can always count on the NDP to stand up for Canadians and their families. 
Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, we are here for one reason and that is because the NDP, the official opposition, has taken a side in this dispute.
I know there has been a lot of rhetoric thrown around about this, but the proof is this: if the Liberal Party were to have been elected as the official opposition in the last election, we would not be here because both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party understand the responsibilities that come along with power. We would not be here. That is the proof.
My advice to the NDP members is if they want to move from protest to power, in the words of the former NDP premier and current Liberal leader, they need to accept the responsibilities that come with being a government in waiting. If they feel that this bill sides with management, as they have been saying in the House over the last couple of days, then instead of filibustering the bill and siding with the union, they should instead propose amendments to the bill to improve it so we can deal with this issue and get Canada Post working again. 
The NDP still does not understand the role of the official opposition, to be a government in waiting. It has taken a side in this dispute by filibustering the bill. Instead of taking a side in this dispute, if it feels that the bill has flaws in it, it should learn the discipline of power and propose amendments so that the House can get on with addressing the bill and dealing with this issue. 
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, if I had a baseball bat I would knock that one out of the park.
He is accusing us of picking a side. Guilty. We are standing up for workers and their families. I am guilty of that. However, I can guarantee this, we know the power of government in opposition because in four years we will be sitting over there. 
I remind my hon. colleague, who I have the greatest respect for, that he should understand that when one governs it does not give one extra arrogance. One does not lock out the employees and create a crisis. That is the arrogance of governance. Maybe the government should learn just a little bit of humility and understand what working people and their families have to go through in this country.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, he should be careful. If that party wants to be in power one day and learn from an NDP government in British Columbia, it will pass back-to-work legislation.
I want to pick up on something he said earlier because he was using words of wisdom. He said the former Reform Party of Canada engaged in a filibuster that did not amount to anything in the end.
Does he agree that we no longer need to carry on with this filibuster? We need to get working and focus a great deal of effort on proposing amendments in committee of the whole. Then we will really be trying to make things work. 
We are currently just marking time. We call this marking time. For the three or four people watching us on television, it is five in the morning. We are marking time and repeating ourselves. Some hon. members are sharing notes with their colleagues. We see the same hon. members, because they got and sit next to the person making the speech, for they want to be seen on television often.
Nonetheless, the reality is that we are marking time. Can we move on to more serious things, go to committee of the whole, propose amendments and truly help resolve the situation?
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I can do one better than that. We could end this thing in 30 seconds. The Prime Minister calls Deepak Chopra and says unlock the gates, get the workers back to work and let's have a fair settlement. That can be done immediately.
John Weston: I have great respect for the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. He has done things to bring this House together on the soccer field and other places. For that we appreciate him. However, I am asking whether his memory is selective. Only months ago, our Minister of Labour brought together the Maritime Employers Association and after months and months of negotiating helped them facilitate an agreement with the workers. We seem to have forgotten that great success. In this case, after months of work the attempts ended in failure so there was no option left for her but to do what she's done.
I want to remind my colleague that this is not about the workers. This is about union leaders. Again, he is being selective in the way he is framing this debate.
[Interjection]
Hon. Andrew Scheer (Speaker of the House of Commons, CPC): The hon. member for Sackville-Eastern Shore has thirty seconds.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: I will take 28 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
I have just asked my hon. colleague if he honestly believes that the fine individual, who I have great respect for, the Minister of Labour, has actually drafted that legislation and that those are her fingerprints all over it. I could almost guarantee my hon. colleague from British Columbia that someone else did that and she is the one who has to be the spokesperson for it. I do not believe that somebody from Cape Breton can draft the most draconian legislation that I have seen in 14 years that affects workers and their families in this country.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your election, since I have not had a chance to do so before.
I would like to take the opportunity of my first speech in this debate in the House of Commons to wish all of the residents of the riding of Saint-Jean a wonderful Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, a public holiday, and the same to all francophones in Canada, whom we tend to forget in Quebec: Acadians, Franco-Ontarians, Franco-Albertans, Franco-Manitobans, and I could go on this way for each province and territory.
To me, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day is the celebration of an entire people, who see themselves reflected in a certain set of values. It is more than a national holiday, St. Jean Baptiste Day, it is a people's holiday. Obviously, I would have preferred it if the government, which claims to recognize the Quebec people, had agreed to suspend the proceedings of the House, but unfortunately it did not do that. I would have preferred to celebrate our people's holiday on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, in Lacolle, in Saint-Valentin, in Mont-Saint-Grégoire, in Saint-Paul-de-l'Île-aux-Noix, in Saint-Blaise, in Saint-Alexandre, in Sainte-Brigide or in Sainte-Anne-de-Sabrevois. 
 While I have the opportunity, I would also like to recognize the sense of responsibility shown by our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, who did not give in to the demagoguery and who stayed with us in the House. We do not have the same vision of Quebec and the best ways to protect and defend its interests, but we have in common our love for Quebec. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the Conservative members, who hold Quebec in contempt and insult Quebeckers by refusing to suspend the proceedings of the House for Quebec's national holiday. I must recognize that three of the four Bloc Québécois members spent Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day here with us to stand up for workers against the brutality of the lockout imposed by a government that is brutal and reactionary in numerous ways.
 On Tuesday, when I was reading La Presse, I noticed something bizarre concerning the Canada Post lockout. The government wants to impose wage increases of 1.75% in 2011, 1.5% in 2012 and 2% in 2013 and 2014. At first glance, one wonders why the postal workers are complaining, since after all, they are getting guaranteed wage increases. In the article, the situation grew grotesque a few lines later, when it said that in the last round of bargaining, Canada Post was proposing increases of 1.9% in 2011 and 2% for the next three years. In other words, the government is imposing a dictatorial settlement that over a four-year period amounts to an average wage $875 lower than what Canada Post was proposing.
 My first reflex, as an engineer, is to multiply $875 by 48,000 employees. That comes to the modest sum of $42 million, that the families of postal workers will not be able to put back into the Canadian economy, into the small businesses in our communities, the child care centres and small local shops. What is most ironic is that part of that $42 million would have gone back into the pockets of the Conservatives' friends—the big banks, the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and all the rest. Well, I am not going to worry about those companies, because they have good connections in the government.
 One can quite reasonably ask where the logic is when a government grumbles as soon as there is a possibility that $42 million will be paid in wages to 48,000 employees over a period of four years, but hands out generous tax credits to a handful of big companies that are already quite profitable.
 As recently as this week, during question period, I asked the Minister of Finance about a Statistics Canada report on the debt crisis of Canadian families. The conclusion of this report is that, for each dollar they earn, Canadian families have $1.50 in debt. One gets the impression the government does not understand that when a family is deeply in debt, $875 can open up many possibilities. It can help a family pay down the debt and avoid going deeper into debt. 
 By prohibiting Canada Post from paying an average of $875 to each employee over four years, the Conservative government is taking $42 million out of the Canadian economy. This same government boasts about its economic performance and proclaims itself a champion of the economy. What an unbearable irony. 
 Why was this lockout imposed? It was imposed for strictly ideological reasons and to set a precedent in labour relations. And this precedent will be used by both employers and this government.
 True enough, this dispute began with rotating strikes. Nobody is denying that, and everybody recognizes that. But it is time to wake up. The strike is over. It is outrageous that the Conservatives keep talking about a strike when what we have is a lockout. Their intent is shocking. 
I would ask my colleagues to please read my lips. The strike is over. We are talking about the lockout. I ask the government to please unlock the doors now.
 By imposing this special legislation, the government is not only stepping in for Canada Post, but it is also demonstrating it can be a tougher negotiator by granting less attractive working conditions to postal workers.
 One can easily imagine the  Minister of Labour, who could more aptly be called the minister of employers, showing up at the bargaining table and telling the incompetent negotiators to step aside and that she will show them how to take a hard line in negotiating a collective agreement. This attitude is not worthy of a great democracy, and it is not worthy of the great country in which I decided to settle nearly a decade ago. 
 To conclude, I would like to send a message of hope to the hundreds of people who sent me emails, which are coming in every minute, and to the thousands of people who are watching us on CPAC. Contrary to what the hon. member for Bourassa is suggesting, there are not just three or four people watching us, but thousands of people who are staying up all night to watch CPAC. To the thousands of people watching us, I want to say that on May 2, 2011, they elected NDP members to stand for them, and they should rest assured that we will not betray them. 
 Even though I am a day late, I want to wish everybody a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste holiday. 
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague’s speech. If he really wanted to show respect to Quebec as he says, he could have managed to find a spot to make his speech on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. This is June 25.
I had the opportunity to meet with my constituents during an extraordinary event held on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day with 400 people in attendance. There is a real concern that is evident in people’s eyes. It reflects the fact that 70% of Canadians support back-to-work legislation. This work stoppage is having quite an impact on the economy. Members can suggest all kinds of options, but when we go out in the field to meet with small business owners, those who create wealth and are the drivers of our economy, they are asking us to settle the problem as fast as possible.
Notwithstanding the 100 emails he has received, what does my colleague say to those who create wealth, to those who create jobs and to the independent business people in his constituency, who are in a shaky situation because of the labour dispute at Canada Post? 
[Interjection]
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be crystal clear, and I will try not to follow the example of the minister, who keeps repeating the same thing, like a broken record, during question period. I will answer simply that all the government has to do is unlock the doors, stop this lockout, and everybody will be able to go back to work. 
I am getting hundreds of emails from postal workers telling me they are ready to go back to work and they are just waiting for the government to unlock the doors of the sorting and distribution centres. 
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed listening to the remarks made by my colleague from Saint-Jean, who has already made an impact in this House as an eloquent speaker. As he mentioned, there are emails from all quarters. I have received several dozen emails myself, just as every member has. However, these emails come from Conservative ridings. We will have an opportunity to talk about this a little later.
It is interesting to note that the Conservative members have failed thus far to mention all the folks who have written in to us from Conservative ridings. I am referring to those people who support the NDP's actions because they consider the government to be so irresponsible. The government decided not to put an end to the lockout. The Conservative members have failed to mention this. 
I would like to ask my colleague the following question. Why does he think that the Conservative members are hiding the fact that many of their constituents disagree with their actions? 
[Interjection]
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
 We are all obviously in the same boat. My office has received emails from ridings across Canada. The Conservative party will not acknowledge this. I even received an email earlier from a postal worker telling me that he voted for the Prime Minister in the previous election but that next time, he would vote for the NDP, because he is very disappointed by the Prime Minister’s lack of support. In fact, I think the email’s author was from Saskatchewan.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that most Canadians support our bill, which is before the House this evening. According to the polls—if my memory serves me correctly—70% of Canadians support our efforts to resolve this issue. 
I would like to ask my colleague the following question. There are tens of millions of Canadians currently affected by the postal crisis, so I would like to know what he has to say to Canadians who are having to deal with the fallout from the current predicament.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Jean has 30 seconds to answer the question. 
[Interjection]
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
 I would simply say to them that there is a process that exists in the history of labour relations in this country whereby employers and employees cooperate in good faith when they come to the bargaining table. There is no precedent in the history of this country for a government to arrive, take the place of one of the parties, and lay down the law, including conditions that are worse than those previously offered by the employer. 
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to take a few minutes to wish all of my constituents in Trois-Rivières a happy national holiday and to let them know that I will be there for the activities. I imagine that I should be there in a few hours.
Denis Coderre:  We were celebrating the 24.
Robert Aubin:  I was obviously expecting that response. Thank you to my dear colleague from Bourassa.
I went through this preamble not because I have not slept much and am rambling, but because I noticed that here, in this House, we have witnessed a miracle. The calendar on the desk shows that it is still June 23. So I have plenty of time to return to my riding to celebrate.
I joke, because as I have been listening to the debates over many hours now, I started to realize that it would really take a miracle to put an end to this. But in looking at the calendar, I realized that that was the miracle. In this House, we found a simple way to stop time and still continue working. We have been debating in this House for hours, we are moving forward, yet it is still June 23.
Why is this miracle that is possible in this House not possible with the bargaining of a collective agreement? We could require that Canada Post and the workers provide the service and, at the same time, ask the two parties to hold clear, clean, fair, just and precise negotiations, stopping time until a settlement is reached. If it is possible for the House of Commons, it must be possible for everyone.
The problem we have been seeing for a while is not about the differing opinions that we all have as much as it is about the demagoguery used by our government colleagues to try to force a bill down our throats. A bill that is indigestible, to say the least.
Over the past few hours, I have amused myself by taking note of the most demagogic lines we have heard. I did not sort them by order of importance to pull out the top five or top three, because that would have meant participating in this demagoguery. Regardless, I have no doubt that the Canadian public watching us on CPAC is interested in this debate. There were people in the gallery until 3 a.m. I think that is telling. Not to mention, I have been receiving so many messages that the BlackBerry I have on my belt is more like a massager. 
What have we been hearing in these debates? First the legitimacy of the union and of its negotiation committee in particular has been attacked. I believe that a committee that gets 94% of the votes to represent its members has significant support. Here, in Parliament, we have a government leading in a legal manner after winning only 40% of the votes. I wish people would stop making this argument.
Then they talk about negotiations that have been going on for eight months. I have a slight problem with the word “negotiations”. The beauty in negotiations is trying to achieve a balance between the interests of the employer and those of the employees. All the work done to achieve this balance must not however be destroyed by the intervention of a third party. That seems obvious to me. In this case, the government should be using its power of intervention to force the parties to negotiate, and not to impose a settlement. Let us face it, the telegraphed lockout and the arbitrator's mandate make it easy to predict the outcome of this dispute, unless the government shows openness and allows real negotiations, in return for which the postal workers are prepared to resume mail service if the collective agreement they had before the lockout is maintained. That is the second demagogic argument that should be dropped.
With regard to damage to the blessed economy, it goes without saying that this dispute cannot last forever because of the economy, which was hardly affected by the rotating strikes. However, the impact has been tremendous since the lockout, but not for everyone. When we talk about a lockout, what are we talking about? We are talking about employees thrown out on the street without any wages who are told to stew for a while until they have had enough and are prepared to go to employer and accept what they would not have accepted otherwise. 
What happens in the meantime? The crown corporation's profits go up because its expenses have gone down. In fact, I am expecting an email from the CEO of Canada Post encouraging me to defend the workers because his bonus increases with every day of the strike. 
Enough has been said about strikes and lockouts. I do not need to add anything more. The concept seems to be clearer in everyone's mind. Even the Conservatives are speaking more and more about a lockout, which is the real situation.
I received a little message. The union had offered to stop all strike activity—including the rotating strikes, which, I would remind the House, were not terribly disruptive—if Canada Post would reinstate the old collective agreement while the mediator was continuing his work. The corporation categorically refused. This illustrates the current atmosphere.
Since we are in the process of negotiating instead of the parties—which is not at all our role—let us explore things from the inside to see how the situation is playing out for the locked out workers. I would like to share a few facts.
Canada Post management decided to adopt a really tough negotiation strategy. As soon as the union notified the corporation of its intent to take strike action, all leave and insurance coverage were cancelled. The collective agreement was tossed out the window. As a result, the employees were left without the financial resources to deal with serious illnesses. Some were forced to pay the full cost of medical expenses for themselves or their loved ones. Some had to pay thousands of dollars to buy medications they need to treat their illness or that of their loved ones, because Canada Post decided to cancel all musical coverage, I mean, medical coverage. A little music would have done us some good, since music has a calming influence.
Employees on sick leave were contacted and informed that they would no longer be receiving a salary during their absence and that they no longer had medical coverage. At present, there is not a single Quebecker without medical coverage, apart from the postal workers. Any corporation that brings in such draconian measures cannot do so without knowing that it has this government's support. It is truly unacceptable. 
In closing, members on both sides agree that some sort of legislation is required to get the mail service running again, but we will never, and I mean never, support Bill C-6.
Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that the parties could not reach an agreement and that we are all discussing this matter here. It is even sadder to see the NDP members working very hard to hide the facts from Canadians.
The fact is that the parties commenced negotiations eight months ago. The fact is, according to the Canada Labour Code, the minister appointed a reconciliator and then a mediator. Despite all these communications and conversations, the fact is that the union chose to go on strike. Of course, the union had the right to choose to strike, but after that, the corporation had the right to choose to have a lockout. 
I have a question for my friend, my colleague, from the other side, because I have been having conversations with career companies, transmission shops, mechanic shops, grocery stores and restaurants. I have a note from someone who says that if he doesn't get his cheques, he cannot pay his rent, and if he misses his rent, the NDP will have to pay for it.
The question is: What is the NDP's plan to reimburse those small businesses for the damages caused by stalling this legislation?
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his friendship. It was short-lived. First it was friend, then colleague, but perhaps we may develop it over the years.
Quite simply, perhaps I was not understood. Maybe it is the language barrier. Not only have the parties not agreed so far, but I can also predict that they will never agree, as long as the fight is unbalanced, two against one. If you really want to resolve the economic problems of your small- and medium-sized businesses very quickly, end the lock out.
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech. What I am seeing here is a government that, since its budget was adopted, is cutting, cutting and cutting public services. It is cutting pensions. It is making cuts everywhere.
I would like my colleague to comment on that. It is as if the government has seized this opportunity. Actually, we have known for a very long time that it wishes to make cuts to the public postal services. For a long time, post offices in the regions have been lacking funding. It is as if the government is taking advantage of the strike just to try to get around the rules and make cuts to postal services using special legislation.
I would like my colleague to comment on the true intentions of the government, which is accusing us of wanting to hide things from Canadians. Instead, I think that it is the government that is trying to hide things from Canadians.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very relevant question; to me, the answer is quite simple. In this House are two ideologies that are far apart. The party in power, the government, believes in the economy and in money as it believes in God. I quite like money too, not for what it is but for what it allows us to do. That is the difference on this side. We want to create wealth so that we can then better distribute it for the benefit of each and every Canadian. 
John Weston: Mr. Speaker, I have to commend my colleague. At 5:30 in the morning, I think he is still doing a pretty good job. However, I have a question.
In the world of labour relations, if somebody is given impossible conditions by an employer, he or she may leave. It is called “constructive dismissal”. If someone is on rotating strikes and precipitates a lockout, similarly it is the responsibility of the union, not the employer, that brings about the ultimate division between the two. Could the member comment on that?
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
There is only one way for everyone to win; that is when two parties can negotiate with no interference from a third party, in the context of a strong, fair and equitable balance of power.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member began his remarks, I noticed that it was 5:15 a.m. It is now 5:29 a.m. So it seems to me that his question period has been cut a little short. The hon. member actually has a minute left to answer questions.
I would just like to ask you that you always keep your eye on the clock so that we can make our points and, of course, answer questions. At some stage, we would really like the Conservatives to rise to defend their position. We fondly hope that they will be able to do so, and, as we do so ourselves, that we will always have the full 15 minutes to which we are entitled.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I am not sure which of the clocks the hon. member was regarding, but certainly on the digital clock that the chair occupants have the opportunity to view, we indeed went about 30 seconds beyond the time that was allocated. We try to do our best to be judicious and fair in all respects. 
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster takes too much time, he is the one using up all the time. With his long points of order, he is preventing his own colleague from being able to answer questions. I had questions I wanted to ask and I am very disappointed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I think the matter is resolved sufficiently. We will continue with debate. We will resume debate with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I have decided to speak once again as part of the debate on the back to work legislation for Canada Post employees because what is going on here is very important. We are about to take a step that should never be taken by any rightful government.
At no time should a government decide to so shamefully violate the rights of workers, when there is the simple solution of removing the locks and putting an end to the lockout. If this government had done what it should have done from the beginning of the dispute, which is put an end to the lockout and allow Canada Post workers to continue to work, we never would have needed this bill, and mail service would not have been suspended for Canadians and Canadian businesses. 
But no, the government would rather introduce legislation that mocks the workers of this country, that violates workers' rights, that imposes working conditions that are worse than what was offered by the employer. The government would rather set our country back, even though we have always been proactive about the rights of our citizens.
For three and a half years, I wore the Canadian flag on one of my shoulders, in both red and white and in green camouflage. What is important is that I was always proud of this flag and what it represents.
Every time I travelled abroad, in Europe or in Africa, when I was asked to talk about my country, I was proud to do so because this country has always respected and promoted the fundamental rights of its citizens. I talked about all the battles Canadians had to fight to improve our standard of living.
I honestly believe that there is nowhere better than here, this land where I grew up. And I would want nothing else for my future children.
That is why I urge my colleagues from all parties in this House to look past their partisan quarrels, because what is going on here is much bigger than that. Not only the workers of Canada Post, but all workers in Canada will suffer the consequences, and the dignity of our country will be undermined.
When this government so shamefully shows that it can side with the employer in a dispute, it does not just hurt the postal workers, but the entire political institution all of us here represent.
We are not talking about overpaid employees with obscene benefits, as some would have us believe; we are talking about men and women who work hard, who have average salaries, who work irregular schedules at the start of their career which quite often does not allow them to enjoy their family life, and whose working conditions sometime cause their health to suffer. We are talking about most Canadian families who work every day for this country. 
Let us talk a little bit about the working conditions of Canada Post workers. Some of you may recall the election campaign that started in 2005 and ended in January 2006, in the middle of winter and during the holidays. Most of you who campaigned at the time probably went door to door. Was it not terrible to walk knee-deep in snow, go up icy steps and deal with the freezing cold conditions?
We do not often have to campaign in the middle of winter, but Canada Post employees have to face the winter every year and not just for the duration of an election campaign. They cannot take a coffee break to warm up when it is too cold outside. People do not invite postal workers into their homes to let them warm up and to encourage them to carry on.
The French version of our national anthem, of which we are so proud, says “protégerons nos foyers et nos droits”, which means “we stand on guard for our homes and our rights”. It seems to me those are the two things we are talking about here.
What does it mean to stand on guard for our homes? I think it means to protect the health and safety of our workers. I think standing on guard for our homes means to ensure that workers have a decent pension plan. 
What does it mean to stand on guard for our rights? I think it absolutely means to preserve the right of workers in this country to negotiate. 
In my work as a nurse, I learned that if I did something for my patients instead of letting them do it, or I did their thinking for them, I would never get anywhere with them. To successfully get lasting change, it is essential to give them the tools they need, but also to allow them to solve their own problems themselves.
 With this bill, the government is interfering in a dispute where that was not needed. At the outset, the government should have ordered that the lockout be ended and the parties return to the bargaining table and find a way to agree, and that they find a middle way between the demands of the two sides, to achieve a fairer solution. 
 Let us talk about that: a fair solution. In this bill that we have been discussing for some time now, there is one thing in particular that is revolting: the wage cut. It is not a wage cut imposed by Canada Post; no, it is being imposed on the workers by our government, a government that deserves credit for being clear about the interests it is prepared to defend. 
 I would like to say one thing to all Canadians who are watching us or will be watching us later in the day: it is not your interests that our government is prepared to defend, it is not the government that is prepared to spend hours on end in this House to try to persuade the party opposite to bring forward reasonable and respectful legislation. 
 Our government seems to have respect for only certain people, the ones who are at the top of big corporations, the ones who make profits. The government should not forget, however, that the profits made by Canada Post do not fall from the sky. Those profits are the fruit of the hard work done by the postal employees, and I am sure that all those employees will be grateful to the government for the gratitude it might show them, gratitude that could be expressed, for example, in a bill that did not provide for lower wages than they had been offered. I hear them saying thank you from here. 
 We do not agree on numerous points, on either side of this aisle, but we agree that the workers should go back to work so that everyone who relies on the postal services can breathe easier. There are two ways of achieving that result. The first is to pass an unfair bill that jeopardizes the social benefits that all workers in this country enjoy. The second is to end the lockout and allow the postal employees to go back to work with dignity. I am on the side of human dignity. 
 Once again, I call on the government today to reverse its position. Not for the NDP. We are not here to win or lose a vote; we are here because something brings us together: the profound conviction that each of our fellow Canadians deserves respect. Our fellow Canadians deserve better than that. The government has the power to prove that it respects Canadians and Canadian workers. 
 So I suggest that it end the lockout, and most importantly, I call on all my parliamentary colleagues of all political stripes, on behalf of everyone we represent here, to vote against this bill as long as it remains unchanged. 
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, I want to address one point made earlier by a member of the NDP that the government side had not mentioned anything about people who might take a different perspective in our ridings. I certainly have received emails in support of the back to work legislation. I have also received emails in support of the opposition's position.
One thing I heard earlier was that we were fixating on the suspension of time, June 23. The clock is still ticking and with every minute that passes, while our colleagues are making money, my constituents are losing money. I heard that there were two solutions, but there are actually three. 
When will opposition members quit thumping their chests, produce solutions, get into committee of the whole to deal with the issues and put forward their solutions instead of their complaints, end this debate and get this resolved?
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer here with another question, one that I think provides the answer. I wonder why my Conservative colleague, who has the chance to be in the lobby of the people who control the situation, is not talking to the ones who are responsible for it and asking them why they are not doing something, why they are doing nothing to take the padlocks off and end this lockout. All Canadians who are affected by the absence of postal services would benefit from that solution. 
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I listened to very passionate speeches by the members of the New Democratic Party. I know they believe what they are saying. Liberals agree that the government bill is a bullying bill. It is absolutely unfair and would be decided on what the arbitration outcomes would be, et cetera. 
Members know the government is fixated on what the bill says and has decided it will not change its mind. The NDP is fixated on this filibuster and does not seem to want to change its mind. Meanwhile, nothing is getting resolved. 
I am really frustrated. Every hour we talk in the House nothing is happening. The mail is not flowing, people are not going back to work, we are not deciding on a solution to put the government in its place by saying that if it is not a bully, then it should listen to the amendments. Why could we not go into committee of the whole and get some amendments on the table?
We were asked to come here and find solutions, not simply be intransigent, as both sides here are.
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, we would not need to introduce amendments and propose changes if the government did what it has the power to do: demand that the lockout end and take the padlocks off the doors.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question.
 She talked about standing up for our families and our rights. I think it is very important. 
 But some have said people are complaining. Others said they wanted to fix a few problems. Personally, I would like to know whether my colleague thinks what we are doing today is a waste of time. 
[Interjection]
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here now is absolutely not a waste of time. The government is on the verge of taking a step I believed could never be taken. It is about to trample the rights of workers.
Each minute we spend talking about that will never be a waste of time. Even if it takes many more hours to get through to this government, I think it is well worth it. 
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is to reiterate, as we all do, why we are here. We are here because the government seems to be working hand in hand with the board and management at Canada Post. I suggest that an historical review of what has gone on would show that there was probably a lot more co-operation than is seen now and that would probably be appreciated by most Canadians.
Again, the reason we are here at 5:45 in the morning is not because anybody particularly likes speaking in the House of Commons at this time on a Saturday morning, but because we want to ensure, given the government is not—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. I am sure hon. members will be interested in hearing what the member for Hamilton Centre has to say. I would be delighted if we could keep the noise down to a bit more calm in the chamber.
The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
[Interjection]
David Christopherson:  Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out to me by one of the hon. ministers, looking at the calendar, that it is actually still June 23. That is part of the magnificence of being here, that not only is it June 23, it is also June 25. 
The fact remains that we are here because we want to do what the government has not done, and that is to give the union and the management an opportunity to negotiate a fair agreement in their own way and in their own time. 
We know the government, of course, is playing a game, and it is evident if you take a look at the chronology we have been through. There was a rotating strike action, meant to put pressure, not to shut down Canada Post but to put negotiating pressure on management, which is done all the time with transnational corporations or entities. It is a ramp-up, and ideally it is meant to prevent a lockout and a strike. It is a tactic that is part of negotiations, and it is not an attempt to stop the work of Canada Post. 
During that time the union offered to management the following deal. They would end the rotating strikes and be at work everywhere, all the time, in return for management acknowledging that the workers would work under the current collective agreement and that it would act as if it had full effect and force of law. That is pretty reasonable. It is not as if they threatened to do something or said they would do one thing if the company did not do another thing. They began their rather modest tactics. 
We all know that did not last very long, a couple of weeks. During that time management told the union that some pressure was being put on them and it was causing a little problem here and here, and they asked the union to stop doing that. The union said they were quite prepared to stop doing that, but all they asked was that the company honour the current collective agreement while they continued to negotiate. 
 Just as a little aside, you would wonder why they would not accept that, because it does sound reasonable. It would have been one more very positive step, actually. It would have been a good show of cooperation. They could have agreed on a period of time and taken two or three weeks and had it as part of negotiations. If it did not work, they would be back where they were, but if it did work, they would succeed in the ultimate goal, which is to reach a peaceful, agreeable collective agreement. 
One wonders why management would say no. One idea, which sounds strange and bizarre--you would not think this would really happen--is that it is possible that maybe they had some inkling, a bit of an idea. They got out the Ouija board, checked around, phoned some of the psychics to try to get a sense of what might be going on, on the government side. Going to the psychics might be a really good start. 
They managed to figure it out: “Well, it sounds like there might be legislation that is going to order them back to work, so why would we do something that would negate the government stepping in? We'll just stay where we are, let the rotating strikes continue, and, sh, sh, we know the government is going to quietly introduce legislation that will solve our labour relations problems and we do not have to sit down and bargain any more.” 
I do not know if that happened, but it sure makes sense. It makes a lot of sense. That is one of the answers, when we have so many questions here without answers. 
I hear somebody muttering from somewhere in the ether about conspiracy theories. Maybe, but we are open to whatever other conspiracy theory any hon. member can come up with. Looking at what is going on in reality makes no damn sense, so something has to be going on. 
Then the government introduced incredibly heavy-handed, unfair, mean-spirited legislation. 
Then they used the argument that this could not go on, so they locked them out, and they watched the government bring in legislation that forces them back and forces management to pay less money than it agreed to in the negotiations.
Then to justify what it is doing, the government says it had to do that because they were not at work, and if they are not at work the mail cannot move, and if the mail cannot move it is going to cause economic hardship. That is how it justifies its legislation, which in reality makes no sense at all. Had they followed what was offered the first time, which was to negotiate under the current collective agreement, we would not be here. If they had not locked them out, we would not be here.
All roads do seem to point to the cabinet room of Canada. That seems to be where we are. 
It is mind-boggling that it is happening. I want to emphasize that the wage increase that was negotiated fairly at the bargaining table is being reduced by the legislation that is supposed to help the economy. I do not know how putting more money in the hands of Canadians who spend that money is supposed to be harming the economy, but that is the bizarre reality that is here.
It is quite appropriate, actually, that as I speak it is Saturday and as I look at the table it is Thursday. That makes about as much sense as the negotiating procedures that have been followed by Canada Post and supported by the Government of Canada.
I will not get to my last point now. I will pick up on it in a few days, because we will be here for a while.
I want to weigh in behind a lot of my colleagues who are referring to the fact that they see this as a piece of the generational issue that we ought to be talking about. I know there are some in the Twitterverse who are ridiculing them. That is unfortunate because we have a serious problem. Of course, it is the young people who see it, because the problem will not really manifest itself for another 10, 20, 30, 40 years, right around the time they will be in the prime of their lives and right about the time our children or grandchildren will be in the prime of their lives.
Given where I am in life, I want to thank them for taking the lead in making sure that this House acknowledges and addresses the issue of the growing gap that exists today, how much wider that gap is going to be, and the harm that is being inflicted on our younger generation when our role here collectively is to make this a better place for everybody. That is why we are here, and we will stay here until we achieve that fairness.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one thing I can say about listening to my colleague in the House is that I do not have to wear an earpiece when I do it. I am a little worried about the hearing of his colleagues on the other side, though.
One of the responsibilities that we as a government have is to ensure that we are looking out for the citizens of Canada, to ensure that they are protected when they cannot be at the table in these negotiations.
One thing I would like to point out is clause 13 of the bill, which says:
 nothing in this Act precludes the employer and the union from entering into a new collective agreement at any time before the arbitrator makes a decision and, if they do so, the arbitrator's duties under this Act cease 
Also, in clause 11 there is a 90-day provision for the arbitrator to make his decision. 
So there is a risk for both parties in here if we go into this arbitration decision.
It seems to me that that clause is the best of both worlds. We have a bill that allows us to get people back to work and at the same time it gives 90 days for a parallel process to happen, whereby the two parties can come up with an agreement. But we can get people back to work, we can get the mail, we can protect our seniors, and we can protect our small businesses.
[Interjection]
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his attention and for the question.
I will admit to him that during my time at Queen's Park I had a couple of colleagues who were threatening to file complaints under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I think they try to avoid that here by moving me around so that I am not screaming in anybody's ear for any prolonged period of time.
I do my best to keep it down, but you know what? When you do most of your speaking in a union hall, some things just never leave you. I will do my best to try to keep my tone down. I always fail, but I do try.
 I accept the question as being a fair and serious one, and I will respond in the same light. My answer to the question is that the first choice always in bargaining in a free democracy is the arrival of a conclusion that both sides accept that they freely entered into. When people are ordered and forced back to work, the first option is removed. That is why we are here. We want to give that first option of reaching a free and fair collective agreement at every opportunity, and we will stay here until that objective is reached.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to touch base on the question that was just asked.
The member was saying that there is a provision in there that would actually allow for collective bargaining to continue. I just want to ask my colleague, and I know he has looked at the bill, if he saw any incentives in there to allow for that collective agreement to go on. When the government actually put this bill together, did it actually remove something from the employer, such as their bonuses maybe, to give that incentive a chance?
[Interjection]
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.
It really is strange that the board of directors and the management of Canada Post, who deal with the finances of the corporation every day, should conclude that, as tough as things are, they have room to offer a certain amount of money in negotiations for wages and yet the government comes along and says, “No, no, Canada Post cannot afford that. We say, from over here, that Canada Post cannot afford to honour the commitment of wages that they already made in free and fair negotiations.” But there sure seems to be lots of money to make sure the CEO gets his $661,000 a year.
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is rich hearing this member get up in the House and pretend that he cares about workers' rights when he had that one opportunity in the province of Ontario as a cabinet minister, and his actual record is that he tore up the collective bargaining agreement that 30,000 provincial workers had, threw it away, cut their salaries by $2 billion, and forced them to take 12 unpaid days off. Then he wrote a song, he and the other NDP members, and the member for London—Fanshawe, and called it “We are all in this together”. They went around a piano, sang it, and thought the workers would feel really good about it.
He gets up in this House and pretends he cares about workers when his record is just the opposite. When he had the opportunity, he screwed workers. He and his government tore the contract up, cut their pay, and forced unpaid holidays. That is the record he is trying to defend—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order. The member has used up the time allowed.
We have 30 seconds left for the member for Hamilton Centre. 
[Interjection]
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, I hope we get an opportunity to do this a little more fuller in terms of responses. But in 30 seconds, the first thing I would say is that the people of Hamilton Centre decided in the follow-up election that I should be returned to Queen's Park twice more after that and four times here.
I would also take a look at what he and Mike Harris did when they came in after 1995. We are still picking up the pieces of what is left of Ontario after he and his wrecking crew got through.
[Interjection]
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the hon. member might, in order to facilitate and help us here a little bit, have a copy of the social contract in which he reduced workers by $1.9 billion and in which he did force them to take 12 unpaid days off. I wonder if the member might have a copy of that agreement that he, as a cabinet minister, and the member for London—Fanshawe forced on the employees of Ontario available to us.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): That is not really a point of order. 
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I hope my voice holds out as well.
I take a different perspective than the member from Hamilton Centre, who is a very effective orator and who has experience on the union side.
My experience in collective negotiations has been on the management side. What I think is an issue here is the remarkable diversity of the new NDP caucus. In this caucus, 103 strong, the strongest caucus the New Democratic Party has had in the House of Commons to date, we have a remarkable diversity of experience. Our people have labour, employer, and small-business experience. People come from a variety of professions. They are doctors, lawyers, and nurses. People have come from the trades as well. There are teachers and students. All of these different experiences add up to the power we have with the 103 New Democrats who are standing up for the middle class, for workers' rights, and for collective bargaining.
I know that it is difficult for the Conservatives and Liberals to work through the night. We have heard the complaints, since eleven o'clock last night, from the Conservatives and Liberals. They find it difficult to debate and just do not want to continue to have this important debate--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order. The hon. member for Bourassa is rising on a point of order.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, my colleague shows a lot of class. We are all working for the welfare of our constituents. I urge him not to stray from that, because the kind of things he is saying are just not right. They are filibustering, and we do not agree, but we are still doing our job. 
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, our job in this House is not to make sure that the Conservative members of Parliament feel comfortable. Our role in this House is to defend the letter carriers and mail sorters, who are ordinary, middle-class Canadians. Sometimes that is going to make some members uncomfortable. We make no apologies for that. We are here to do a job, and we will continue to debate and stand up for the working people of this country.
The point I am making is that even though we are sitting at 6:05 in the morning, there are about five million Canadians, on any given night, who are working either graveyard shifts or swing shifts. The kind of working hours we have had over the last 48 hours are the normal working hours for five million Canadians. They are the ones who are raising their families, going to school, and working hard all night. By day they are contributing to the country. We pay tribute to them this morning. That is their ordinary working environment. For us to work throughout the evening pays tribute to them as well.
Since this debate began, a number of facts have clearly been established. Some Conservative MPs at the beginning of this debate were saying that it was a strike. We know clearly, and the facts have been established, that this was a lockout by the management of Canada Post. I am happy to say that many Conservative MPs have become better informed, and that is something we welcome. They now understand. Many of them have been speaking about the lockout. That is very important.
We have also established, and this is a very important element, that this sledgehammer the government is imposing on the letter carriers and the mail sorters of Canada is, in real terms, a wage reduction. It is not a wage increase; it is a wage reduction. Members of the Conservative Party are now better informed about that, as well.
One cannot say that it is a wage increase when what the government wants to impose is actually less than the inflation rate. This means that over the course of the next few years, the letter carriers and the mail sorters, those who work to keep the nation's mail going, will be earning less and less because of the sledgehammer imposed by the government.
We have established as well that this is a very real threat to pensions. Working through one's working life and not being provided with an adequate pension, and having to work below the poverty line, is something most Canadians do not accept.
We have also established that this draconian sledgehammer legislation permanently disadvantages the youth of our nation, who want to get involved, want to provide service, and want to work for Canada Post. 
We have established a number of facts. What has been fascinating about the evolution of this debate over the last 24 hours is the reaction we are seeing from various parts of the country. We have received far too many letters and e-mails to read into the record. However, I would like to read just a few of the e-mails we are receiving from Conservative ridings. These are Conservative constituents, and Conservatives should be listening to them.
A constituent from Richmond, British Columbia wrote, “I'm a letter carrier in Richmond, B.C. I am writing to you because unfortunately, my member of Parliament has her hands tied. I was appalled and embarrassed by her remarks during her speech yesterday”.
A constituent from Surrey, British Columbia wrote, “I hope many Canadians are following this issue. I do not need to go into details. We both know how unjust this bill is. I am not a union worker. However, I see a bigger issue here. The Conservatives need to be set straight”.
A constituent from Lethbridge wrote, “I watched the debates in Parliament yesterday, last night, and this morning. My family has watched it as well. We are all amazed and grateful that you and the New Democrats will stand for us and not be bullied by Canada Post and the government into an unfair contract. Thanks you for standing up for our rights under the law for free bargaining”.
A constituent from Calgary Centre wrote, “Thank you for your defence of the worker and the Canadian way of labour disputes. I do feel the government gave the employer a sledgehammer to solve this issue. Hidden under the guise of serving the public, the government has made sure of Canada Post's continued revenue input into general coffers and the continued bad management practices of its management staff”.
A constituent from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar wrote, “We want to say thank you and we appreciate your support in our struggle. Keep up the good work”.
A constituent from Saint Boniface wrote, “My sincere and heartfelt gratitude for the support and solidarity you, the New Democrats, are demonstrating for our struggle with the Conservative Party, with the member for Saint Boniface, and with the rest of the government that is arbitrarily interfering with the workers' right to collective bargaining”.
From Winnipeg South a constituent wrote, “I have been watching the debate in the House of Commons with pride and amazement. Surely the House has not heard such a well-informed and eloquent debate on labour issues in many, many years. It is also obvious in many of the fine speeches from opposition MPs that they not only get the issue but have been there themselves and care deeply. Thank you very much”.
A constituent from Peterborough, Ontario, another Conservative riding, wrote, “Thanks for speaking up. I run a small business in Peterborough, Ontario. If we remove the lockout, take the locks off, we get mail delivery and effective bargaining”.
A constituent trom Montreal, Quebec, wrote, 
“It is heartwarming to see all of you in the House standing up for principles that are dear to me, like the right to free collective bargaining, the principle of equal pay for equal work, a decent pension plan, and public services for the general public, and fighting against this unfair attack against workers. I am particularly encouraged by the fiery speeches made by all these young New Democrats.” 
A constituent from Nepean—Carleton wrote, “I would like to thank you for the great job you are currently doing in the House to stand up for the working class. We back you 100% and sincerely ask that you keep up the fight for us postal workers and all workers”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order. 
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for those who work in this House. My colleague is talking so fast, the interpreters cannot keep up. For my part, I am having a hard time understanding what he is saying. Could he please slow down? 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The member will know that from time to time, the speed and the pace of speech can be a difficulty for translation. I would encourage the member to consider that in the course of his speech and to watch, as he is getting close to the end of time.
The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, there are so many e-mails, it is difficult to read them all into the record. 
I will just finish up. This is from Atlantic Canada, from the riding of the fisheries minister. It says, “I want to thank you all for such truth and solidarity towards workers. It has allowed me to have a new faith in Canadian politics. I will do everything it takes to see this current government hears what real Canadians want. I am a father of two and am finding it very difficult to sleep at night this past week, not knowing what our future holds for me and my children”.
We could read many more into the record. These are the voices of Canadians. These are the voices of those we support. This is why we are having this debate in the House of Commons.
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, let us get a few things straight here. My hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster started off his presentation by saying that he wanted to recite some of the facts. Let us really talk about the facts in what is happening here today.
As opposed to what all members of the NDP have been saying, their position is not advocating on behalf of ordinary men and women, the workers of Canada. It is far from it. Their position is advocating on behalf of their union bosses: CUPW. It is okay if that is their position, and it clearly is. 
Half a dozen or more of the people I see sitting in the House right now come from an organized labour background. That is okay, but what the members of the NDP should be truthful about in this debate is that they are not representing all of the millions of hard-working Canadians who are adversely affected by this work stoppage. More importantly, they are not even advocating on behalf of postal workers.
My friend mentioned a number of e-mails he received from across the country. I also have a number of e-mails, and all of these are from postal workers who are advocating that the union receive and accept the offer from management. They state unequivocally that they are opposed to the union, because the union will not give them the right to vote.
The NDP is only advocating on behalf of one special interest group, and that is the CUPW union leadership, not the rank and file. Let the members at least be honest about that.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I think the 94% support from mail sorters and letter carriers speaks for itself.
 As somebody who has never been a member of a union but has always been on the management side, I have been profoundly disturbed by some of the comments we have been hearing from Conservatives, starting with the Minister of Labour, who made a distinction between Canadians and mail sorters and letter carriers, as if they are not Canadians, as if they have no rights, as if somehow they are separate from the rest of Canada.That is the kind of division the Conservative government promotes.
The reality is there are seven million union households in this country. There are millions of Canadians who have opted to join a union. That is far more than the number of Canadians who voted Conservative in the last election. Those unionized workers are as much Canadian as the member and I are.
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wore my green tie today to remind me of the green infrastructure fund in the economic action plan which the NDP voted against. I wanted to make sure I remembered that because this is similar in that there is no common sense in what the NDP is doing.
I do have a message for the member from my constituents. Not only do I represent more union members than anybody else in this House per capita in Canada but probably in North America. I represent more workers, more people who work shifts and more people who are actually contributing more to the economy than anybody else in the House. Some 6% to 7% of the country's GDP moves from my area alone. The message of my constituents is loud and clear. They are telling me that the NDP members do not represent unions. I have belonged to a union. Those NDP members do not represent the views of my constituents at all. That is the message I have been told to bring here loud and clear today, that those people are not representing the rank and file workers of this country. They are representing CUPW and the leadership of the union only. They are self-interested in that. They do not represent Canadians. That is the message my constituents have asked me to bring.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question, so what I will do is talk about my constituents.
I am a long-time member of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce, and a proud member of the Burnaby Board of Trade. The small business owners in my riding understand that when we have a good middle class, when we have real collective bargaining and we build the middle class, there is a stronger economy in the community. That is what we stand for, the community's economy, not shipping jobs overseas, certainly not ripping up collective agreements, and not government imposing wages on workers. 
We are the moderates here. We are the ones who are tracing a path to a solution. We certainly would like Conservative members to compromise a bit and listen to the workers not only in their ridings but right across the country.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the people of Quebec celebrated their national holiday. I would have liked to be with my family and the people of my constituency of Brossard—La Prairie to celebrate the day, which is so important for our Quebec nation. It is unfortunate that the Conservative government did not want to suspend the proceedings of the House to enable us to celebrate our national holiday. But I am proud to be here in Ottawa with my NDP colleagues from the Quebec and Canada caucus to defend the fundamental principles of social justice, more particularly workers’ rights.
When I arrived in Parliament yesterday, I crossed paths with a group of Canada Post employees. Those people are proud workers who want to go back to work, to deliver the mail to everyone waiting for letters and cheques and to enable small businesses to do business. They know that Canada Post belongs to all Canadians and that its mandate is to guarantee postal service to all Canadians. They are in a tough situation, trying to assert their bargaining rights, to support their families, to pay their bills, to work in a safe environment and to retire in dignity.
One of my high school friends, Quentin, chose to become a letter carrier. My friend has two adorable children. He is a good father who has chosen an occupation in which he works very hard, often on schedules not always easy to reconcile with family activities. When I see him, he is very proud to talk about his work. 
Today I oppose the government's measures, which I feel are unfair to Canada Post employees, and I am doing that for people like Quentin and the Canada Post people I met yesterday. They are good people who simply want to do their jobs.
I am rising today because I oppose the bill as introduced by the government. The purpose of this bill is to impose an employment contract on Canada Post employees rather than let the union and management negotiate a collective agreement. The parties should have the right to bargain in good faith without the government imposing a unilateral settlement on them. That is a fundamental principle of law.
What I find even more unfair is that the bill includes a wage settlement that is not only less than what the workers were seeking, but, even worse, less than the wage settlement offered by Canada Post management. I still cannot understand this injustice.
 The problem with this bill is that, if the government imposes his vision on Canada Post, what will prevent it from doing so in other cases? I believe, and I dare hope, that it is not this government's intention to interfere in all employment contracts. 
 We hope to improve this bill. We have offered to work with the government to find a solution to the deadlock in which we find ourselves today. As our leader has repeatedly said, we are reaching out to the government to assist in finding a fair and equitable solution. We remain optimistic that the dispute can be resolved, but there has to be good faith. The government must stop interfering. It is important that the fundamental right to bargain with the employer in good faith be respected.
 As you know, Tommy Douglas was the first leader of the NDP. He was the father of Canada's health insurance system and, in a CBC competition, was named the “Greatest Canadian of All Time”.
 At the NDP's 50th anniversary celebration, I learned to what extent the NDP has always been there to defend the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable individuals, whether it be those who did not have access to a physician, seniors who had been abandoned or workers who were being exploited in inhuman conditions.
 When I decided to go into politics, I did it, among other reasons, because I wanted to advocate social justice. I sensed that I too could help the most vulnerable individuals. Today the government wants to use its power to impose a labour settlement on Canada Post employees, which would prevent the parties from reaching a solution negotiated in good faith. Having decided to act in that manner, the government has clearly indicated its intention to favour the employer, which now finds itself in a distinctly stronger position. 
 Unlike the government, I believe it is not good to interfere in the business of the bargaining parties, particularly when those parties negotiate fundamentally important issues such as pensions.
 Some Canada Post employees have worked all their lives in conditions that were not always easy, making sacrifices that many of us would not be prepared to make, thinking that one day they would be able to enjoy a well-earned retirement. Today they are facing the uncertain thought that they may lose what they have worked for. I consider it normal for workers to use the means afforded them by law to assert their rights.
 Allow me to restate the facts, although I believe that, after a number of days and hours of debate, they are already known. On June 3, postal workers began rotating strikes. Seven days later, on June 10, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers offered to end the strike if the corporation agreed to ensure that the current contract remained in effect during the negotiations, but Canada Post refused to do so. Four days later, on June 14, the Minister of Labour announced that it was unnecessary to introduce back-to-work legislation since the labour action consisted solely of rotating strikes. Cheques were being delivered and people were nevertheless receiving their mail. The next day, on June 15, Canada Post decided to lock out all its employees and to shut down mail delivery service. On June 20, barely 5 days later, the Conservative government introduced a bill to impose a contract on Canada Post employees including a wage settlement below the level offered by management. In recent days, the government has been interfering by asserting that legislating Canada Post employees back to work is necessary for the economy.
 I agree it is important for all Canadians to receive their mail as soon as possible. Seniors have to receive their pension cheques and small businesses have to send out their invoices. However, the Conservative government is going about this the wrong way. The government is using a heavy hand, legislating unilaterally and favouring Canada Post, even though postal workers have offered to go back to work during the bargaining process.
 It is important to bear in mind that this is not a labour strike, but rather a lockout imposed by Canada Post and supported by the government. The government lacks leadership in conflict resolution and is contributing to a negative climate and confrontation. The workers have a right to bargain in good faith with their employer. That is a fundamental right. Canada Post can continue delivering the mail while bargaining with its workers.
 Canada Post is not in trouble. The crown corporation posted a profit of $281 million in 2009. Canada Post has been profitable for the past 15 years and its president and CEO earns more than $600,000 a year, making him the most highly paid president and CEO of all the federal crown corporations.
 However, it is not too late to reach an agreement, provided the parties are given the chance. We are lucky to have one of the best postal services in the world. Our duty is to ensure that the rights of the people who operate this essential service are respected. We must work together, stop government interference, comply with the fundamental principles of law and let the parties bargain in good faith. This is a matter of justice for all workers and for the youth of tomorrow.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what this bill really says is that the arbitrator should be guided by the need for terms and conditions consistent with those in comparable postal industries. I wonder if the member opposite disagrees with that. It says that the arbitrator should be guided by the need for terms and conditions that will ensure the short- and long-term economic viability of Canada Post. I wonder if the member opposite disagrees with that. It says that the arbitrator should be guided by the need to maintain the health and safety of workers. Does he disagree with that? Does he disagree with the need to sustain the pension plan? 
What is it about those guiding principles the member opposite disagrees with so vehemently?
[Interjection]
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the principles guiding the new negotiations. However, I do have a problem with the fact that a wage settlement is being imposed because employees are being forced to accept wages lower than those offered by Canada Post management. They say they are going to arbitration, but the solution and the result are already being put forward. Free bargaining is not being permitted. The parties are not being allowed to bargain in good faith.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely interesting speech.
I know that he has a legal background. I would like to ask him what he thinks of the "orphan" clauses. He is a new MP and a young MP. What does he think of the legality of these "orphan" clauses included in the minister's proposal?
[Interjection]
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who was re-elected. I am very pleased to be working with her.
These clauses are illegal. They do not respect the fundamental right to negotiate, which must be respected and which is enshrined in the charter. There is a problem here, and the government needs to know it.
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member opposite speaks of his desire to help the vulnerable. I spent a significant portion of my life volunteering and supporting vulnerable people. I prefer to call them children or youth or seniors, or by their actual names, which is probably the best way to refer to them.
If the member cares so much about vulnerable people, could he please answer two questions for the House? First, why will the member not allow the mail service delivery to continue so the charities that do so much work can receive the cheques they need to run their charities effectively? Second, why will he not allow mail delivery to be restored so the great donations that small businesses provide to allow charities to operate can be delivered?
[Interjection]
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague on the opposite side of the House for her question.
We want people to receive their mail. The problem is that there is a lockout. It is the current government that is preventing everything from functioning. The postal employees were ready to work. They wanted to continue to do their job and deliver the cheques, which was good for the economy that the government wants so much to have grow.
It is the government that is preventing all of that. The workers are there. They want to deliver the mail. But there is a problem. The employer is preventing the workers from doing their job.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the really good things about this debate is the number of people who are following it on Twitter and social media and sending us information. One person sent me a tweet asking if I knew that Canada Post had 20 vice-presidents. 
I am curious as to whether those vice-presidents would be willing to accept two-tier wages like the new workers would get from Canada Post under this proposed agreement. I wonder if the vice-presidents would take a decrease.
[Interjection]
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Indeed, we can see that this is the same mindset as the Conservative government's. It is making cuts and giving tax breaks to big businesses. Canada Post is making cuts when it comes to the workers, but not to management. What should be done to save money is not being done.
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission, I would like to use these few moments to paraphrase a famous poem by Boris Vian. It goes like this:
  Men whose names are great I am writing you a letter That you will read perhaps If the Tories remove the locks.  
I found it appropriate under the circumstances. In fact, since yesterday, a number of hon. members, from my party and from the government, have been able to read emails and messages that people have sent them. I would like to take this opportunity to share with you a message from a lady in Montreal who works for Canada Post. I have to say that I was also able to discuss Bill C-6 yesterday and to express my views on the matter. After introducing herself, she writes that she has been a Canada Post employee for about 30 years and wants to thank us for the support that we have been giving them in the House as we debate Bill C-6. She explains that this is her last contract and that she will be retiring soon. She indicates that our comments have been very accurate and precise; she tells us to keep up the good work, and then she thanks me. 
I would like to use this email to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that this lady, who has devoted 30 years of her life to delivering mail to our fellow Canadians, will soon be able to retire knowing how much her retirement pension will be. That will not be the case with new Canada Post employees if the bill before us is eventually passed and imposed on them by an arbitrator. Its clauses contain a significant disparity in treatment. New Canada Post employees will have to work five years longer before they can retire. And since they are in danger of having a defined contribution plan, not only will they know that they will have to retire later, when they are older, but they will also not know exactly how much money they will receive when they do retire. 
This is an extremely important aspect of the current debate. I am pleased that the hon. member for Gatineau raised the question a few minutes ago. It really does create a two-tier system. It creates a conflict between generations, where some employees have certain rights and enjoy certain working conditions while new employees, the younger ones, have inferior working conditions.
I have been talking about the pension plan, but it is equally true for wages. New employees will start at a salary that is 18% lower than Canada Post workers currently get. This is completely unacceptable. The NDP is going to fight day and night, as we are doing now, because we do not accept these iniquities and inequities. It is not true that young workers will be paying for the poor decisions of the Conservative government.
Why is it unfair and inequitable to have a two-tier system within the same corporation? Because we do not have a two-tier system when it comes to rent, mortgages, cars or groceries. These things cost just as much for young workers, who are often in a situation in which they wish to buy a house, start their lives and start a family. They thought they had found a good job, but they are going to be left with inferior working conditions, and that is not fair. 
Before the session began, I had the opportunity to meet the president of Force Jeunesse in Montreal. For those who do not know, Force Jeunesse is an umbrella organization for several youth organizations, including junior chambers of commerce, junior unions, community groups and student groups. One of their key concerns for the upcoming year is in fact orphan clauses.
He told me that young people are afraid. They see what is happening with Canada Post, what this Conservative government is going to allow, and they are wondering if this is what young people have to look forward to in the coming years. Are young people entering the work force going to be systematically held down? Is that the Conservative government's vision for the future? Is that the kind of society we want? 
We in the NDP say no. We must allow these young people to enter the work force, to have good working conditions, to qualify for a mortgage in order to buy a house and face the future with confidence, because they know they have good working conditions and insurance coverage, and a good pension plan for when they need it after giving 25, 30 or 35 years to a company or to the public service.
In this debate, it is also important to remember that attacks on unionized workers are attacks on the middle class.
I want to go back a little bit. We can easily argue that the middle class is a creation of the union movement.
When industrialization began in England first and then in other western countries, continental Europe mainly, peasants left the countryside in droves and moved to the city. There were large factories producing the first manufactured products under extremely difficult working conditions: six or seven days of work a week, 10, 12, 14 hours of work a day, child workers, completely appalling health and safety conditions, pitiful wages. All these people could hope for was to survive and that their children would live in the same terrible conditions.
What happened over the course of decades and centuries? These workers got organized. They created trade associations, trade guilds. They fought to make gains and change their working and living conditions. Then as these fights were fought by women's groups, community groups and especially unions that changed the work organization and signed collective agreements, workers obtained salary increases and created things that did not exist before: health and safety committees, paid leave, sick leave, the fact that a child must not work in a mine or a factory. All of this meant that the average quality of life and working conditions improved.
When we look at what constitutes the middle class these days, we see that much of the middle class is made up of small-business owners, entrepreneurs, restaurant owners, convenience store owners, florists, hair stylists, and so on. They form a good portion of the middle class, but another big part of the middle class is made up of unionized workers with good working conditions. People who work in mines have good working conditions. It is a tough job, but they have good working conditions, because they are unionized. People who were lucky enough to work in forestry in the past—there are fewer and fewer unionized workers in that industry—and in the oil industry were unionized.
Everyone who works in the public service, the teachers who teach our children, are also unionized workers. Nurses in hospitals are also unionized. When the Conservative government attacks unions, the fundamental right to associate and collective bargaining rights, it is attacking all of these workers.
An attack against the union movement is an attack against the middle class. We are here to defend families, workers and the middle class. That is important to us. That is our priority and we will not abandon it.
For the past two days, government members have been asking us why we do not want to get the mail running, why we want to prevent SMEs from doing business. They have been asking us why we refuse to get the economy rolling and let things get back to normal.
As far as I know, not one NDP member wanted a lockout at Canada Post. The lockout was imposed by the employer and the Conservative government is doing absolutely nothing to get the postal service running again. It has an obligation. It cannot say it has no role to play in this. That is impossible. Canada Post is a crown corporation; it is a public corporation. Ultimately, the government is responsible for it.
If the government truly cares about charitable organizations or entrepreneurs who need to send invoices and other things by mail, they should immediately put an end to the lockout. That could be done by making a phone call. What is even worse is that the wages that are not being paid to the 48,000 Canada Post workers will increase Canada Post's profits and, as a result, the CEO of Canada Post will receive a larger bonus.
Canada Post's union has been completely blocked in the bargaining process. It is so biased that the crown corporation does not need to bargain because it knows that special legislation could force employees to return to work. What is more, it is the one that locked the employees out. There is no free bargaining. This system puts workers and their families at a complete disadvantage. We are calling on the government to take responsibility and to put an end to the lockout as quickly as possible.
Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP have been very effective over the past two days in what appears to be a sit-in to stall the real conversation, which from my understanding is proposing amendments.
Rather than continuing this filibuster, can we not move to the committee of the whole? Could the member opposite please advise the House as to when his leadership is planning to allow us to go the committee of the whole? It does not matter whether that be the leadership of the NDP or the leadership of CUPW, we need to start getting to business. 
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments to that.
[Interjection]
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I see that he has taken over for the member from Bourassa, who is no longer here to ask the same question he has been asking all night about this.
What is important to the NDP is that we will sit in committee of the whole and everything will happen when it happens. Our first message is that it is clear what side we are on and that we are defending the workers. Second, we are calling on the Conservative government to step up and put an end to the lockout as quickly as possible, so that everything can be resolved. 
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting watching this debate, because some of my Conservative colleagues have not been given a clear message of how this has happened. They seem to believe that the NDP have stopped the mail. 
The mail was stopped by the lockout. When the legislation was brought in Thursday night, even if we had rolled over, as our colleagues next door might have done, the mail would not have rolled on Friday. So not a single piece of mail has been stopped because of the New Democratic Party.
Mail does not begin till Monday. That is 48 hours. We can certainly talk for the next 48 hours, until the mail starts to roll, and we are more than willing to do that. However, it would seem to be incumbent upon the members of this House within this 48-hour period that we have till Monday morning to find a solution. 
I would like to ask my honourable colleague, if the government ends the lockout and takes the wage rollback out of the back-to-work legislation, would it not be possible for us to end this? I know some of my Conservative colleagues are worried about getting to barbecue season. This could be done by Monday morning and the mail will roll and nobody will ever be able to say that the New Democratic Party stopped one piece of mail from coming to people's doors.
[Interjection]
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very relevant and very pertinent comments.
Indeed, in this particular situation, mail delivery could be restored very quickly. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has already demonstrated its willingness to get back to work as soon as possible and to resume free and open negotiations without this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. That is what Bill C-6 represents, since it imposes a contract that is completely unacceptable given that Canada Post, with the Conservative government's support, now wants to offer wage increases that are lower than what it was previously willing to give.
For the workers, it is unthinkable that a corporation that made $281 million in profits in 2009 can no longer offer them what it was previously willing to give its workers. The difference translates into $754 for each worker for the next four years.
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the same thing: I hear the NDP suggest they represent workers. I mentioned to the last speaker how in my riding in northern Alberta I had more union members than anybody else in the House, more union members than anybody else in the country per capita, for certain. To my right is the Conservative member for Edmonton—Leduc, and he is probably one of the top ten as far as union members and workers in the country.
 I do not understand. Maybe it is because the NDP actually came in second in my riding in the last election. That is right, they did come in second, with 13%. What a mandate from the workers of Canada, at 13%. I have workers from all over the country, and I am wondering if the member could tell me why I get 72% of the popular vote in northern Alberta, where there really is a middle class and there really are workers from all over the country representing all unions. I had a strong mandate from the people, as did the member for Edmonton—Leduc and as did most Albertans who represent most of the workers who travel across the country.
[Interjection]
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased by the comments made by my hon. colleague, who just proved me right by making the connection between the middle class in his riding and the fact that a large proportion of the workers are unionized. I encourage him to maintain this rate of unionization by creating legislation that favours unions and even, if possible, to increase the rate.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome. 
It is with some pleasure I enter the debate here on Bill C-6. As a disclosure, I have been up for about 25 hours now, so that is a small caveat to forgive me for any of the potential mistakes I make. I usually do not forgive myself before I start.
 The dispute we have in front of us is about far more than just one simple piece of legislation, as draconian as it is. It is about far more than one labour dispute that we have here with Canada Post and its management. 
What we have before us is a government that is attempting to set out what might be called labour policy, but it might be better described as management policy for the country. Its implications go far beyond the 45,000 CUPW members who are going to be beholden to any legislation that is drawn here. It goes far beyond that to other public sector and public service employees. 
This is a strange government. Every once in a while when they get into some sort of trouble or scandal they are quick to throw a public service member under the bus and say the bureaucrats made them do it, as we saw recently in the Muskoka affair, and at other times when they are looking to hold up the public sector they laud them for their proud work. 
We have also seen a slight evolution from the government in the speaking notes over this past 24 or 30 hours. The labour minister started off the discussion by saying that it was the 45,000 postal workers against the 33 million Canadians. They were not in the same basket somehow. Then we saw the evolution of that to many Conservatives now standing up and showing very high regard for the postal workers in their riding and the good work that they do. That is good to see, because trying to characterize a group of Canadians as outside of Canada somehow because they are having a labour dispute is a troubling trend, and should be a troubling trend, for all of us. That is not the way to characterize any Canadian who is having any dispute in a democratic and fair way with any level of government or management. So it is nice to see Conservatives acknowledging that these are people, these are families that live in their constituencies as well as ours, and they deserve a fair break, as do all Canadians. We all seek fairness for this. I hope there is some common ground in this.
We have also seen an evolution that the labour minister three times in her speech mischaracterized this and I think misled the House in fact by calling it a strike. We now see the talking notes have shifted and the Conservatives are now getting up and calling it what it is, which is a lockout. It is correct to call it what it is, because to mischaracterize it any other way is to try to reframe the debate from the truth into a lie. We need to talk about what has happened here and how we got to this point, because if we do not know how we got here, how, for goodness sake, is this government ever going to hope to find its way out of the predicament it finds itself in now? 
I say that this is about much more than one dispute simply because the government has chosen to take this particular approach in this particular case. I would suggest it is a bit of a trial balloon to test it out to see what happens in Parliament, to see what happens in public debate and discussion around the notion that an employer can be in the middle of a negotiation with a group of employees, see some job action from those employees--all legal--and then lock those employees out and have the government impose a contract on the locked-out employees, thereby rewarding the employer for having done the lockout in the first place. 
I do not know if this is good labour law. It is certainly not good for peace in the land, because we must take account of how we developed labour law in this country in the first place. It was developed after many generations and many years of people striving to be able to legally gather, collect together and raise their voices in a unified way, after trying to find other ways to raise their voices and sometimes clashing with the law itself. It was in fact governments and business that eventually called for some sort of certainty in the process to settle disputes. It was not the union movement that called for this first. If you go through your industrial relations history, and I encourage many of my colleagues to do so, it was the companies that realized that it was bad for productivity and it was bad for business to have these very often strong and sometimes violent strikes. Instead, they wanted to have a legal mechanism codified in the law and protected by Parliament and the courts to allow the employer to sit down in a predictable way with their employees and negotiate fair terms.
That can be a difficult process. We all have to make concessions. Anybody in this place who has ever been involved in any kind of negotiation, mediation, or collective bargaining knows that there has to be some give and take, and that can be difficult.
Canada Post is protesting that its ship has fallen on hard times, that there is not enough money, and yet it shovels bonuses out the door to its executives and its 20 vice-presidents that it has stacked up over the years. The argument of a $220-million bonus package does not make any sense when you turn around and claim poverty and say that the postal service is in trouble. Meanwhile, the volume of parcels has been going through the roof, and the economy is changing.
The point we are making is that beyond this particular lockout, beyond this particular moment, the government must reconcile itself with the fact that causing more uncertainty in the labour market and more uncertainty in Canada's economy lowers productivity, lowers our competitiveness, and lowers our ability to compete with the world.
It seems to me that the government has given absolutely no incentive to future employers to bargain in what is called good faith. There's no incentive at all. If we allow the pattern that is happening here to take place, which New Democrats will not allow, the next employer in line about to negotiate with its employees will ignore the bargaining table because that is not where the deal has to be made. That employer will simply lobby the cabinet of the day to make sure the next Bill C-6, the next force-them-back-to-work bill, is there. That employer can lock out its employees, claim hardship, dictate the terms of the negotiation and force its employees back to work. Forget all we have learned through more than a hundred years of labour disputes. Forget those hard lessons that you pick up over time to realize that give and take is what we want. 
A bunch of employees who go back to the workplace upset, feeling that they were absolutely murdered by the system in the process, is not a workforce that you want to manage. Anybody with any intelligence or experience in management knows that a motivated workforce is absolutely the best thing you can have. It is the best investment, the best asset, the best resource.
Here we have a government sending signals to management and to other groups across the country that they do not need to go to the bargaining table and organize and bargain in good faith. All they need to do is simply rely on the government to have back-to-work legislation at hand.
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to raise this point of order until my colleague across the way was done speaking, but he continues to harp back on it. My point of order is in relation to the member's comment that the Minister of Labour misled the House in saying this dispute had anything to do with a strike. The member opposite keeps going on about how we are here because of a lockout. 
It is quite clear that the Minister of Labour did not mislead the House. It is quite clear that the Minister of Labour was simply pointing out that the union bosses, who my colleague across the way supports, initiated a rotating strike, which led the postal service to lock out members. Both the strike and the lockout brought us to the point we are at today.
I would like the member to withdraw his accusation that the labour minister misled the House. It is a totally inappropriate and unparliamentary thing to say. A lockout, in any event, is just as legitimate a negotiating tactic as the strike was, and they are both involved in this dispute.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think you will find that what is happening here is a point of debate in an attempt to participate in the debate. There is certainly time to debate. If those members want to have speaking spots to debate, they can have as many 10-minute spots as they would like, but it is unfair to interrupt our colleague's speech.
 If the hon. member wants a speaking spot, he can take a 10-minute speaking spot, but this is not a point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I appreciate the interventions by the members. 
The convention around the notion of misleading the House has essentially been that if a member is saying that someone is deliberately or with intent misleading, then that begins to get very close to unparliamentary language. In this particular case, if it is constructed in a way that the effect of what the member has said seems to mislead, then that does not exactly point to being unparliamentary language.
 We will decide that we have resolved that matter, and we will go back to the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your ruling.
On the point my friend has raised, I recall the speech from the Minister of Labour where three times she said what we are in right now is a strike. I do not know how the member interprets telling the truth from not telling the truth, but if what we are in is a lockout, which is completely different from a strike, it is simply for him to determine what the Minister of Labour was trying to accomplish by saying what she said. She characterized this as something that it is not. She then later admitted that it was not strike but in fact a lockout. 
The Conservatives can argue all sorts of points that they would like, but the point they cannot argue is the fact that the mail is not moving right now because the doors are locked at Canada Post. There is no other reason. 
We have had public declarations from the organized members of that union who were saying they have binding agreements and they are ready to go back to work and move that mail, but the lockout must end. They cannot move mail that is behind locked doors. That is the fact. 
We are simply trying to encourage this government in every forceful way we can to allow the parties to negotiate. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada said is their right to do.
If the government cannot see its way to doing that, it is its choice, but it cannot turn back on New Democrats and say that somehow we created the problem. In fact, it was the government's piece of legislation and its tactic that has led us to this moment. It should take ownership for what it is doing.
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, to further underscore some of the points I made in my first intervention, I will continue along that vein.
The NDP members are not representing the views of ordinary Canadian men and women. They are not representing the views of Canadians workers. They are representing the views of the very narrow interests of the union bosses at CUPW. They are not even representing the views of postal workers. 
To illustrate my point I will read excerpts from three emails we have received from postal workers. 
The first one says: “I am a postal worker and we didn't get the right to vote on the final offer. Why? The union knew we would have accepted the offer. We are being held hostage by the union”.
The second says: “I'm a postal clerk, and our union has not allowed us to vote on any revised offers that Canada Post Corporation has made. Most of us think the revised final offer is fair and we wanted to vote but we were not allowed to by the union”.
The third one says: “I'm also a postal worker and no one in our station voted in favour of striking in the first place. We were very happy with the offer management presented”. 
All I am trying to illustrate here, which I think most Canadians know intuitively, is that the NDP is representing the very narrow views of CUPW and the union bosses and not ordinary working men and women across Canada.
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the question from my friend, who I have some respect for.
It seems ironic coming from a government that interprets a 39.6% vote from Canadians as a full endorsement of all the things the Conservatives want to do, but the 94% strike mandate from the 45,000 CUPW members, some of whom he just quoted, is somehow not an endorsement of the leadership, who were elected into their positions of the union, and what they are seeking to do.
 The government thinks that the only way to solve this is to bring in the sledge hammer of forcing these folks back to work. This is how the government's view of democracy works. Perverse is one way to describe it.
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, during the debate we have heard how successful Canada Post is. In fact, it has been incredibly profitable over the last 15 years. It has invested these profits back into the Canadian public treasury. Canadians get a very good bargain for their postal service, having one of the lowest postal rates in the industrialized world. 
Since Canada Post is clearly such a success story, my question to the hon. member is: Why does he think Canada Post, with the support of the government, is wanting to roll back the clock on the wages and working conditions of postal workers?
Nathan Cullen: I thank my colleague from Toronto for the question.
It is ironic. I suppose Canada Post and its workers feel some small graciousness from this Parliament as there have been so many who have applauded their work and proficiency. That is known throughout the world because other postal services come here to study the efficiency and the modern advancements this network has made.
If one talks to good CEOs or good managers who are running a good company and asks what the secret to their success is, the smart ones and the good ones will say it is the people. It is the intelligence and hard work of the people who come in every day to work and make this company successful. To turn around and expect that after this kind of action they are going to get the same productivity and zest and all the energy that Canada Post workers put in every day, this government is absolutely undermining the very stature Canada Post has achieved over many hard working years. Members should know that the unions and the workers have made many concessions in the last four or five rounds of bargaining on wages and pensions. However, there has to be a line somewhere, where one says enough is enough; there should be fair treatment, fair wages and fair pensions for the generation coming. That is exactly what this dispute is going to settle. 
Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is pretty much the end of the night shift, and we will all be glad of that. Certainly I will be, that is for sure, but I hope I am able to make as coherent an intervention as my colleague just did.
I want to talk about three things over the ten minutes I have. Hopefully I can do that. I will talk a bit about democracy, as it relates to Bill C-6. I want to talk about the next generation. And if I get to it, and hopefully I will, I want to talk a little bit about postal worker wages and pensions and corporate profits and the salaries of CEOs.
I will start by telling all members of the House how thrilled I am to be here, how thrilled I am to be part of this caucus, part of the official opposition and able to participate in such an important debate, in such an important attack on workers' rights. I am so grateful to the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who supported me in the recent election and sent me here and gave me, frankly, this wonderful opportunity to work and to speak at some length on an issue that is so important.
I have a bit of experience in parliamentary procedure and in the legislature. I was in the Nova Scotia Legislature for 12 years. I was there as a member of a two-person caucus, of a three-person caucus and of the official opposition, and here we are as the official opposition, but I want members to understand how I have approached each and every single day as an elected official. I approached it with the sense of responsibility to speak up on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of those people who too often go without a voice in places like this.
Again, whether it was in a two-person caucus or whether it was in the official opposition, I took every single opportunity I had to make sure I raised any concerns I had or any concerns my constituents might have had or any concerns I had about people being affected by the actions of any particular government. 
I did not worry, and I still do not worry, that I am somehow inconveniencing the government, that I am somehow inconveniencing any other party within the chamber I am in at any given time, because I have a responsibility as an elected official, in this case as an MP, to be as articulate as I possibly can be, to work hard to point out the flaws, the weaknesses and the things that can be done to make a piece of legislation better. That is why I was elected. I take that very seriously, and I thank the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for giving me this opportunity.
Also, I want it to be known that I come here with not only the experience I gained but also the experience of having been raised by a man and woman who were big Conservatives. I should say that out front because somebody from Nova Scotia is going to tell us. I grew up in a big Conservative family, but the most important thing about these people, I want it to be known, is that they were small business people. 
My dad was a World War II ace. He fought in North Africa. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross and Bar. My mum worked in the insurance business. She was also active in meals on wheels before she died and, in fact, provided hospice services for the first self-identified AIDS patient in Nova Scotia.
I am very proud of my parents and what they did and the values they left with me. The values they left with me are about fairness, about justice, about speaking up when we see things are wrong, about making sure we do not take no for an answer, that we stand up against tyranny and injustice.
My father did that in the war and that is what many of our veterans did, those who came back from and those who died in the second world war. That is why it is very important that I take every opportunity in this place when I see a piece of legislation come to the floor that has the kinds of implications as this one does on working people in this country. I commit to members opposite and the third party that I will do that with every breath in my body.
The second thing I want to talk about is the next generation. My daughter Jessie is 23 years of age. Hopefully she will be out of university some day and will be looking for a job, other than the one she has as a lifeguard, which does not pay very well. She will be out in the workforce, as are many other young people today, and I feel I have a responsibility to ensure that she can find jobs that pay a decent wage, that have good benefits and a pension, that she can work in a safe and healthy workplace and not suffer from discrimination or other human rights violations in the workplace. That is the responsibility I have.
With my history as a trade unionist, I know why we have public pensions, employment insurance, universal medicare and why we have all the rights and benefits we do. It is because of my father and mother, and the pioneers in the trade union movement, in the small business community, in legislatures and in this country. It is because of what they have been able to do to ensure that people in the workplace are able to enjoy those kinds of benefits.
While I have had the opportunity to enjoy the hard work they have done, my responsibility is to ensure that I protect the benefits and working conditions that they were able to fight for to ensure people are safe and healthy. My responsibility is to make them better and stronger and to ensure that my daughter and her generation are able to work and contribute to their families and communities. That is my responsibility and, I would suggest, the responsibility of every member of the House.
There have been some suggestions and comments by members opposite that the people who work for Canada Post have it good, that they make all kinds of money, have a pension and they should be happy and go away. I will share some numbers with members. An entry-level CUPW worker makes about $23 an hour. An average pension enjoyed by a CUPW worker, who has worked his or her entire life with Canada Post and contributed actively to his or her pension plan, is about $24,000 a year.
Let us compare that with some of the CEOs of Canada's big banks who have realized salary increases of well over 10% in 2009. The Bank of Nova Scotia's CEO makes $7.45 million, the president of the Bank of Montreal made $9.7 million in 2009, the CEO of TD Bank made $15.2 million, the CEO of the Royal Bank made $12.1 million and the CEO of CIBC made $6.2 million. The oil companies made $16 billion in profits last year and yet they are receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks.
My point is simple. Why is it that the government wants to hand over billions of dollars to profitable corporations at the same time as it wants to put the boots to hard-working women and men who toil at Canada Post? 
Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am assuming the member's constituents probably knew his father who was a small businessperson who worked really hard. I wonder if they actually thought that he would represent small business in this chamber when he came to Ottawa and not represent the union bosses. I want to know what the member's dad would say now.
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague mentioning my dad. He has been dead about five years now. He was a Conservative all of his life but, ever since I got into politics in 1991, I know he supported me and the New Democratic Party because he understood what fairness and working for ordinary people was all about. My constituents also understand because I have a history of 12 years in the provincial legislature and 25 years in the trade union movement, which I did not hide. I spoke proudly of that to my constituents. They know all about the person they voted for and I appreciate their support.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague to the House of Commons.
I would like to get his comments on the following. As I observe what is going on today, it appears to me that the lockout is a symptom. It is a symptom of this disease that I see has permeated Canada Post and other organizations. I say that because I have talked with workers with Canada Post and the two unions that represent Canada Post. It appears that since their former CEO came into power, who has now been unleashed to destroy the system in the United Kingdom I understand, that labour relations have deteriorated in Canada Post. We had a period of time that it was okay.
Could this not be a golden opportunity for the government to work with Canada Post and the union to iron out some of those difficulties, to get a just contract and lay the groundwork for future good labour relations not only for Canada Post but for other crown corporations and government departments? 
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this is an opportunity. The union has made a clear commitment to the government and to Canada Post that if the government were to pull this legislation back and tell Canada Post to rip those padlocks off the doors, they would go back to work and deliver the mail and then work toward rebuilding labour relations that, frankly, have been damaged already by this situation.
I want to go back to the point made about the troubling sign about this attack on public services and the public sector. It confuses me to some considerable degree that a government that says it is so focused on the economy would want to get rid of all the middle-class jobs, secure pensions and benefits for people who are spending their money in our communities and making our economy strong. I do not understand what that is all about.
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have heard the statement by the member opposite and I must say that I am quite concerned. This Conservative government is committed to passing Bill C-6, the restoring mail delivery for Canadians act to ensure that mail delivery resumes.
I have heard from many of my constituents, including workers from Canada Post, who are outraged that the opposition continues to stop passage of this very important piece of legislation. By stalling passage of this bill, the opposition is saying no to seniors who are asking for their pension cheques, no to parents asking for their child tax credit benefits, no to disabled Canadians asking for their disability cheques, and no to small businesses who want to pay their bills and mail cheques to employees.
I stand in this House today listening to the member opposite who spoke about fairness in his speech. Will my NDP colleague join the members on this side of the House by passing this bill quickly and saying yes to the many Canadians who are pleading for mail service to continue.
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me at least the same amount of time that the question took.
What I am hearing from my constituents is a concern that this attack at this point on postal workers is just the beginning, and that that whole list of groups that the member indicated may be next. People who represent the disabled community are concerned that the disabled community will be next, that their rights will be next.
 People are worried that it will be other groups in the community, such as women, foreign sector workers or any number of groups that the government does not like and that their rights will then be attacked by the government.
Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this labour dispute, and I have heard it called various things, is something with which I have some familiarity as I was a union leader for many years. One of the things taught to me was that we never ever start something we cannot finish. We do not let workers go out unless we know how to get them back. 
Canada Post apparently knew how to get them back. It locked them out because it knew full well that it had allies on the other side of the House who would legislate them back to work immediately. Mere hours after the labour dispute, the lockout, got started, the minister notified this august body that she would be legislating them back to work, and that is unfair.
We in Canada have developed a labour relations system that is the envy of the world, because we have predictable, regular, understandable timeframes for labour disputes. In other parts of the world, the labour disputes can start whenever the union wants them to start, but here in Canada, we know there is a clock. When that clock comes around, we know it is when we are collectively bargaining that we are in a legal labour dispute position, and we in Canada have set up mechanisms that force the parties to talk to one another, that force the parties to sit down and negotiate. That is not happening here. Why is it not happening here? Because some signals apparently were sent from the other side of this legislature to the mandarins at Canada Post that they did not have to worry about a labour dispute, because they would find legislation in their favour as soon as a labour dispute got going in earnest, as soon as they locked people out.
We need to figure out how to resolve it ourselves. That is why we are having this conversation, because the parties are unable to do it. The parties are unable to do it, because one side knows full well it does not have to do so. It does not have to have that conversation, because that conversation will be shortened by the government.
The other side in this dispute, the company side, does not have to actually bargain in good faith. It does not have to sit down and actually talk about what it needs and what the employees need and see if it can find a way to make those needs meet. All it has to do is sit with its hands crossed and say no, and here we are. 
We have a number of examples in Canada of protracted labour disputes. I do not think there has ever been a protracted labour dispute at Canada Post, but I have been involved in some. I had a 17-month strike at one of my employers over pay equity, over women being paid the same as men. Women were being paid $8.99 each hour for their work, and they had to go on strike for 17 months. In that case, really nobody won.
I have been involved in a four-month strike. It was a Crown corporation, and it took that long for the employer to get its instructions from the government about what it was supposed to do. I have been involved in a two-week lockout that the employer kept calling a strike, publicly. Eventually the Canada Industrial Relations Board had to rule that in fact it was a lockout, that the thing the employer was calling a strike was a lockout because it had locked the doors.
How do we get out of this? One way to get out of it is to let the labour dispute take place and wait for one side or the other to say that enough is enough and we have to settle this thing. Let us get to the table and talk about it. That will not happen here, quite clearly, since Canada Post has been told it does not have to actually sit down and bargain.
Another way we could do it is with a declaration. There are two kinds of declarations, one in the Public Service Staff Relations Act and one in the Canada Industrial Relations Board, that this is an essential service, that this service is something that cannot have a strike or lockout. 
That seems to be what the current government is arguing, that there cannot be a postal disruption in Canada, even for a day. It was on the day the lockout started that the government announced Canada Post workers would be legislated back to work. 
The definition of an “essential service” in the Canada Labour Code is that the employer or the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must, 
 continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. 
Since the members opposite have not argued this, I guess this is not an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. It is an inconvenience, and it means Canada Post is losing money. We agree that it certainly causes some very serious consequences not for everybody but for certain individuals, for pensioners and people in receipt of other government cheques. The postal workers' union has agreed to deliver those things. They will deliver the things they deem essential and that people in this House seem to agree are essential. 
Somebody locked the doors. It was not the NDP and it was not the postal workers. It was the government and its Crown corporation that decided to lock the doors and prevent the delivery of what might be argued is essential stuff, though it has not yet been. We have agreed that it is stuff that it is pretty darned important to have delivered to people. Pension cheques, social security, and family allowances are the kinds of things that need to be delivered. We argue that they should be delivered, and Canada Post workers are willing to deliver them, but the government is preventing them from doing so. 
There appears to be no way to stop this from dragging on, so what is another option? The only option that has been presented to us is the sledgehammer option in which, mere hours after a labour dispute starts, the government indicates it will not let that happen and forces workers back to work with less than was offered before. The government will force workers back to work with a bad faith position. 
I say “bad faith position” because in my many years of bargaining if any employer brought an offer to the table and then reduced it for no good reason, not because there had been a sudden change in the economic conditions of the employer or there was legislation, in order to provoke the other side, that was considered to be bad-faith bargaining. That is not what the NDP is about here. We are about good faith. We are about fairness and we are about trying to get things done. We are about trying to get people back to work. That is really what we want to do. 
The sledgehammer approach was brought about after the Minister of Labour claimed to have used everything in her power to bring these parties to an agreement. She talked at length about the number of months they had met. Of course if one side is just sitting there with their arms folded, the meeting does not really mean anything. The minister talked at length about the number of months that were involved in conciliation. 
She did not appoint a conciliation commissioner. The difference, for those who do not know labour relations parlance in this country, is that a conciliation officer meets in private with the parties and never publishes a report, except to the Minister of Labour. The minister gets to know, but the conciliation officer's deliberations and decisions and ideas and proposals are all private. 
However, a conciliation commissioner is public and that person actually reports to the public on what he or she thinks the outcome should be on a resolution to the dispute. That was not allowed to happen here. That was not allowed to take place, so we are faced with a situation that just got worse. 
With regard to one other small piece, one of the members opposite keeps referring to the fact that they should let them vote. In fact, that is another thing the minister did not do. She has the power to force a vote, and she did not exercise it. I suspect we all know why.
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I take a bit of issue with the member's comment about this not being a serious and essential need for Canadians. This is a serious and essential need for Canadians. Canadians need their mail delivered and mail delivery must be restored.
Small businesses in this country make up 1.5 million of the 10.6 million people who are employed. Therefore, I would like to ask the member why he and the NDP will not stop their filibuster and allow mail delivery to be restored so those small businesses that rely so much on cheques coming through the mail to employ people do not have to start laying people off because they cannot meet their expenses.
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: We absolutely agree that this should end and do so in a way that is fair to everybody. However, it is not this piece of legislation that is fair. The Canada Post workers have offered to go back to work if Canada Post will just cut the locks off the doors and let them go back.
The member opposite suggested that I was not agreeing that this was essential. I did not say that. I said the government and Canada Post have the opportunity to declare this an essential service. If they do that and they believe that an immediate and serious danger to the safety or the health of the public is at risk, then they can declare it an essential service and the Canada Industrial Relations Board will decide how to arbitrate a collective agreement in a fair and impartial way. The Canada Industrial Relations Board will not actually legislate one side or the other to win.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, just with respect to the issue of essential services and what individual Canadians require, a lack of mail delivery in this country means that people who live in the far North or remote areas are not receiving prescriptions or eyeglasses, things that are essential for them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Indeed I think the member has pointed out part of the debate we are engaged in.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for you as a Speaker and I think you are doing an excellent job showing some of these new MPs the differences among the various rules in the House of Commons so I want to commend you for your excellent role this morning.
I listened to my hon. colleague's speech with great interest, because during the election I was standing outside the Tim Hortons in South Porcupine, Ontario and a young guy came up to me and he said, “Charlie, if this government gets a majority how long do you think it will be before we see Wisconsin north?”
I said, “Well, you know exactly what will happen if they get a majority”.
If members look at what happened in Wisconsin, it is very similar to the situation here. It was an attack on public-sector workers. It was an attempt to demonize them using the terms “union thugs” and “union bosses”. It was an attack on their pensions. That was the thin edge of the sword. We see now the attack on CUPW, the attack on the pensions, the two-tiered system.
I am getting emails from firefighters, from nurses and from people who work in the public sector all across Canada, who ask why it is that the government would try to impose a wage settlement that would undermine what had already been agreed to. Does the member not think this is an attempt by the government to bring forward the same kind of retrograde actions against workers that happened in Wisconsin?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I agree that this action by the government is just the beginning of what will likely be a Wisconsin-like attack on workers in this country. It will not be just on public-sector workers, but that is where they can start. That attack will demonize anything to do with unions. It will demonize anybody who has a good pension, good wages or a good collective agreement or, even without collective agreements, anyone the government believes is getting too much while the bosses the government represents, the CEOs, are getting too little.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of people debating on both sides of the House, and it really gives me the impression that what is going on here goes beyond the current debate and even goes beyond the dispute between Canada Post and its employees. 
If you look at the record of proceedings of the House, at Hansard, you can see that the members on the other side of the House in particular attack the very notion of unionization and the very concept of the labour relations process. When you hear talk of union bosses trying to rule everything and everyone, I believe that perception is out there. From their perspective, the unions are obviously an easy target. These are people who fight, who stand up for their rights, and it is apparent that the people on the other side of the House ultimately want people who are docile, who are able to comply with their employers' wishes and who want to comply with the wishes of people making the economic decisions in times like this.
The Conservatives rely on that perception in order to divide Canadians. What they are doing in their arguments is very clear and obvious: they are trying to pit Canadians against each other, to polarize. As I said in my speech yesterday, this government is the most polarizing government in Canadian history.
I believe we have to remind the House of some basic concepts here. It must be understood what a union is. In my view, the people from the Conservative Party do not understand what a union is. A union is an organization of ordinary people, the people they claim to defend. These are ordinary people because, in our economy, there are people with economic power, employers, and there are people who individually have no bargaining power to oppose that economic power.
It should be borne in mind that a business executive has power; and I am not talking about small and medium-size enterprises that are often family businesses. I am talking, for example, about publicly listed companies. Those businesses have power. The representatives of a business are generally paid quite well by their business. In addition, if the business closes, they are entitled to compensation and, with their administrative skills, can easily find jobs elsewhere, at another business, so they can continue managing.
The situation is different for employees. They depend on their salary to survive, to feed themselves, to meet their basic, essential needs and perhaps splurge a little, and to have a comfortable standard of living. They need it. An employee who suddenly ends up out of work has very little with which to survive when EI runs out. Consequently, there is no balance of power in bargaining.
Knowing that, we must now determine why people unionize. People unionize in order to acquire some power to offset the economic power of a business. These are ordinary people, people like you and me. Currently, more than 30 or 35 percent of the Canadian population is unionized. These are ordinary people, unless we decide that they are not ordinary people. Not so long ago, even 40 percent of Canadians were unionized. They unionize in order to acquire this collective power against economic power, which is utterly normal. They also bargain for better conditions.
 For example, there is a lot of talk about wages. When there is no union or minimum labour standards, it is easy for an employer to favour certain employees over others. It is easy for an employer to tell one employee that he will have five weeks of vacation leave because he likes him, whereas another employee will get only two or three weeks of vacation because he likes him less.
 A collective agreement negotiated by ordinary people who join forces to bargain with an employer makes it possible to establish the basic ground rules to ensure that all is fair for everyone.
 Do they ultimately secure better conditions? Of course they get better conditions. The ordinary people I represent in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, like the ones my colleagues represent in their constituencies, secure better working conditions when they are unionized. Why? Because they have acquired this bargaining power.
 It seems the Conservative members consider ordinary people as people who refuse to work together, who refuse to acquire power and who will acquiesce much more readily to employer demands.
 Another question arises: why do they take labour action? In this case, it will be recalled that there was no general strike at Canada Post, but rather a series of rotating strikes. 
 Why that kind of labour action, or strikes in other cases? So they can exercise that power. If there is a bargaining exercise in which the employer refuses to bargain in good faith—there are examples in which Canada Post did not bargain in good faith—they must exercise that power. Ordinary people join forces to compel the employer to return to the table to bargain and to establish the ground rules. In this case, it is quite clear that Canada Post was not in good faith. It let the negotiations drag on so the government could introduce special legislation favouring it. I will get back to that point. Much has been made of that during this debate.
 Now I am concerned about what is going on here. I am concerned because this debate goes beyond the mere issue of Canada Post and the labour dispute. It is clear that, in its argument, the government, although it claims to be in favour of small business, ordinary people, seniors and retirees, promotes a downward levelling. If the power of unionization and the power of ordinary people to join forces to address an employer collectively are reduced, the conditions they secure will obviously not be as good and will be levelled downwards. Instead, the government should be helping ordinary people improve their lot.
 Based on the figures, whether it be those of Statistics Canada or of the research institutes, those commonly called think tanks, the middle class in Canada is gradually disappearing. It is the ordinary people who joined forces to form unions that created the middle class. Before unions came into existence, people who demanded rights were oppressed. There was a have class and a have not class, those who had financial resources and those who lived from one day to the next not knowing what would happen to them the following day. It was when the right to form unions was granted that the middle class emerged. Coincidentally, as attacks continue against unionization in Canada and attempts are made to eliminate bargaining power, we are witnessing the gradual disappearance of the middle class and the emergence of the same economic disparities as existed at the turn of the century.
 It is clear from the arguments of members opposite that, if the right to form unions did not exist or was not protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it would be threatened as it is in some states in the USA, including Wisconsin. In that state, unionization is clearly and specifically under attack in both the public and private sectors. 
 In their arguments, the Conservatives refer to the need to avoid jeopardizing the country’s current economic recovery. That argument can be advanced in virtually all unionization fields and labour disputes. The government said the Air Canada strike had to be terminated and a separate agreement was reached at that time. Today they say the Canada Post dispute has to end. What will it be tomorrow? VIA Rail, Bell, Bombardier?
 We have to stop talking about this dispute. We have put forward solutions. The government has chosen to promote a forced back-to-work solution with pre-established wage conditions favouring the employer, while restricting their arbitrator. As a result, management will be very pleased because the conditions will be in its favour. 
 And yet there were solutions. If the government really wants to use special legislation, with its majority of less than 40 percent of Canadians and less than 20 percent of Quebeckers, it has the power to do so. It could end the lockout and allow the rotating strikes to continue. Canadians would receive their mail. The government could also have introduced special legislation to extend the collective agreement until the bargaining process had been completed. People would have continued receiving their mail. There are options.
 I would have liked the government to be able to use those options rather than attack the fundamental principle of unionization. 
Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member said. The member used words like “concerned” and “worried”. Absolutely, everybody in the House is concerned and worried.
 We are getting correspondence, hourly, from constituents, as well as from people across the country, who are expressing concern and worry. They are worried about the economy. They are worried about small business. They are worried about our postal workers who are unable to work. They want to work. We have heard from postal workers who want to be back there.
I see it is still June 23, but it seems to me it was only a day before that when we debated an NDP motion that supported small business. What happened to the NDP's support, which it expressed so eloquently? Why is the NDP not now supporting small business?
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. 
We are always on the side of small businesses. I think it is obvious. We said so in our election platform as well as in the motion we moved, which was passed in the House. We are quite happy about that. 
 We are as concerned as the hon. member about small businesses, pensioners and also the ordinary people I represent in the riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
 I mentioned that at the end of my speech, and the hon. member heard it. I said that there are ways to get out of this predicament, and one of them is to withdraw this special legislation and bring in new legislation in order to extend the collective agreement until the end of the negotiations. 
 Mail would be distributed, union members would bargain, and everybody would be happy. Bill C-6 could be withdrawn, and we could have another bill to end the lockout and keep rotating strikes, which allow mail delivery.
 If the hon. member is really concerned about small businesses, the Conservatives have to withdraw this legislation and replace it with another bill that would be respectful of the rights of workers and make mail delivery possible.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment and question.
I have been sitting here, thinking about what the word “respect” means. On the Canada Post website, when it talks about the values it has as a corporation, it says that it succeeds by “working together” and that it treats each other with “respect”.
Could the member comment on what kind of respect there is for an organization or corporation that locks out its own employees? The crown corporation's website talks about the values of work and labour relations, yet it has gone to extraordinary lengths to lock out its own workers to prevent them from being at the bargaining table and to prevent the mail from being delivered.
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for her question. 
Obviously, if a labour relations process is to work well, it takes good relations and good faith on both sides.
In this negotiation, there has been a lack of significant good faith on the part of Canada Post, and that is what led to this conflict. Many government members have emphasized that Canada Post is really a corporation belonging to all Canadians who are represented by this Parliament, but when a crown corporation such as this locks out its employees in the hope of getting special back-to-work legislation, thus effectively putting the power of Parliament on its side, it shows a lack of respect.
This crown corporation should be able to bargain in good faith with its employees to resolve this conflict swiftly. This is not what is happening now. 
Various options existed, such as special legislation that would allow quick resumption of operations and would be respectful of employees. This is not what was introduced, and that is why we are still sitting today. 
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank you and your colleagues. I know that it is not easy to be here to preside over the debates. Sometimes you have to make rulings that are quite the opposite of what the hon. members want.
Thank you very much. You do extraordinary work and I just wanted to acknowledge that.
Before I continue, a thought came into my head as we were listening to the debates. I represent rural communities, as do many members here, and one of the problems we have is trying to attract young people to stay and work and raise their families in our communities because often we do not have good paying jobs. 
 I have looked at a contract with Canada Post where it says that people starting work would get less money than those with whom they are working side by side. My concern is that it would discourage people from trying to stay in rural communities. They would then try, for other reasons, to go to large urban centres.
The underlying theme that we sometimes forget when we talk about small business and trying to keep people in our communities is that people who make money stay and support small businesses in our communities. This is something I have discussed on a number of occasions with representatives of the chambers of commerce in my area. 
I want to put things into context. We are here today to defend the rights of Canadian workers. We know that on June 3, postal workers started a rotating strike. They were then locked out, as we have already gone over.
As we know, the union has been responsible. It offered to end the strike if Canada Post agreed to uphold the former contract during the negotiations. However, Canada Post refused. Then there was this lockout and support from this government through the introduction of this bill. That is the context.
We are wondering why this government wants to impose a labour contract on the employees. One might say it is not the government's role to do so and that an effort should be made to find solutions by negotiating the conditions of the contract.
Some people have already made the link between what is happening here in Canada and the anti-labour movement in the United States known as the Tea Party. The most draconian example comes out of the State of Wisconsin, a state I am familiar with. Governor Scott Walker abolished the bargaining rights of more than 175,000 public sector employees. The same goes for the right to job security, gender equality and so on.
What is their motive? Clearly this is an issue of maximizing profits for companies on the backs of workers. That is the issue in the bill before us. The employer claims it cannot meet the demands of the employees.
I always try to underscore certain things when I rise to speak. Canada Post earned revenues to the tune of $281 million last year. The funny thing is that I learned from people I talked to at Canada Post that some of those profits apparently go to the federal government. Instead of using this revenue to improve activities, performance and efficiency and to arrive at a fair agreement, some of the money goes to the federal government.
Personally, I think this is akin to stealing money from the workers and from Canada Post. It is like the $50 billion stolen from the employment insurance fund. Today, less than 40% of the unemployed are eligible to receive employment insurance benefits.
We can put this into another context. I have been showing a film in my riding called Poor No More, with Mary Moore from CBC. Many of you have seen it. It outlines what has been happening in our country and in some other countries. Interestingly I shared the film with the executive director at the chamber of commerce in my riding, and at the next meeting--I think it is my turn to buy lunch--I would like to discuss it with her.
We have poverty in this country. We have an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. We have an agenda that is driven by the Council of Chief Executives. 
In the film they point out that 150 of the biggest corporations in Canada are driving the agenda. For those who have not seen the film, there is a worker at the LCBO in Ontario, a casual worker, who has been there for 11 years. She has no benefits and no pension, and when she was suffering she had to take her cancer treatments on her lunch breaks.
I talked about the labour climate when I asked a question to my colleague for Welland yesterday. From his experience as a union leader, I asked who sets the tone. Why do we sometimes have labour disputes that end quickly where there is good morale in the workplace, and other times they drag on and deteriorate, as they have done in Canada Post? 
It is because of the direction provided by who is in charge. As a school teacher, I saw it. I worked in schools where there was good morale, and I worked in schools with bad morale, and that depended on the direction of the principal of the school.
We have a deterioration of labour relations between our unionized workers of both unions in Canada Post and the management. My understanding from talking to the workers is that under the former CEO, and continuing under the present one, there are more grievances, decisions being made without consultation, and bizarre decisions. 
I would ask you to picture this: I live in the community of Castlegar, which is 600 kilometres from Vancouver. If I mail a letter to my neighbour on Friday, that letter goes to Vancouver for sorting, which is 1,200 kilometres away, and it comes back so my neighbour next door can get the letter. That is because of this so-called efficiency. 
Anyway, I will move on. In the film we have a comparison with other countries. We have a worker who works part-time for the liquor control board in Sweden. He is part-time and he has full benefits and free health care. Citizens get free seniors care and free child care. If a couple has a child, they get over 400 days of paternity and maternity leave. That is what we have seen. Sweden used to have strikes. There are no strikes. Everything is done through collective agreements. Why is that? It is because there is a partnership. There is a partnership between corporations, government and unions. Unions, by law, are mandated to sit on the board of directors. 
 We have been told that our country is somehow leading this economic recovery. Well, among the countries that are leading the economic recovery, one of them is Australia, which ironically seems to have a labour government today. But it is also Sweden. Sweden, the country that many have criticized for being socialist and having high taxes, is leading the economic recovery. Why is it doing that? It is because over 70% of its labour force is unionized. They have no strikes. People work together to come to solutions so they can have and build a just society. 
Why can we not do that? What is wrong with us? Why do labour relations deteriorate? Why do we have to have these strikes? Why do we have to have this draconian legislation put in by governments such as this? This is the time we can do something for our country and bring back the kind of relationship we should have between labour and government and corporations. I think it is the responsibility of all of us here to do that today.
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have seen over the last couple of days a kind of bizarre spectacle in the House of Commons. Prior to the vote last evening just before midnight, we had 27 plus hours of repetitive argument. The result was that the NDP members of Parliament convinced the Liberal members, who had previously been supporting them, to vote against them in the vote that was held on the NDP motion. 
Yet they persist, even though a number of their own members did not even bother to show up for that vote. Perhaps that means some NDP members have changed their position on this bill. 
When will they end this charade, save taxpayers' dollars, and put Canada Post back to work?
[Interjection]
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that when we are fighting for something as fundamental as workers' rights, the ability to have fair and just contracts and good labour relations in our country, it is not a charade. Somebody has to nip this in the bud to ensure this kind of Draconian legislation that is happening today is stopped. 
We have to speak out on this. We will speak out on this for as long as we must because what is happening is not right. It is not a charade.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I was fascinated to listen to the suggestion that the increase in profitability of this corporation is actually theft of the employees. It made me think that what is happening is that by making Canada Post a profit centre for the government it is using the postage system as a form of taxation. In fact the government is forcing small business owners and others to pay more taxes through higher than necessary postal rates in order to conduct their business.
Does the hon. member have a comment on that?
[Interjection]
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, something is not right here. Other developed countries actually support their post offices in their federal budgets. We have chosen not to do so, and I think that is a good idea.
However, it is one thing to say that it must make a profit, and another thing to say that if it makes big profit the government will grab some of it as general revenue. That is what it did with some or all of the money from employment insurance so it could use it to bring down the national debt and then continue to give corporate tax cuts. 
There is something not quite right here. The mandate for Canada Post should be to make a profit and use that money to improve its operations and provide a fair and just working environment for its workers. Then, everybody wins. It is a win-win situation.
However, that is not what is happening today.
Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I share boundaries and I appreciate his cooperation. We have been working together on a variety of issues, and obviously one issue we both share is the fact that we have constituents who are waiting for their mail.
I would like to share with the House a couple of references to some emails that I have received.
The first writer says that he is very frustrated and upset at this whole postal situation. He says that the NDP needs to think about the rest of the country as well. He says his passport is stuck in the system and he cannot travel to India to attend to a medical situation in the family. He says he has called Canada Post but nobody could do anything. He wants us to do everything we can to pass Bill C-6.
This is another email. This person says he has been watching the debate for three hours now and he feels it is sad that this has to go on. He says that Canada Post and the union members need to be put back to work and to stop complaining about wages, benefits, pensions and so on.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we all share concerns about the labour unrest. We will not point fingers. The strikes initiated the lockout. We do not take sides. 
However, the fact is that there are Canadians, small businesses, seniors and people with illnesses who are suffering. Can we pass this legislation now, get the people back to work and show we are caring and compassionate, or are you just concerned about the union bosses? 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. As a quick reminder to all hon. members, please direct comments and questions to the Chair rather than colleagues.
The hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.
[Interjection]
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are concerned about all Canadians. We do not appreciate this division when we are somehow labelled as supporting the union bosses.
It is very simple. There are a couple of clauses in this agreement that could be taken out or modified, legislation could be passed and these people could be back to work on Monday. That is all we have to do.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, the debate has been going on for several hours now. I would like to say good morning to everyone and offer the same congratulations to my colleague.
This is not easy for everyone. The most frustrating things in this debate are perhaps the gratuitous attacks or the statements that are somewhat rude, not to mention crude, made by some colleagues concerning our positions. Sixty-two per cent of the population of Gatineau sent me here to Ottawa because my campaign focused on my leadership in Ottawa on the areas of health, pension protection, seniors and social justice.
I am listening to this debate with interest because this is sort of my passion. I came to Ottawa with my background. Some may not be aware of it, but in 1984 I became a lawyer with the Barreau du Québec. This does not make me any younger, some of my NDP colleagues were born after I joined the Barreau du Québec. I specialized in labour law. I am hearing a lot of talk that we have a direct line to union leaders. During the election campaign I was attacked my by opponents who claimed that I was an evil employers' lawyer. But what is happening on the other side of the House, with Bill C-6, is a direct attack. Trust the lawyer in me that some may call an employers' lawyer, even though I also represent unions. I have no shame in being called that because I have common sense and try to contribute that to the negotiations that I take part in.
Bill C-6 poses some serious problems. As legislators and parties, we must absolutely pass bills that are not only correct, reasonable and fair for citizens, but also legal. But this bill poses some serious problems in that respect, and I will talk about that shortly.
What is also sad in this debate is that once again, true to form, the Conservatives are taking pleasure in dividing. The big bad employer against the union. Postal workers against Canadians. The big bad socialists against the fabulous Conservatives. In no way does that elevate the debate.
What is even more sad is being told that all of the hours we have spent here could have been spent with our families, celebrating the national holiday, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, or participating in activities in our riding. We are being told that we are purposely doing this just to upset people. I am sorry, but we never express our opinion just to upset people. It is a fundamental right that we have here, and we decided that we would exercise it. We will not stand back and stop talking, even though some would like us to do that, just because we do not have the numbers to win the vote.
If the Liberals want to go home to sleep for the next four years, they have the right to do so. We will be here in Ottawa to carry out the mandate we were given by voters. I will never apologize for that. If that means that we will be here until September 19, then we will do it. 
The member for Gatineau will not agree to pass a bill that will fundamentally be fought before the courts and will be rejected. Who will pay for that? The taxpayers. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I will come back to that.
My colleagues have been talking about the problem with Bill C-6, but that does not seem to be sinking in for our friends opposite. The fundamental reason that the minister wants to see this bill pass is to solve a serious problem with the Canadian economy, since Canada Post workers are essential, a fact with which we all agree. In fact, mail in Canada is essential for a lot of people, such as seniors and small businesses. I know, because I had a small business myself and I sent my invoices by mail. My small legal firm would have suffered if I had not been able to do so.
That is part of collective agreement negotiations. Everything is provided for under the Canada Labour Code. If Canada Post were an essential service like the police and nurses, where it is a matter of life or death if they did not work, and it were in a lockout, the Canada Labour Code covers that. Those people do not have the right to strike. 
In Quebec, Gatineau police officers do not have the right to strike. It took six years before they negotiated and concluded their collective agreement. They had the right to use pressure tactics. We ended up with police officers dressed in army fatigues and all that. Some might find that outrageous, but that was their only pressure tactic. They ended up settling the dispute. Every sector has its own way of resolving things.
We often hear the members opposite say that seniors are not receiving their cheques, but that is not true. They were receiving their paycheques, their pension cheques because the postal workers agreed to make that special delivery. The employer has the right to declare a lockout. I remember a professor of labour law, when I was studying law at the University of Ottawa, which is probably the best and greatest university in Canada, who always told us: if you work in labour law as a lawyer representing the union or the employer—let us say the union—and you represent blue collar workers in a city in Canada, take Gatineau for example, do not go on a snow removal strike in the middle of summer. It will not work.
So we know that the lockout and the strike exist to re-establish a balance of power. When the other party is not listening to us—like the Conservatives opposite—we are obliged to take more draconian measures to ignite a spark. Then, the system, be it public pressure or the other party, is going to wake up at some point and will be willing to settle the conflict. 
But then the government, with its heavy-handed approach, decides to put forward special legislation that goes a lot further than it should. I am going to make a free recommendation and I will not send a bill to anyone. Anyway, the employees are locked out and my bill would never arrive.
I would be very healthy if it could be proven that the lockout, even after one day, has greatly weakened the Canadian economy and that it is necessary to force employees to return to work immediately. Well, the government could do just that, order employees back to work and ask the arbitrator to hear both parties at a formal hearing, and not impose conditions that would not allow any discussion. The arbitrator will not even be able to address trade practices or anything else. The arbitrator will have to side with one party or the other This is exactly the Conservative's style. It is always one or the other. But law has grey areas. Sometimes it is good to water down your wine. In this context, it would have been so much better than what the government is currently doing.
Why is the Conservatives' proposal illegal? Last night, our hon. colleague from Outremont began addressing this question. I encourage all members to read the case of Health Services and Support--Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia. This ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada—the highest court in the land—is crystal clear. In this case, when a special bill affects workers' wages, as the government is trying to do in this case, it is going to wind up stuck in court. The Conservatives will be stuck defending this before the Supreme Court and, once again, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. 
Let us be fair to both sides. Let us bring them back to the bargaining table and get the employees back to work—I see no problem with that—without the appalling conditions the Conservatives have included in their bill. Within the next few years, we are going to be left with a bill of several millions of dollars for something that has already been ruled on. It would be nice if the government would listen to the NDP every so often, because sometimes what we say makes sense. 
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the past 35 hours or so we have listened to a lot of statements by the NDP, the same statements over and over again, as if people heard them enough times they would believe the inaccuracies. I would like to point out a few of the inaccuracies that I have heard over the last 12 to 15 hours, but I have not had a chance to ask each member a question.
Last night one of the NDP members said that most of the jobs that have been created in the last year and a half are part-time, low-paying jobs. It is obvious that they have not read the budget, because it is clear on page 30 that 90% of those jobs are high wage jobs and around 85% of them are full-time jobs.
Another member last night accused our Prime Minister of disregarding religious holidays in respect to the advance polls. The NDP should know that the Prime Minister does not set the advance poll dates. Those dates are set by Elections Canada.
This morning my NDP colleague from Timmins—James Bay said that we just want to get home for the barbecue season. On this side of the House we take our commitments to our constituents seriously. Many of us have sacrificed many opportunities to be with our constituents over these past 35 hours.
If NDP members believe in all the talk, talk, talk they have been doing for the last 35 hours, why did more of them not show up to vote last night? If they are interested in getting workers back to work, why do they not pass this legislation that we have been talking about for 35 hours?
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague should have listened to what I was saying. We cannot pass this bill so hastily because we respect a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 2007 concerning BC Health. That decision is clear. What clause 12 of Bill C-6 provides regarding wages will be ruled invalid by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In all good conscience as a lawyer and the member of Parliament for Gatineau, I absolutely cannot recommend to anyone that they take part in this kind of hijacking of the legal system, because it will be overturned. In this context, that is one of the reasons for our decision. That is why, at this stage of the process, we simply cannot vote in favour of Bill C-6 in its current form.
We have been trying to explain this every possible way, but the Conservatives do not seem to understand. Furthermore, they do not seem to understand that we share their frustration about not having any mail service. Yes, it is frustrating for everyone to not get their mail. It was also frustrating when OC Transpo went on strike last year, and in years past, and an arbitrator was needed to settle the dispute. It is frustrating when police officers go on strike. However, that is part of labour relations. It is not a question of life or death. We must do things properly and in accordance with the law.
Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, being born in 1984 and as a representative of young people, I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about the special bill, more specifically about the discrimination between the new and old employees in terms of rights and justice. 
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
I did not have enough time to address this aspect of the issue. In my view, this is quite illegal since it means creating two separate pay scales. Under labour laws, we call them “orphan clauses”. There is already a lot of case law and doctrine on the matter. The problem is that tests have never really been done on this.
What is considered legal is giving a different salary to a person just starting a job who does exactly the same type of work as another employee. That does not pose any problems since the decision is based on experience. So pay scales are created. But, in terms of just changing things for economic reasons in order to rebuild the finances of a company on the backs of new employees, I think we are going to have some serious debates in court on those issues. In my humble opinion as a lawyer who has been practising since the time when the hon. member was born, that is totally illegal. 
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak again on this important issue. 
Since the issue of job creation by the government has been raised, I would like to provide, based upon Statistics Canada real data being used, the fact that in the last three years of this government, part-time employment has increased by approximately 50% across the country. In fact, 20% of all jobs are now part-time employment. 
That is a record accomplishment for the government. It is actually an erosion of many of the benefits that workers accrue through full-time employment. That is why we have people working piecemeal at jobs. That is why it is very germane to this issue with Canada Post to ensure that there is going to be fairness with regard to what is happening.
Let us be clear again: this is a lockout. The minister can pick up the phone and stop the lockout right away. The workers are prepared to go back. They are prepared to deliver the mail. They can do so within a matter of hours, but they are being prevented from doing so. That is the reality right now. The workers are prepared and willing to be back at work, but they cannot do so physically because of the actions of the government and Canada Post.
 That needs to be emphasized continually, because those men and women have been providing a public service of good choice for Canadians for many years. When we look at the facts of Canada Post, if we look at the profit it brings in and the benefits Canadians receive, we cannot argue with the facts. 
I want to paint two different worlds here. The first world would be Canada Post. When we look at the facts, we see that it has actually had profits for the last 16 years and has contributed $1.2 billion to the federal government in dividends and income tax over the last 15 years. It also had dividends of $580 million. It has had income tax of around $654 million and profits of $1.7 billion. All of that is being rolled back into the public purse for different programs and services. 
I might add that when we consider this accomplishment, we need to do it through the lens of looking at the accomplishments of other countries. Other countries have higher postage rates than we do through Canada Post. We enjoy good service, low costs and the economic benefit that goes back into whatever the government may want to do at that time, such as providing health care, but I am going to show what the government is doing with some of those profits that Canadian constituents have paid into Canada Post. 
The government has made other choices, such as corporate tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. I am going to roll out a couple of those examples, because I think it is important for people to understand that Canada Post workers cannot go to work right now to bring back that profit for Canadians and their families. Also, they cannot do so in an environment that is healthy when we have a government that has basically said it supports the issue with regard to making sure our young people are discriminated against by having a lower wage for the same work, and a government that is going to actually discriminate against our youth with regard to pensions by reducing those pensions. Those are the goals that the government has set by making sure that it uses a sledgehammer on this particular issue.
Those profits that those workers have been rolling back into the coffers are very important. That is an important fact about the treasury, and we make choices about the treasury. What has been happening in the oil and gas sector in particular is very interesting, especially if we come from Ontario or Quebec, where the manufacturing sector has been hammered over the last number of years. A lot of those full-time jobs with benefits and pensions basically have been decimated to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
 That value-added work is important for our youth when they look at later paying off a college or university education. Now they have to scramble three or four jobs together just to get by. We have lost that value-added work. Where has the money gone? Incredibly, the money has gone to the oil and gas sector to the tune of billions of dollars in terms of subsidies.
Yes, this is what the government has been doing. It is borrowing money right now. As we are in a deficit, it has borrowed money for the HST implementation. Around $6 billion has been borrowed. When we pay that off, if we actually get back into a surplus, it will cost billions more in interest just to pay off that servicing debt. We are borrowing money for large corporate tax cuts right now for profitable industries and we are actually paying interest on those corporate tax cuts until we get into a surplus.
I know that my colleagues are getting upset about my talking about this--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Mr. James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of relevancy, could you remind the member we are talking about Bill C-6, not the budget speech?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay rising on the same point of order?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sitting quite close to the member for Windsor West, but I am having a hard time hearing him. My colleague from Markham—Unionville seems to be a little agitated. I do not know if he needs Ovaltine or something to calm him down. I would like to ask him to just calm down so I can actually hear the debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is the hon. member for Oakridges—Markham rising on the same point of order?
[Interjection]
Paul Calandra: It is actually funny, Mr. Speaker. That member has gotten up a number of times and has said these types of things. He likes to play for the camera and pretend that this side is saying things it is not. So I am wondering if he could repeat for me, since we are being so loud, what things on this side of the House are bothering him.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. First of all, in terms of the point of order raised by the member for Selkirk—Interlake, this is feeling like déjà vu in so many ways. The issue of relevance has been raised many times and the Chair has said consistently that while there is a rule of relevance, the Chair recognizes that many members take a circuitous route to connect what they are saying to the business before the House. The Chair does have confidence that all members, including the member for Windsor West, will in fact do that.
Secondly, in terms of the point of order raised by the member for Timmins—James, and subsequently by the hon. member for Oakridges—Markham, the Chair recognizes there are other conversations taking place. I would urge all hon. members wanting a side conversation to either sit together or take it to the lobby. 
While they are in the chamber, I would urge all hon. members to give the floor to the person who has the floor. I appreciate that we have all been here a long time, but I think it is important that we maintain decorum and mutual respect in this place.
On that note, I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Windsor West
[Interjection]
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that advice, and I will. I think I have been.
What I am trying to demonstrate here are the economic benefits from a healthy, productive Canada Post that has paid billions of dollars back into the federal coffers and then what we are doing with that money as choices. I'll read for members a few of those choices.
 When we look at the oil and gas industry, one choice is the flow-through shares tax subsidy. Another is the Canadian exploration expense subsidy. There is also the Canadian development expense subsidy. There are also the Canadian oil and gas property expense subsidy and the capital cost allowance and accelerated capital cost allowance subsidy.
The point is that when we have a healthy Canada Post and we have the opportunity to have a successful crown corporation, it is a net benefit to the rest of Canadians when the government makes choices about where those economic resources go. 
Also, this lockout is so important for small business because when workers return to Canada Post, we need it to be to be a good healthy environment, not only in regard to them wanting to go to a place of work every single day and to feel that pride, to feel that they are contributing to a country and its productivity, but also to feel that it is a healthy workplace.
 We know that at Canada Post, like we do for many other physical jobs for employers, we have different types of issues relating to the body. The fact is that sometimes they have to use their bodies on a repetitive basis and workers can get strains and a number of different ailments. That is why some of the benefit packages are important: to keep people healthy. 
For example, I used to work for persons with disabilities. In Ontario when we saw a delisting of chiropractic services, I witnessed how the quality of life of some of the persons I used to support was reduced, because they could no longer afford to get some of that necessary preventative work done through chiropractic services. They could not afford it because the support was not there.
That is why, when we are looking at this contract and at this lockout that is taking place, it is really unfortunate, because it is setting up an environment that is going to reduce the strength of the overall system. The strength of the overall system is really critical to ensure that we are going to have that good service for businesses. That's why some of the small businesses are hurting right now: it is because of the good quality service they were getting from Canada Post.
 Yes, there are always issues in any workplace and there are always improvements to be made, but in Sandwich Towne in my riding of Windsor West, when they tried to look at closing down the post office service that had been available since the 1800s, the businesses and the seniors were the first ones I went to in order to get support to rally around stopping that closure. Ironically, it is so far the only outlet where closure has been stopped.
 It was interesting. I have the documents here showing that Canada Post had gone by itself and drawn up a study to move postal services into the University of Windsor. It did not even tell the University of Windsor that. It drew up a business plan that included costs that were not even at the Sandwich Towne post office. That is important, because that was disingenuous of them to do so. Canada Post was going to present that to the University of Windsor to show the university how it could make so much money on this service, while meanwhile reducing the services at the Sandwich Towne outlet to the point that it would actually collapse upon itself.
 We caught Canada Post on that, and I am so proud of the president of the university and the faculty there for immediately saying no to this, because they understood the necessity of community. They understood the connection to the business there. They understood the connection to the seniors. They said no. They would have had personal profits, but instead they said yes to the community and yes to strengthening Canada Post in Sandwich Towne and making sure that it is going to be there for another 100 years.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member for Oak Ridges—Markham might get upset when he hears some of the things that the member for Windsor West is talking about, probably because he does not understand. In fact, guess when the manufacturing business in Ontario started to decline? It was back in the early 1990s when the NDP government was led by Bob Rae--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. I would encourage all members to not refer to other members by their given names.
[Interjection]
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, it was in the 1990s when the Ontario NDP government was led by the then premier who is the other NDP leader in the House. That is when the manufacturing business started to decline: when Ontario was run by an NDP government.
These subsidies to the oil and gas that the member was talking about are not subsidies, for the information of the member, but investments. They return hundreds of thousands of jobs to the Canadian economy and billions in tax revenues.
 I imagine that this member makes investments in stocks and maybe in mutual funds and gets an investment back. Does he call those subsidies? If he does, then he has a misunderstanding about how his money is going in.
Third, the reason that Canada Post is healthy and profitable is that it is being run well and the people who run Canada Post are continually trying to keep it that way. It is not the federal government that runs it; it is the people who are in the management capacity.
[Interjection]
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I must have said something to get this member on his feet for a change.
I think what is important to recognize here, though, is that Canada Post is controlled by the crown corporation and the minister. I think it is incredibly important that they recognize their role in this.
They support two-tier wages. I wonder why the new members of the Conservative Party, when they came in during this last session of Parliament, did not accept an 18% reduction—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, order. 
[Interjection]
Hon. Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We know that people are sleep deprived in here, but there is no rightful reason for that hon. member to attack someone's character. He should at least apologize for that derogatory comment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Speaker agrees with the sentiment that all hon. members should show respect for their colleagues in this place. Nerves are increasingly frayed, but I would encourage all hon. members to do that.
The hon. member for Windsor West can quickly complete his answer.
[Interjection]
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to finish by saying that the hon. member suggested in his opening remarks that I was misinformed, or something of that nature, and that passed their smell test.
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: He did not attack the member's character.
[Interjection]
Brian Masse: I was not attacking character in talking about the fact that the member actually got on his feet. That is a compliment, because the member actually got on his feet.
The reality right now is that we have a number of different subsidies going out to the oil and gas industry at a time when we are borrowing a record amount of money, and we are going to pay interest on that right now. I view that as a subsidy.
Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality here for any Canadians who woke up here Saturday morning and are watching this charade while having their coffee is that we have grandstanding between the Conservatives, who are union busting, and the NDP, who are trying to be the superheroes for organized labour.
Somebody mentioned that the Liberals were going to be sleeping at the switch for the next four years. Well, that is not so. We have a balanced approach.
The reality for anybody watching this is that there is not going to be any mail delivered Monday because of these two parties and their charade. The Conservatives could have had better legislation. They could have limited the debate. The NDP could have worked with them on a consensus. We would have been having mail delivered in this country on Monday morning, but that is not happening. We are having grandstanding here.
Why will the NDP members not get along, put some amendments in place, and work with the Conservatives? Why will the Conservatives not step up to the plate and work together? Use the Liberal approach. The Liberal approach is the middle-of-the-road approach. Get the mail moving.
[Interjection]
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, given the criticism I have received from my colleagues across the way, I am not going to comment on the Liberal approach. I will let that pass for the moment.
What I think is important, though, is that I actually believe in what I am doing right now. I believe in what my party is doing. This is serious business.
I know the men and women who serve in the postal units in my local community, and I also know about the philosophical thing happening in putting two-tier wages on young people when they enter the workforce. We used to do that based on how people looked: their ethnicity, the colour of their skin, or whether they were woman.
We used to allow two-tier wages in Canada. It is re-entering the system, because young people are going to be entering at a lower wage for the same amount of work. I fundamentally believe that it is wrong. It is wrong to move the country that way. We have a crown corporation that is making hundreds of millions of dollars every year for this country and is contributing very strongly to the economy and productivity.
I do not believe that our youth deserve that fate. They have done enough. They have had enough hard times. They need to see some opportunity. 
Why will members not take two-tier wages and benefits and pensions, when they are asking for it for the people of Canada Post who are coming into the system?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before we resume debate, I would like to remind all hon. members that when anyone has the floor, other members ought to be listening to them.
Members are aware that another of the standing orders that applies in these cases is that members are not to do things that may cause a disruption in the House. That applies to members who are listening to speeches. That also applies to the members who are making speeches.
I would encourage all hon. members to make their points and to respect the fact that it is in everyone's collective interest that this place not descend into a talking or yelling match, back and forth. If members have conversations they would like to have with one another, I encourage them to take them to the lobby. We have lots of time to discuss those matters.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend you once again for the excellent work you and the other Speakers have been doing throughout this debate. Your message is that this is the place where the issues of the people of Canada should be discussed. The discussion has to be done with a recognition of the importance of the debate. I certainly agree with your sentiment that we do not want this to be reduced to any sort of frat-house argument. I am very appreciative. 
It is now 47 and a half hours before the mail begins to roll on Monday morning. There is easily enough time to address some of the key outstanding problems. 
Over the weekend, I have noticed that perhaps the government has been mistaken. Perhaps there has been a plan to sort of misrepresent what has happened. When the Minister of Labour spoke on Thursday night, I was quite shocked that she continually spoke about a strike, as though this strike justified intervention.
 We know that in the past there have been instances when if there was a long-term strike, government had to act in the public interest. That is what happened with the Toronto transit workers. My brother is a TTC worker. I know what it means when there is a long-term strike and there is no solution. However, the labour minister failed to tell the people of Canada that this is not what happened. 
A crown corporation cut off service to the Canadian public, and the Conservative government supported it. What has happened is that people who have small businesses, people who are in rural areas, and senior citizens have been cut off from service because of the quite shocking decision by a crown corporation to deny services to the public. When the Minister of Labour gets up and blames this on the workers, it really undermines the ability to find a resolution here.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that it is unacceptable to hold the Canadian people hostage by allowing a crown corporation to deny service.
 The government brought in this legislation on Thursday night. Even if the New Democratic Party acted like the old Liberal party, which come the weekend always folded its tents and went home, the mail would not have run on Friday morning. Not a single piece of mail in this country has been stopped because of what the New Democratic Party has been doing here, not a single piece of mail. Yet millions of pieces of mail have been stopped because of the failure of the Conservative government to hold Canada Post to account. 
This brings us to this situation, unprecedented in recent Parliaments, of debating here on a Saturday morning. How do we solve this? This is the question. 
Canadians are expecting that in this 41st Parliament, people will rise to the occasion. There will be adult behaviour. Conservatives and New Democrats disagree fundamentally on the role of public service, and we disagree fundamentally, between Conservatives and New Democrats, on protecting pensions. We disagree fundamentally, between Conservatives and New Democrats, on the right to collective bargaining. However, what we all agree on is the need to find a resolution. 
It is now 47 and a half hours until the mail can start to roll on Monday morning. The only thing stopping the mail from rolling is the unwillingness of the government to accept taking the wage rollback out of this back-to-work legislation. It is important to take that wage rollback out, because if this is allowed to stand as a precedent, it will be used in every coming labour dispute, because there will be no need for the labour bargaining process to participate with public sector workers from here on in. Employers will be able to say that they do not have to set up negotiations and do not have to go to arbitration. They can count on the government to lock out the workers, manufacture a crisis, and punish the employees by actually lowering the wages they had been guaranteed at the bargaining table. Therefore, this is a bigger issue. 
The Conservative government can certainly get a great win out of this if it pulls the wage factor out of the back-to-work legislation. They go back to work. It goes to arbitration. It goes to mediation, and this thing is settled. The Canadian public can be assured that in the 41st Parliament, two parties that have fundamentally different views can actually rise to the occasion and put the Canadian public interest first. 
I am very concerned about this act of attempting to use a parliamentary sledgehammer to push down wages and to create a two-tier system of wages in this country.
I heard the member from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, on the first night of debate, say that at $12 an hour, three days a week, you should be happy to have a job--I think the term was “tickled pink”--if you are a young worker. That might be, again, one of the fundamental disagreements between the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. 
I know what it is like in my region, where I have older people who have worked their whole lives, and some have pensions they are able to retire on. They are asking how it is that their children are never going to have the middle-class life they have, especially the younger workers, who are paying back $40,000 to $50,000 in debt. This is fundamentally wrong. 
We have seen how this was done in Wisconsin, where they attacked and demonized the public service. They attempted to tell the people who were below public sector workers, the people who are earning $10 an hour, the people who have no chance of having a pension, to blame the public sector workers. There is an ongoing pension crisis in the United States. There is an ongoing pension crisis in Canada. What they failed to do in Wisconsin, and what they are failing to do in the Conservative Party, is point to where the real problems lie.
Let us go back to some of the strong symbols of the pension crisis in this country: the Nortel workers. Nortel, which was one of Canada's greatest companies, was allowed to be run into the ground. The pensioners lost their pensions. The benefits for the disabled workers were denied.
 The governments of every country in the western world where Nortel had operations stood up for their pensioners, but the Conservative government did not. At the same time, while they were in bankruptcy and were selling off the company, the Canadian brain trust that Nortel was, the Nortel executives were allowed to receive $7.5 million in bonuses. I believe that to be fundamentally criminal.
I believe that if we do not address this pension crisis in this country, and we do not stop the push for two-tiered workers, we are going to see the kind of old robber baron capitalism that existed when my grandparents came to this country. 
I have heard a lot of comments, but perhaps the most audacious comment I heard last night, and I was absolutely gobsmacked when I heard it, was from a new member, a former diplomat, who accused us of being communists. He even used the word “Moscow”.
Charlie Angus came from Hawkhill in Dundee, Scotland. He was called a red a whole bunch of times. My family was never afraid of being called red, because they knew what that meant. 
When Charlie Angus went to work at the Hollinger gold mine, it was the richest gold mine in the western world. The average life expectancy of an underground miner was 41 because of the silicosis. 
They had a two-tiered system there, too. If you were a Catholic or an immigrant, you worked down in the most dangerous gold stopes. Unless you had the Mason's ring, you were not allowed on the surface. Charlie Angus came over from the Hawkhill, and he had the Mason's ring, because you could not work in Scotland unless you were a member of the Orange Lodge. My grandmother used to say that Charlie Angus came over here to get away from the bigotry in the old country. He came over here because he thought all workers should have fair rights.
 He remembered what it was like seeing the Croatian and Bulgarian miners sent underground under the gold stopes. 
They called him a communist. Do you know why? It was because they started to organize. Charlie Angus walked the picket lines with my mill, and he walked the picket lines with the steelworkers. 
They could not get help at a bank, so they created the workers' co-op and the consumers' co-op. I remember talking to a woman in South Porcupine who said that her father was a Finnish miner. He broke his back underground, and not a single bank would touch him, so he had to go to the workers' co-op. She said that they called them communists on the streets.
 I thought that was ancient history until I came into this House of Commons. I see that we are being called communists. 
We have to get back to what this issue is. By Monday morning we should settle this. We are calling on the Conservative government to stop using the language of “communists” and “reds”. Next they will be calling us North Koreans. We can settle this and put the Canadian public first. 
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, Fort McMurray is famous for many things, including 7% of the GDP of the country. What I like to brag about the most is that I have more union members than anywhere else in the country. I am proud of that. These members are from all across the country. They are from that member's riding. They are from some of the ridings in Quebec. They are from all across the country. Newfoundlanders make up the majority.
I am glad to see that the NDP have identified, in the last three speakers, that they no longer are representing workers but are representing the elite from Canada Post's union. We understand that now. That is very clear, especially in regard to some things that have happened. I think they recognize, with all the mail coming in against this NDP filibuster, that they have to step back a bit from this. I am glad they are beginning to see common sense.
Our economic action plan actually saved Canada from the worldwide recession. The NDP voted against that, and the member for Windsor West especially. I want to hear from this particular member why the member for Windsor West would vote against the economic action plan. It provided almost $2 billion to his riding. It has done so much good for Canada. We see these signs all across country.
Why would the NDP vote against the economic action plan? Was it because the elite union bosses told them to?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: There we go again, Mr. Speaker, with the big, evil union bosses. We have heard about the union thugs and the communists. We should be debating the issue instead of name-calling. 
I find it fascinating to hear my friend from Fort McMurray—Athabasca talking about all the workers in Canada being in his riding: damn right they are. Does he know why they had to leave Timmins? Does he know why they had to leave Smooth Rock Falls? Does he know why they had to leave Opasatika and Kapuskasing? 
They had to leave because the Conservative government did nothing for the forestry industry. Entire towns have been devastated. The government's only solution was for these workers to take a bus to Fort McMurray. They can take a bus to Fort McMurray because the government has been pumping billions of subsidies into that city. 
We have been saying all along that we now live on the petro dollar, because the Prime Minister said he was going to put a firewall around the Alberta oil industry. All of our workers are being sucked into Alberta, where they have to compete against workers coming in from Pakistan on short-term jobs.
I know what is going on in Fort McMurray because I get letters and emails from folks in Fort McMurray who want to come back. They ask me why the government will subsidize Fort McMurray and the oil sector to the hilt when the forestry sector was left devastated. The manufacturing sector was left devastated. The textile industry in Quebec was left devastated. All of these folks had to go off and work in that member's riding.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, about half an hour ago I received an email from a person who watched my speech. 
He said, “I am from Miramichi, New Brunswick, and I have been watching you guys debate for the last few hours. Thank you for informing the audience and MPs of what exactly could be done instead of what they are trying to do now. I think it's just terrible that this government is mandating this and getting in the way of employer-employee negotiations. This seems communist, not democratic, and it's very scary to watch Canada circle the drain while [the Prime Minister] promotes the rich getting richer and the middle class getting poorer. I hope you guys filibuster until the Prime Minister comes to the House with a reasonable solution. This is not the Canada I know.”
Would the member like to comment?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have been receiving emails from people across Canada who are watching this. Many of them are not union workers. Many of them are not Canada Post workers. They recognize, however, that there is something fundamentally wrong. They have seen the pension crisis. They have seen the ridicule that the government has had for people who fall on hard times.
I would like to remind people what the present Prime Minister said when he quit Parliament to take over the National Citizens Coalition and run the campaign to de-unionize the workforce. At that time he was the rabble leader for the coalition. In Montreal, in June of 1997, he 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.” 
I think that is an appalling statement for any elected official to make, especially someone who is now our Prime Minister. He does not feel bad for unemployed workers. He does not feel bad for people who are trying to get by.
We can solve this with a bit of goodwill. The Conservatives will have to raise their game up a little and put the public interest first rather than have this ideological crusade against people in the two-tier--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to clarify a few things this morning. As we have said repeatedly, as recently as last year, in 2009, Canada Post made some $281 million in revenues. Over the past 15 years, Canada Post has made $1.7 billion in profits and has paid the federal government $1.2 billion. The Canadian postal service is profitable, we can all agree on that. 
That being the case, why are the workers being asked to make these financial sacrifices? Need I remind the House that it is thanks to them, thanks to their dedication, determination and hard work, that Canada Post can operate and make such profits?
I would like to know why these workers, who are simply trying to enforce their rights, should be the only ones to compromise and make sacrifices in this whole affair.
This government must understand that it does not have the mandate to take the place of Canada Post management. The employees indicated that they wanted to continue working during the negotiations under the same working conditions as before.
Why did the government not let the negotiations continue out of mutual respect for both parties until an agreement could be reached?
Once again this morning, I rise here to repeat that these thousands of men and women who work tirelessly for us day in and day out deserve better than what this special bill is offering. Canada Post employees deserve better than to be so rudely discriminated against based on their age. Reducing the wages of new employees in such a draconian manner sends a clear message to the workers of my generation: their work is worthless and their contribution is not up to snuff. They will never be recognized for their true worth.
Let us imagine what would have happened if, when the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage was first elected in 2000, that he had been told, “congratulations, but we are going to pay you less than your predecessors”. He would have disputed that, and rightly so.
Imposing these vastly inferior working conditions on new employees will create a gulf between the generations. It will drive a huge wedge between the young and not so young. It is also likely to create a tense and dismal work environment for employees of different ages when the mail service resumes.
Now more than ever, we need to support and defend young workers. The following was posted on canoe.ca on June 14, 2011, and was based on a very recent study by the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada:
 Canadian families face ongoing balance-sheet battle...According to the report, household debt has reached a new all-time high of $1.5 trillion...“The report confirms that more than half of indebted Canadians are borrowing just to afford day-to-day living expenses like food, housing and transportation,” adds Anthony Ariganello, President and CEO of CGA-Canada. “For these individuals, there is little hope for improved financial condition.” 
It is unacceptable that at a time when households are carrying so much debt, the government wants to refuse to provide young workers with a decent wage to meet their needs and the needs of their families. They can continue to accumulate debt; they can continue to pay huge interest rates to credit card companies. Is that really the message we want to send my generation?
The article continues and reveals that:
 Some 27 per cent of non-retired Canadians commit no resources whatsoever to savings, even for retirement. More Canadians are carrying debt into retirement, with one-third of retired households carrying an average debt of $60,000 and 17 per cent carrying $100,000 or more. 
In light of all of this, how can the government want to impose such harmful measures on workers' pensions? 
Why does it want to punish the workers, who have been reasonable and who showed good faith by holding a rotating strike—a way to put pressure without seriously affecting mail operations?
Why did Canada Post decide to lock its doors, affecting a large number of vulnerable people and small businesses, as the members on the other side of the House remind us so often.
Most importantly, what message does the government want to send by imposing wages that are lower than what was offered by Canada Post?
The government did not need to interfere in this labour negotiation between the employer and its employees. The reality is that Canada Post employees want to get back to work as quickly as possible. They are probably the ones who most want this dispute to resolved as quickly as possible. Right now, it is impossible for them. The employer locked the doors to their workplace. Canada Post is currently forcing a lockout that is hurting everyone. They must let the employees return to work.
Let them continue to provide services to the public as they have faithfully done for so long. Stop punishing them because they have exercised their legitimate rights and take immediate action to correct the situation with respect and dignity for all. 
I do not know if you remember the evening of this past May 2 when the Prime Minister celebrated his new government that came into power with a little under 40% of the votes. He then made a promise, noted by many in the media, that he would govern for all Canadians.
This week, the mask has come off. The hon. members on the opposite side of the House will not hesitate to set unionized workers against non-unionized workers or young workers against the not-so-young to achieve their ideological purposes.
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 appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague across the way. I understand that we may have slightly different points of view on this issue. 
There is another issue that gives a glaring example of union leadership out of control. We all know that CUPW membership does not decide what they are going to do. The union leadership decides what they are going to do. In this case, both sides have been at the table long enough. It is time to go back to the union membership--not to the leaders, not to the member's own colleagues, who are all former union leaders, but to the membership--and ask them to vote again on the offer. 
I believe if they went back again and voted on the offer, Canada Post would be back to work.
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I believe that 94% of employees were in favour of those pressure tactics, so I do not see what the point is here. The employees clearly want to work. It is the employer that is preventing them from working. I do not understand the point that is being made, because that is what is happening.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very thoughtful remarks.
I would like her to elaborate a bit more on the impact of Canada Post's demands and the demands by the federal government on young people. I understand that the starting wage being demanded is 18% below the current starting wage. At the same time, Canada Post has been profitable for more than 15 years. The CEO is the highest-paid of any crown corporation at half a million dollars with a 30% bonus. I am sure he gets a healthy defined benefit pension plan.
 The message to young people may be that not only are they paid less at a time when they have greater debt than ever but that there also may be no pension for them. What kind of message does that send to the member, particularly as a young person herself?
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. Personally, that is what affects me the most in this conflict because what I see is a bill that is trying to impose measures on young people to really show them that they will never be able to have a salary that is equal to what it used to be. So many people have fought for decent wages to ensure they were sufficient to meet the needs of their families. But when the young people come along, they are being told that they are not entitled to that, that they do not have the same rights as those before them, that their work is worth nothing, that their work is second-class. I think the message is very sad. 
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, one of my friends who was also a candidate, Mr. John Markus, had a little saying that went like this: “You know that socialism is all finished when the socialists have finished spending everyone else's money.” 
That is what we are hearing throughout this debate. We have been hearing over and over again about what the president of Canada Post makes. I wonder if my friend across the aisle could tell us what the president of CUPW makes.
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, he certainly does not make $500,000. In any case, we can agree on that. Frankly, I have no idea. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Less than $100,000.
Alexandrine Latendresse:  Apparently he makes less than $100,000. In any event, the important thing in this case is that Canada Post makes a profit. It is a profitable corporation. There is no reason to cut the workers' salaries. I do not understand why they would do that when this corporation makes millions of dollars in profits every year.
[For continuation of proceedings see Part E]
[Continuation of proceedings from part D]
Mrs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. member later as to the salary of the president of CUPW.
According to the House, today is still June 23 and we are respecting our commitment to Canadians to defend the rights of the public and CUPW workers.
In my riding of Hull—Aylmer, this is a big weekend full of festivities to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste day. I would once again like to take this opportunity to wish my constituents a very happy holiday. Enjoy it. Have fun with your family and friends. It is very important.
I would really like to join them this weekend, but the government has made decisions that go against a fundamental principle of natural justice: the right to free expression, the right to organize, the right to a fair and decent pension, the right of young workers to the same rights and not to a two-tiered society.
These young people will have different conditions within the same work environment. Is that fair? No. That is why we are here today and will be tomorrow and in the coming days if necessary.
The decisions made by this government and Canada Post management affect one specific group of workers. That is true, but if we accept these decisions, who will be next? That is the question. It will be you, me and everyone else, unionized or not.
 Let us recap. We have an obligation to advocate for the rights of the public, to represent the public in cases that affect them—that is our obligation.
 The management of Canada Post simply cannot argue that it does not have the money to pay its employees. Would the chairman of the board of Canada Post Corporation agree to the same increases, rather than receiving compensation commensurate with that of the best CEO of a crown corporation? Contrary to what has been suggested, the chairman of CUPW currently earns less than $100,000. I can guarantee you that.
 Will the chairman of Canada Post Corporation turn down his 30% bonus to help the public and the corporation, and lead by example? No, he will not. If you ask the public whether they support the bonuses given to the heads of banks and big corporations, they will tell you that they do not, that much is certain. 
 What is the government doing? Is it not time for it to take action against the bonuses paid out in banks and big corporations? No, instead it launches an attack on public service and crown corporation employees. Do they take pleasure in going after workers?
 Canada Post made $1.2 billion in profit over the past 15 years. At the same time, Canada has the lowest tariff structure of any industrialized country in the world.
 In Germany, it costs 78¢ to send a letter. In Sweden 95¢, and in Canada, only 59¢. 
 This government and the management of Canada Post is sending a clear message to workers: we do not appreciate these negotiations and do not wish to waste our time respecting you and your right to bargain; we do not agree with the decisions made by the 55,000 workers, nor do we accept their right to strike. I should point out that it was a rotating strike, which meant Canadians continued to receive their mail.
 This government quite obviously took sides, allowed Canada Post to put a lock on its door thereby denying Canadians an important service: delivery of their mail. 
 This government is denying small businesses the same service. The government tries to justify its actions. It tells us that the economy is at stake and that the service is essential. 
 Yes, we agree: mail carriers should be able to work and that is what they want to do. They also want their collective agreement to be upheld. The fact is that this very same employer—who is depriving employees of their rights, who locked the door, and is depriving Canadians of an important service, namely delivery of their mail—is telling us that this service is important. 
 I would like to ask a question. Where was this government when services were cut over the past 10 years?
I have a quote on this subject:
 In recent years, we have seen dramatic cuts to service as senior managers have focused on commercial rather than public interest objectives. Post offices have been closed, red mailboxes have been removed from our streets and rural mailbox delivery has been taken away; all with very little in the way of notice or consultation. 
 Additional attacks on our public postal service will occur if management continues in this current direction. Canada Post is investing $2 billion in a modernization program that further threatens services and jobs. The corporation also plans on privatizing the National Philatelic and customer contact centres. These actions all run counter to our collective role in providing a quality public postal service. 
 I would also like to add that at the last strategic review meeting, the advisory committee noted that Canadian public opinion was unambiguous on the following point: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It was remarked that the privatization and deregulation of postal services in other countries was not successful and that Canada should not experiment with other options or solutions when the current approach works. Somebody even remarked that he liked reliable, recognized, affordable and universal postal services.
 It is my opinion that the federal government is trying to fix something that already works well. One of the main reasons Canadians support Canada Post and the current postal system is that they know it is reliable and it guarantees the security and confidentiality of their correspondence, a point that was made in several briefs.
 Today, we are asking for the locks to be taken off, for a return to the bargaining table, and for respect for the current collective agreements and for workers across Canada. Let us be proud of our public services and of what the workers, unionized or not, have achieved over the years. 
 I would also like to mention another item that was raised: the vote. The Minister of Labour can, at any time, call for a vote. Why has she not done so? That answers one of the questions asked this morning. 
 I would like to conclude by reiterating that this government has acted shamelessly. What does the government want to privatize? Canada Post—and while they are at it, every other public service—thereby depriving the public of well-run and essential services? At the same time, the government allows the CEOs of big companies, as I said before, to receive exorbitant bonuses on top of their salaries. Is that what we want to leave our children, our grandchildren and society in general? That is not part of my value system. That is not what I want to leave my children and grandchildren. I am convinced that the general public does not want our youth to inherit that either.
Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I patiently listened to the opposition members over the period of this action taken on behalf of their union bosses. I have heard many words, some good words like “respect”, “rights”, “equality”, and speaker after speaker claims to believe in these words, and I suspect that they do.
The member opposite and her comrades continue to apply these words in the narrowest of context, and I think that represents their very narrow interests.
I would like to know, why can the hon. member and her comrades not support those Canadians they are leaving out, those Canadians who cannot run their small businesses, those Canadians who now have to lay off their employees, who may or may not be unionized? Why can the hon. member and her comrades not support all Canadians and not just the union elite?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that the New Democratic Party, its members and its workers have a great deal of respect for small businesses. Incidentally, we had an opposition day to discuss the future of these businesses. 
We are asking for the resumption of talks between the parties. We agree that the collective agreement of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers should apply so that mail can be delivered. But Canada Post, with the support of this government, locked the doors. 
Libby Davies: I am not sure who all these union bosses are. What I do know is that the leaders of unions are democratically elected by their local membership. You are talking about the most democratic institutions in our country when it comes to unions, which is more than what I can say for the 20 vice-presidents of Canada Post, who are the bosses, who were not elected but appointed. They are pulling in, God knows how many, hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
That aside I would like to ask the member something, because we have heard the Conservatives say over and over again how concerned they are about the impact on small businesses. I wonder where were they when Canada Post was eroding services in small communities and cutting down depots that serve small businesses in urban centres. We heard from the member from Windsor West who has had a fight in his community to keep local services that have helped those local businesses. Where were those members when those cuts were going on?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for her question. 
As a matter of fact, I raised this in my remarks. The board of directors of the Canada Post Corporation was certainly not present when cuts in rural and remote areas were discussed, at a time when the corporation was profitable. Canada Post has brought a universal benefit to Canada. At the same time, the board of directors does not answer to the general public. And unlike union leaders, directors are not elected. I used to be a union leader. I was elected every three years by all members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and I am very proud of that. 
Where was the board of directors? Maybe the Conservatives should ask this question and hold the board to account for the future mail delivery, both in rural and in urban settings. 
Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
 I thank the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer. In the last few hours of this debate, we heard words like “communism” and “socialism” being used with a great deal of emotion. 
I am concerned we are throwing names around. One of the things that has occurred to me is I remember once someone was asking if there was a threat that capitalism would collapse. The answer is no because socialism will always bail it out; the big three auto makers and the banks in the U.S. From the Green Party point of view we are not really very concerned about the socialism, communism, capitalism debate. It is very old. We are much more concerned about the sustainable, economic development that provides the wealth society needs. 
I would like to ask the hon. member if she has any thoughts on how socialism bails out capitalism.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have half a day to explain the difference between the two. Personally, I think I am a socialist. I represent and advocate for the rights of workers, unionized or not, and of the general public, like disadvantaged people or the unemployed. This is my goal, and those are the principles and values I was taught by my parents. 
Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last night, after my work day, I went back to my hotel room, but I did not go to bed right away. I surfed the Internet and visited social networks like Twitter. I would like to share some of what I found. Unfortunately, I noticed that some people do not have a very good idea of what is going on in this labour dispute between Canada Post management and the workers. Lots of people are talking about a strike. This is the first myth I would like to dispel. There is a lot of talk about that, and I know people are watching CPAC today. 
In the media right now, after Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, this debate is the big event on television. I would just like to set the record straight. This is not a strike. Initially, there were rotating strikes, a process that made it possible to deliver people’s mail. But more recently, Canada Post management decided to lock out the employees, thus stopping mail delivery completely. That is the reason why the mail that is being sent now, such as cheques to charities and bills to customers, is not reaching its destination.
First, Canada Post wrongly declared a lockout. Then what happened? Everyone agrees that the country's mail needs to be delivered. The government introduced this bill, but it is based on a very nasty principle. The bill penalizes workers. But during this dispute with their employer, the workers made sure that the mail got delivered for the well-being of Canadians.
Yet, this bill would cut their wages by 18%. And we all know that Canada Post is a very profitable company that contributes millions of dollars to the government every year. In fact Canada's Conservative government owns Canada Post. That is why we, the NDP members, want employees to return to work quickly. That is why we are fighting night and day—literally—to come to an agreement with the Conservatives.
There are many debates in this chamber, and we know that there are many debates between NDP and Conservative members outside this chamber, in the hallways. I want Canadians to know that, even though they see many people taking sides and seemingly not wanting to understand the other party, we really are trying to find a compromise to narrow the scope of the Conservative bill. That way, people can get back to work as quickly as possible, mail service can resume, your grandmother can get her birthday gift and that little girl in northern Quebec can get her glasses. That was one example that was given a few days ago.
My position differs slightly from that of my NDP colleagues. I am very happy that the NDP has been acknowledged as the family and workers' party. I am proud to say that some of our members are great examples of union leaders; the member for Hull—Aylmer is one such example.
My background is a little bit different. I have never belonged to a union but I am against the way this bill is worded. I will explain why. I have never been unionized because I have been self-employed. Before becoming a full-time member of Parliament, I owned a business. Some Conservatives say that the NDP does not understand small businesses and entrepreneurs. They also say it is important to send invoices and receive cheques from customers. As an entrepreneur, I understand that. The NDP agrees with the Conservatives: the workers must go back to work as quickly as possible. We want the mail to be delivered.
However, we disagree with the Conservatives on one point: we do not feel that the workers should be penalized because of a dispute provoked by Canada Post, which declared a lockout and thus interrupted mail delivery.
I wanted to clear up this misunderstanding because people on the Internet are often referring to the strike when, in actual fact, it is a lockout that is blocking the mail. Others are blaming members of the NDP. They are saying that the NDP is preventing the workers from going back to work when all we want to do is to find a solution, whether it be here or with our leaders outside the House. We want the bill to be amended and passed so that the workers are not penalized.
The bill also affects Quebec workers. As a member of Parliament from Quebec, I must represent the interests of Quebeckers who voted overwhelmingly for the NDP in the most recent election. Letter carriers in my riding want to go back to work. Ethically, I cannot agree to allow the government to impose an 18% pay cut on workers. We have spoken about this at length. Young people and new workers are the ones who will be affected by this pay cut, which would create second-class employees.
As for the collective agreement, the workplace is still unsafe. There are still too many workplace accidents. I am a chiropractor and I have treated Canada Post employees who have been injured on the job. Their workplace is not yet safe. Management and the union must find solutions.
Most of the debate focuses on a matter of principle. The NDP believes in social justice, the family and protection for all workers. Last week or a little earlier, the Conservative government wanted to interfere in the Air Canada labour dispute. This week it wants to interfere in the Canada Post strike by passing a special law that is clearly detrimental to the workers. Where will this end?
Yes, the Conservative government has a majority and it can pass any bills it wants. However, Canadians, especially Quebeckers, voted overwhelmingly to send NDP members to the House to stand up to the Conservatives when they make bad decisions and roll back the rights of all workers. In the debate on this bill, we are defending the rights of unionized Canada Post workers, but it affects all other workers, unions and employees.
How can we be sure that, after gradually destroying the rights of unionized workers, the government will not interfere in non-unionized workplaces, taking the side of management, keeping wages as low as possible, and forcing people to work more and to hold down more than one job?
There is a great deal of talk about not lowering the standards of Canadian society. Yes, we are in an economic downturn and we must tighten our belts. In the proposed bill, only the workers will tighten their belts. Canada Post's CEO will not be tightening his belt: he earns a paltry $497,000 per year, and a bonus of 33% of the large profit he generates.
The President and CEO of Canada Post does not want to tighten his belt, yet the government is cutting workers’ salaries by 18%. This makes no sense. It is actually a conflict of interest. The government and Canada Post executives are in cahoots. With the lockout and back-to-work legislation that penalizes workers, the executives will be well paid and millions of dollars of extra profits will flow into government coffers. So the government is in a conflict of interest. 
Mr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I welcome my fellow entrepreneur to the House of Commons, having been a businessman my whole life.
There were two things that came through in his comments that were stark and that have come up before. It is the contrast between socialist thinking and entrepreneurial free enterprise thinking. 
 The principle of someone starting a job at a lower pay grade and working their way up, showing through achievement that they deserve that promotion, is something that is used not only in the private sector, but also in the public sector. 
My daughter is a teacher and had a much different pay level at grade two when she started, than where she is today. She did not start at the pay grade of the 20 year experienced teacher. The same with my son-in-law who is a police officer. As well, I have two nephews and a niece who are postal letter carriers and they tell me that their job is a good paying job with great benefits. That is highly sought after in our community. However, throughout this debate members are saying that the workers are not getting what they are worth.
 I would like the member to answer a question specifically about the different elevations of when a person starts a job until they get some experience down the road, yet the NDP, as socialists do, want to have everyone earning the same.
[Interjection]
Dany Morin: Mr. Speaker, I have to correct something my Conservative colleague said. I am not a socialist but a social democrat. That is an important distinction. 
 As a businessman, I completely agree that workers with more experience deserve to be paid more. Yet the way the bill is worded, it will drive salaries down. I definitely want to see Canada Post's older workers who mentor younger workers earn more money in recognition of their experience. 
Using the hon. member’s reasoning and according to my values as a social democrat, the wages of older workers should be increased. I think they make $24 per hour, so their wages should be increased a bit rather than penalizing the younger employees. 
To extrapolate from what the member said, should the pay of Canada Post's new recruits be reduced to minimum wage when they are hired? Why not, in his opinion? And if the Conservative government decides to reduce the minimum wage, should that be enforced as well? Just how low will wages go? 
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Madam Speaker, the member, whom I respect, said that he went home last night and watched The Social Network. He bemoans the fact that Canadians do not seem to quite understand because they are still calling this a strike. 
I would suggest that Canadians do understand what is going on here. They do understand that they are not receiving their mail. They do understand that many seniors are being pushed into paying a bill over the Internet, something they do not feel comfortable with. They do understand--
The Deputy Speaker:  On a point of order, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, I want to help because I know my colleague is looking at the clock, which says that this is Thursday, normally a day the mail runs. However, this is Saturday so people back home are not getting their mail. They would not get their mail until Monday. This is why we are here and hopefully--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. This is not a point of order. 
The hon. member for Crowfoot.
[Interjection]
Kevin Sorenson: Madam Speaker, let me say that the member stands on a point of order time after time simply trying to disrupt debate in the House, playing ridiculous games that he is well known for doing.
Back to my point, that individual seems to still bemoan the fact that Canadians do understand what is going on. They understand that it started with revolving strikes. 
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt. I hope this is a legitimate point of order.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, I just want to make it clear because I have been speaking throughout the debate and I have excellent respect for the Chair's rulings, but I think the Speaker would agree that most of the points of order I have been raising have been in asking people to be civil in the House. It is somewhat demeaning to think that asking for civility is ridiculous.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that, but again, that is a point of debate. I would ask the hon. member to wind up.
[Interjection]
Kevin Sorenson: Madam Speaker, again, the same guy stands again the House and you keep allowing it to go on and on. All he is trying to do is disrupt the House when we are trying to debate and question a fairly good speech.
The Canadian public understand that we have gone through four years of deep recession. Many people have been without work and many are just getting back into the workplace. When they see revolving strikes and lockouts and all these things happen, they want to see people get back to work. They also want to see a government that will act in the best interest of Canadians.
We know my colleague is standing here in the stead of unions and for the side of the union, but why will you not stand and take a look at where we are headed in this—
The Deputy Speaker: Order please. I would ask all members to direct their questions through the Chair.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
[Interjection]
Dany Morin: Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to be asking two questions. As to the emails last night over the Internet, it was disappointing that people did not understand the issue. Yet a lot of people support us in our efforts. Let me read a message I received on Twitter an hour ago from Steph Aubry, “Congratulations on keeping up the fight. Down with Bill C-6! Employees’ and citizens’ rights must be protected.” Indeed, this affects not only workers but the entire population. 
 As to the second part of the question, we are just coming out of a recession and people have to understand that. But the issue is people’s right to strike as well as management’s right to impose a lockout. The government can nevertheless decide to end the lockout whenever it wants to. Is it prepared to—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We have to continue with the debate.
The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.
Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Madam Speaker, I was not supposed to be here today. I was expected back in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl to speak at what is predicted will be the largest rally in years, a rally on the St. John's waterfront, the size of which has not been seen in my home province in decades since the fall of the fisheries in the early 1990s. Thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are expected to turn out.
 The rally is in protest of the closure of the Marine rescue centre in St. John's. The centre handles marine distress calls, more than 400 per year, 25% of which are actual at-sea emergencies. The Conservative government plans to close the search and rescue centres in St. John's and Quebec City next year, transferring the jobs to Halifax. People fear the closure of the rescue centres will endanger lives. 
I have stood in this chamber in recent days—
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the comments that my hon. colleague is making across the way, but they have nothing to do with the point of debate that we are on.
[Interjection]
Hon. Gerry Byrne: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, members of the government have stood for the last number of hours insisting that this debate is essentially on the stability and restoration of the well-being of the economy.
I would like to point out for members of the House that the stability and the well-being of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, of maritimers across the entire country, depends on access to proper services.
If the essence of this debate is to instill stability and security to the economy of all Canadians, the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl is making a very valid case as to why all matters must be addressed by the House. He is putting in perspective a matter which is not receiving the attention of the House because the government has banned collective action by Canada Post employees by locking them out from work.
I ask that the line of comment and questions being brought forward by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl be allowed to continue because I feel they are relevant.
The Deputy Speaker: I have heard enough comments on this. I have just come in the chair, but the debate this morning is on the previous question. There is a certain amount of latitude. It is fair to give members time to make their arguments. Let us all calm down and have some respect for each other. I will be attentive, however, it is not up to the Speaker, without reference to the blues, to speak to the question of repetition.
On the question of relevance, there is a fair amount of latitude on this issue in this particular debate.
The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.
[Interjection]
Ryan Cleary: Madam Speaker, I have stood in this chamber in recent days and used words like “senseless”, “reckless”, “hasty” and “indefensible” to describe the actions of the Conservative government. We have one of the worst search and rescue response times in the world. We should be improving our services, not cutting them. Most of the great fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador are endangered. Now our people are in danger.
The cost-cutting move by the federal government will reportedly save $1 million. I mentioned that in a question this past week for the Prime Minister and the exact same thing happened: a member opposite clapped. In that case, it was the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. Hundreds and thousands of Newfoundlanders have moved because of the destruction of our fisheries. The Conservatives have closed our marine centre and lives are endangered, and he clapped.
What price is the Government of Canada prepared to pay to put on the value and safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? The shores of Newfoundland and Labrador are about as far away from Ottawa as one can get in the country. Rallies such as today's in St. John's send a clear signal to the Government of Canada there is no price too high to pay for the lives of our mariners.
I was expected to be in St. John's today, but I stand before members today representing the people of my riding, of my province, on another front, in another battle that has been waged by the Conservative government against the Canadian labour movement, against the workers of our country and all they stand for and all they work for, against the pensions and benefits that make Canada one of the most enviable countries in the world. It seems the Conservative government is content to leave labour stranded at sea with our mariners, stranded in a sea of uncertainty. 
The legislation we debate in the House would force the 48,000 locked out postal workers back to work for less money than was offered by Canada Post, back to work with a two-tiered wage and benefit package. For new workers who join the federal crown corporation, they would have to work five extra years to qualify for a pension.
If the Conservative government will attack the pensions of the 48,000 workers of Canada Post, who will they attack next? Whose pensions will they go after? Federal public servants, will they be next? Are they safe? The employees of other crown corporations, will they be safe? Who is next? If this contract is allowed to be imposed on the postal workers of our country, which labour union will be next?
This is just the beginning. Look off to the horizon. Do members see the job cuts off in the distance? They are there, make no mistake.
The rally today on the waterfront of St. John's, a rally that will be held within sight of one of the wonders of my world, The Narrows, the entrance to our 500-year-old port, will draw more than worried mariners and their families. It will draw more than fishermen and fisherwomen, the ones we have left. The rally will also draw worried members of one the federal government's largest unions, the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
The PSAC is holding its Atlantic Regional Convention in St. John's this weekend. The union fears the closure of the search and rescue centre signals the start of cuts to the entire public service, as many as 1,000 job losses in the Atlantic region alone. Whose job will be next? They, too, the workers of our country, are sending out a distress call and it falls on deaf Conservative ears.
On Friday afternoon, I spoke on the telephone with the two labour leaders of the 850 locked out postal workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Their membership is not prepared to live with a two-tier pension plan, one pension for existing workers and another less attractive pension for new employees. If the Conservative government has its way, the postal workers will carry the burden of diminished benefits, on top of the mail.
The union leaders told me Friday that, as of 2010, their pension plan was fully funded, to the tune of $15.3 billion. Why are the workers being broadsided? Why is their pension plan being targeted when Canada Post made $281 million in 2009? Why?
The Conservative government talks about how billions of dollars in cuts are imminent. The Maritime rescue centres, the pension packages, the federal jobs. Who is next? Where will it end? I asked that question on Friday of the union leaders in St. John's and they had an interesting answer. They said that the only people left were their children. They said, “If we don't stand up and fight for our younger workers right now, there will be nothing to fight for in the future”. 
One of the union leaders in St. John's told me about a senior postal worker, a woman with 30 years seniority. She does not need to be on the picket line. She can retire any day because her pension is safe. However, she heard the Leader of the Opposition's speech in the House of Commons on Thursday and it motivated her to walk the line.
The Deputy Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. member for questions and comments.
[Interjection]
Mr. Brian Storseth: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Out of respect, I wanted to wait until the member finished his speech.
I want to address a point that he made in his speech. I realize the member is new to the House. He made an insinuation about the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. I can assure him that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca has been a strong advocate of workers' safety, particularly the workers across the country that go to his riding.
I want to give the new member a chance to show respect, to stand in the House—
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the comment, but that is a point of debate.
Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of State for Transport.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in the House on a point of order. I have not risen to make a point of debate. This is a proper point of order.
Standing Orders 16(2) and 18 have been repeatedly violated during the time the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl was speaking, but it is not the first time. The level of decorum is getting rapidly worse. Standing Order 16(2) says that when a member is speaking, no member shall interrupt him or her. Standing Order 18 says that no one shall have offensive words used against them.
We are losing the thread here and I ask the Speaker for help to ensure we maintain the higher level of decorum that we had at the beginning of the 41st session.
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is correct. These are part of our Standing Orders. Order in the House is dependent on the goodwill of all members and the debate must occur with respect to all members in the House. I would ask everyone to remember that as the debate continues and I will certainly enforce the rules of order.
The Minister of State for Transport.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the economy. If the member was—
Ryan Cleary: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you confirm with the desk officers that I actually received 10 minutes? I do not think I did. 
The Deputy Speaker: I am advised that, despite the interruptions, the hon. member has received more or less 10 minutes. However, I want to add that it becomes disjointed when there are continual points of order that are really not points of order, but questions of debate. I ask everyone to be mindful of that as well.
The hon. Minister of State for Transport.
Steven Fletcher: Madam Speaker, the member made reference to jobs. We are approaching a work week on Monday. This Canada Post work stoppage has caused significant damage not only to Canada Post and its future but also to the economy of Canada. If the member were really interested in preventing jobs from being lost, we would get this legislation done over the weekend. 
We get their point now, loud and clear, that the NDP are beholden to big labour. We understand that. If there were any doubt before, it is abundantly clear that the NDP are holding on to their biggest link in Canada, big union bosses. However, there is a bigger picture here, the needs of Canadians and small businesses to get on with their lives. What the NDP are doing this weekend in this filibuster is preventing normal life in Canada from occurring. 
Could the member not simply allow the legislation to move forward? We get the point of the NDP, but we need to get on with the bigger picture, and that is to be here in Parliament for Canadians. 
Will the member support the government's legislation?
[Interjection]
Ryan Cleary: Madam Speaker, if the Conservatives got the point, they would take the legislation off the table. Let me answer the question with the end of my speech, that the attack on postal workers must not be tolerated, that the attack on rescue centres must not be tolerated, that the attack on Canadian labour must not be tolerated. Our way of life, the Canadian way of life, must be defended. I was not supposed to be here today, but the line has been drawn. I could be nowhere else.
Peggy Nash: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his eloquent speech to the House today and for the passion he brings in representing his community and to this issue.
Given that this is a lockout by the employer, in fact a strike by the employer, in which the government has now chosen to intervene and take the side of the employer, could the hon. member give us his opinion of what the long-term impact will be on collective bargaining, not just for postal workers but for any groups of working people in the country, as a result of this very damaging bill before us today?
[Interjection]
Ryan Cleary: Madam Speaker, let me answer that question with another part of my speech that I did not get to because I was interrupted by the Conservatives opposite.
I had a conversation yesterday with two union leaders in St. John's, one of whom told me a story about a senior postal worker, a women with 30 years' of seniority. She does not need to be on the picket line. She can retire any day because her pension is safe, but she heard the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons on Thursday and it motivated her to walk the line. It motivated her to continue the fight, because what is so important and what long-time workers see as so important are the pensions and benefits for the people coming behind them. That is what is so important. 
I hope that answers the hon. member's question.
Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Madam Speaker, mind-boggling, unacceptable and outrageous are some of the adjectives used to describe the government's attitude and the way it is handling this matter. I do not know whether the government has really not understood anything or it is just trying to prevent Canada Post workers from continuing to provide services to the public. The sole purpose of that action is to create a precedent that will enable the government to impose its vision every time.
Today, I am asking this Conservative government to put the interests of Canadians ahead of partisanship and ideologies. This government, elected by only 40% of Canadians, has a duty to serve the interests of the whole population, as it has promised many times before and after the May 2 election. I do not understand why this government, which made so many promises before the election, is now depriving Canadians of services and seriously harming the Canadian economy.
It should be noted that Canada Post subsidiaries and its joint venture annually spend $2.8 billion on goods. Therefore, we are not just talking about the businesses that no longer have access to Canada Post services, but about Canada Post itself, which provides those services, thereby creating 300,000 additional jobs that are currently being threatened. The economy is a daily topic of discussion. There are 585 domestic flights scheduled for Canada Post services. There are also 100 delivery vehicles and 18 rail services. All that money is being lost because the Conservatives have shut down our Canada Post services.
Job-creating small businesses are waiting for postal services to resume, so that they can send their bills and receive their cheques. The government could end this crisis immediately by allowing the employees to return to work, resume services and negotiate with their employer in good faith and on an equal footing.
From the beginning of this crisis, the government has not just interfered and imposed its vision; it has run a propaganda and smear campaign demonizing Canada Post employees. Once again, as my colleagues have pointed out many times, the government is trying to polarize matters, create conflict and divide Canadians.
The Conservative government knows full well what it is doing. Its plan is clear: cut services, privatize Canada Post and create a precedent. In the meantime, this government has no qualms about depriving people of services and putting a squeeze on family budgets. The government keeps saying that we are responsible for this situation even though the government, and the government alone, can put an end to the lockout and let Canada Post employees resume the work they never wanted to stop doing. But that has never been the government's priority. It is perfectly obvious that its priorities are elsewhere. The government is there to serve the CEOs of large corporations, banks and oil companies. The government is asking employees to make concessions and tighten their belts, as if Canada Post were truly in trouble, and all the while, its CEO is collecting a salary in the neighbourhood of $500,000 with bonuses. That is insulting; it is a slap in the face to all Canadians.
Today, the hon. members across the way have targeted postal workers. Tomorrow, they will target other public servants. And the day after that, will they take aim at all workers? Yes, the Conservatives must make their friends happy. It is much more enjoyable to go off and play golf with the heads of big business than to mix with the average Canadian and the real workers who make our economy go round.
Apparently, this government, with its irresponsible policies, is oblivious to the pride Canadians have in their postal service, one of the best in the world, one of the most efficient, one of the most accessible, a service provided by the Crown, a service that is not yet in the hands of the private sector. But for how long? 
Canada Post employees have always done an excellent job serving Canadians from coast to coast, rain or shine, at an extremely reasonable cost. I really do not know how the hon. members across the way will be able to look their letter carrier in the eye after passing this special legislation. Nor do I know whether they could have taken this approach prior to the May 2 election. It is a classic move. They disregard Canadians and serve the interests of their cronies at the beginning of their mandate, and then, come election time, they claim they are going to help the economy.
This government has the power and the duty to put a stop to this crisis immediately. It can intervene right now so that employees can go back to work and negotiations with the employer can resume.
At this time, the population is being held hostage for ideological reasons and partisan purposes. This government has to act. Yesterday, while we were debating here, the Prime Minister was not even in Ottawa, but he just had to add insult to injury. And even though he prevented the members of this House from returning to their ridings to celebrate the national holiday, he went to Quebec himself.
Be that as it may, it is not stopping: the calls keep coming in, and I continue to get emails from worried citizens who are asking us to continue our work. I think that this government is distancing itself even further from the population, and isolating itself. It has been completely blinded by its partisan goals. This government, which has no consideration for workers, is conducting a veritable disinformation campaign by continuing to accuse us, while all of the power rests with it: all it has to do is lift the lockout and send the parties back to discuss what would be best for both of them and their new collective agreement.
I wanted to add that a few hours ago Martin Victor sent me a message saying that he had been sleeping on his couch for two nights in a row in order to follow the debates on Bill C-6, and he added that he was willing to die on that couch in order to see this bill defeated.
There was a 64% turnout in the last general election. At this time, the population is worried about the debate and constituents are getting in touch with us to tell us about their concerns. My colleagues across the way say that they are only receiving emails from small businesses. That is logical, because the people in their ridings are writing to us, because we listen to them.
People from Prince Edward Island, where no NDP members were elected, unfortunately, are writing to us to thank us for our honesty and solidarity. Scott Gaudet wrote to me to say he was happy to see a new way of doing politics in Canada. He said he was disgusted with this harsh law.
The NDP is asking the government, which is accusing us of delaying the process, to order an end to the lockout so that employees can return to work and their collective agreement can be ratified in the manner agreed to.
For a while now, much has been said about the eight months of talks that have taken place. Personally, I am still looking for information about that matter, but I would like to know how many rounds of talks took place over these eight months. How much time was spent at the bargaining table? It is all well and good to say that the parties negotiated for eight months, but if they only met a few times over the course of these eight months, then the Conservatives are waging a public disinformation campaign. I am quite tired of all of this and I am also anxious to go home, but I am extremely proud and pleased to be here defending my fellow citizens.
Mr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC): Madam Speaker, I will just read this email. It says:
 Members of Parliament: 
 I am following the debate on ParlVu, and it seems frustrating to me that in trying to follow some of the things that some of the Hon. members are discussing, it seems like the majority of them have not read Bill C-6.. 
 I know this is a lockout.... 
 Can the members not read that the very first provisions require the EMPLOYER to end the lockout? That the very next subsection prohibits the EMPLOYER from impeding employees from returning to work? Can they not read that C-6 requires the EMPLOYER to resume respecting the collective agreement until a new one can be put in place? 
 Can they not read section 13 which states that nothing in the act precludes the Union and the Employer from agreeing on a new collective agreement before the bill comes into force? 
 I find that some honourable members are wasting our time and tax dollars by not reading Bill C-6 and properly interpreting its intent. 
Will the NDP quit constructing straw man arguments and focus on the bill?
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.
We have all read the bill many times over. We have also familiarized ourselves with the measures proposed in this special legislation. Of course we support an end to the lockout, but we certainly do not support basic wages that are 18% lower, an increase in the retirement age and reductions in annual leave entitlements. 
We oppose the so-called “orphan clauses“ pursuant to which newly hired young persons from my generation would enjoy fewer benefits than workers already in the labour force. Obviously, the NDP cannot support two-tiered systems. While we do want the lockout to end, we certainly do not want it to end under these conditions, with special legislation that will deny these new workers their rights.
Françoise Boivin: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her passionate speech.
To answer my Conservative colleague's question, I would simply say that maybe the person who sent him the e-mail should read clause 16 in its entirety. The clause reads as follows:
 Nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to limit or restrict the rights of the parties to agree to amend any provision of the new collective agreement, other than its term as provided for in subsection 14(1) or the salary increases referred to in section 15— 
Perhaps my colleague could explain to the person who sent this e-mail to the Conservative member that we are well aware of the many orders issued to the employer. However, there was also a restriction with regard to clause 16. That is what we have been trying to get across to the Conservatives for several days now.
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks. Actually I am reading the same clause myself. They say we have not read the bill. That shows just how the Conservatives view the public: as ignorant people who do not do their work. 
Excuse me, but we also do our work. Yes, we have read the bill and many other documents. We are informed and we do indeed have sources. We would not accept clauses like that. 
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Madam Speaker, we all know how technology has changed the requirement for mail delivery in Canada. Many of us sit here with our computers. I listened to the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing last night talk about having no access to Internet and wanting more Internet services in her riding. 
According to the NDP platform on the web, the NDP is actually advocating for broadband access for everyone, something with which I agree, but it would reduce the number of people employed in the postal service.
While it is all well and good to grandstand about more services and pay, could the member tell me which job she advocates eliminating in her riding?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has 30 seconds left. 
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: Madam Speaker, I will keep it brief. Under the current offer to letter carriers, the time they spend delivering the mail will increase from four hours to six hours because the machines will sort the mail for them. This will lead to a reduction in the number of employees. 
Our proposal is designed to encourage these jobs and get the workers back on the job as quickly as possible. I certainly do not think that our proposal would reduce jobs that much when compared to this offer. 
Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP): Madam Speaker, where are we now? That is the question on everyone's mind this morning. What facts have been established thus far? What facts do we agree on?
The first thing we agree on is that Canada Post management decided it did not want to negotiate the renewal of its employees' collective agreement because it felt that the workers' demands would compromise the growth of Canada Post, keep it from reaching targets, harm its competitiveness and derail attempts at streamlining. In the face of this refusal to negotiate, the workers decided to put pressure on their employer, Canada Post. In addition, these pressure tactics, rotating strikes, were not intended to disrupt services offered to customers but simply to disturb Canada Post management's peace of mind. 
As in all collective bargaining, pressure tactics are intended to force a compromise, to highlight the importance of employee co-operation to ensure that the company is operating well. And it has been established that the employees' union had more than 9,000 workers on standby to ensure the continuation of essential services. These employees, conscious of the needs of the customers who are dependent on Canada Post's services, did not want to harm the public, neighbours, friends, business owners, family members, etc.
It has been established that the impact felt by Canadians since the start of this dispute was not caused by Canada Post's employees, but by the actions of its management. We have said it often enough that no one can deny it any longer: things started to deteriorate for the public when Canada Post management declared a lockout.
This measure, which is hardly novel, is different because it affects a sector of the public that is dependent on postal services, which have a near-monopoly. It has also been established that the government acted hastily by intervening in this dispute, by appointing itself judge and jury, when there was no indication that the situation was degrading to the point of immobilizing the postal service. Again, there was no indication, before the lockout or before this bill was introduced, that public services would be compromised.
For days the government has been saying that Bill C-6 was necessary. Day and night we have demonstrated, and we will continue to demonstrate, that this is untrue. The government is content to repeat, like a broken record, that the collective agreement expired eight months ago and that the situation could not continue. Do eight months of negotiations, if they can even be called that, really represent a critical delay given that the employer was not even co-operating? 
Many examples of past negotiations to renew expired collective agreements show that a delay of eight months is nothing out of the ordinary. In Quebec, we have seen much worse without the government getting involved. Take, for example, Quebecor and the Journal de Montréal dispute. The lockout lasted over a year—not just several months; over a year.
The government claims that the difference is that Canada Post offers an essential service. That argument does not hold water because, and I will say it again, the unionized workers at Canada Post planned to have 9,000 employees available to work and provide services. Unionized City of Montreal employees, police officers, firefighters and other professional bodies offering truly essential services have been negotiating for over a year without a collective agreement. Eight months is not enough; it is not a justification and it does not threaten the delivery of essential services to the public.
Eight months of negotiations do not justify the government's intervention, particularly when the unionized workers have committed to continue providing services. Eight months is not even a significant precedent, never mind a length of time that requires government intervention.
These are the arguments that the government has been presenting for days to convince us to allow Bill C-6 to pass. These arguments do not hold water and the government and the opposition parties both know it.
So what is the truth? What is the justification for this situation? What is the government's plan?
The government is saying that it wants to find solutions. So why does it not tell us the truth, show us its plan and Canada Post's plan, and tell the House today the real goals of this charade?
Is the government allowing this exceptional process that is keeping us in the House for a historically long period simply for ideological reasons, or does the government have a larger motive? I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is not making the Canadian public go through this simply to satisfy its ideology. That would be too sad. But if that is not the reason, then what is? 
Since September 2010, there have been discussions in England about the future of the Royal Mail. The government is talking about rationalization and the possibility of privatizing the postal service because it is losing money.
In Germany, 20% of the postal service was privatized in order to pad the coffers of the government corporation that was losing money. In Belgium, postal services were privatized because they did not make the desired profit. In Denmark, postal services were privatized because their performance did not live up to expectations. It was the same thing in Finland. Even Japan is currently considering privatizing its services.
However, Canada Post has generated a profit of $1.7 billion over the past 15 years. Then why are we having this debate today? Why are we taking our cue from countries with services that lost money when not only does Canada Post make attractive profits, but it provides exceptional service for less than what is charged in Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, England, Japan, Australia and the United States? Why are we attacking Canada Post workers when, unlike all the postal services I mentioned, our crown corporation's performance is exceptional?
Should we not instead be thanking and recognizing these employees who make Canada Post successful? Is the real issue the fact that, in this wave of privatization across the globe, Canada Post is one of those rare, profitable public corporations and this makes it very appealing to private investors?
Can the government state today in the House that it is not subjecting Canadians to this ordeal simply to pave the way for the possible sale of Canada Post? Can the government state that it is not doing all this to break the union, lower wages, increase profits and make the product more attractive for private investors?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is remarkable that here we are a couple of days in and we still hear the exact same arguments. In fact, I am sure I have heard that same speech before. 
Regardless, we have heard a number of members talk about the wages being paid to the executive at Canada Post. 
I received a number of emails from local postal workers in Peterborough. They had no choice about joining the union. It is mandatory. One postal worker wrote to me, and I will just read the part where he said:
 This union is corrupt! 
 This union charges $80 a month in fees and is not accountable to anyone on where that money goes. 
 This union organizes union conferences for its top brass in foreign countries like Fiji and Maui. 
That exact same union will not allow its members to vote on Canada Post's last offer. That union member had no choice about being a member of the union. Now he would like a choice as to whether or not he could accept Canada Post's most recent offer. The NDP is standing in the way of that. Would the NDP not encourage CUPW to allow its membership to vote on the most recent Canada Post offer?
[Interjection]
Paulina Ayala: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member has understood correctly. I am talking about the salaries paid to Canada Post executives. I think that he has simply got the wrong person.
Mr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to let my colleague know that I really enjoyed her speech, as it shed light on the situation for me. I also want to ask her a question, as I am not sure I understood correctly. If my understanding is correct, the situation is very serious. 
Am I right in my understanding that this government has fabricated a situation from beginning to end in order to push Canada Post workers into being incredibly productive, so that the government could sell Canada Post to the private sector in the long run? Did I understand that correctly?
[Interjection]
Paulina Ayala: Yes, that is correct, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Madam Speaker, this debate has been going on for quite some time, and my constituents are very interested in having a resumption of mail service. They are not really interested in whether it is management that is at fault or if it is the union that is at fault. All they know is that they are not getting their mail. They need their mail for the good of their businesses. They need it for the health of their economy. They need it to meet payrolls. 
Families need those payrolls to be able to put food on the table. The New Democratic Party is carrying on a filibuster that is preventing a law that will allow workers to go back to work. 
I hear in the hon. member's speech that it is because the New Democratic Party members think there is a wage decrease in the proposed legislation. I counted it up. There is a 7.5% wage increase in the legislation. That is an increase in excess of what many of the people in my constituency are receiving. 
Has the hon. member looked at the bill? Is she aware that there is a 7.5% wage increase? 
Would the member not agree that it is a good idea to give workers the opportunity to go back to work, have the benefit of that wage increase and allow our economy to have the benefit of the mail service, rather than having our economy crippled at this fragile time?
[Interjection]
Paulina Ayala: Madam Speaker, the lockout should be stopped, so that the union leaders can negotiate with Canada Post. It is up to them to resolve the situation.
Gerry Byrne: Madam Speaker, we have just heard the government House leader wonder why the filibuster is occurring.
It is becoming readily apparent to members of this chamber that the government exercised options here. The government exercised options in its tabling of the rules for how this debate would proceed. It did not set any limits on the time period for the debate. 
The standing orders established what the time of speeches would be. Unlike other bills the government has introduced, for which it set limits on the time for debate at each stage, for this bill the government did not do that. 
It did it for the HST debate. It did it for the budget implementation act. It did it for the mega-trials bill. It did not do so in this particular instance. It could have when it tabled government Motion No. 3, and it did not. 
Why not?
[Interjection]
Paulina Ayala: Madam Speaker, the other side has the answer. The question should be put to them.
Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, NDP): Madam Speaker, the big question here, as we know, is why the Conservatives are backing the lockout by Canada Post and why they are intervening in such a biased way in something that should be a labour dispute between employer and workers. 
Labour disputes happen in virtually all modern market-based economies. They are a fact of life, and it is a normal situation for market-based economies. Therefore, I am surprised at the government. It says it is in favour of small government, yet we see it intervening in this way and as we know, the Conservatives are anything but small government.
The Conservatives have formed the largest government we have had in the history of Canada. It has the largest deficits and the largest number of cabinet ministers. It is a heavy-handed government that is interfering in our collective bargaining process. 
Whatever happened to the supposed Conservative goal of small government? It is not there, not that I can see. 
Now the government is interfering in labour market negotiations in a way that is nothing less than a violation of the Charter of Rights for Canadians.
 If the Conservatives do this now on this issue, where is it going to end? Are they going to step in every time there is a dispute in the marketplace? Are they going to legislate every time two sides do not agree on something? It is worrisome.
Let us be very clear. We have no postal service right now because Canada Post shut down the service completely, backed by the government. It has locked its workers out, encouraged and backed by the government. It seems clear to all of us. 
Instead of introducing legislation to end this lockout, to resume rotating service and negotiation, to get both sides back to the bargaining table and to get the mail moving, the government has decided to interfere with the rights of collective bargaining and impose a settlement even below what management had originally suggested.
Canada Post is being rewarded for shutting down the mail service that so many Canadians rely upon. This is a dangerous precedent, regardless of the particulars in this labour dispute or any other. 
Knowing the mindset of the government, from now on will any large corporation in Canada, whether crown corporation or other critical corporation, simply refuse to negotiate and just wait for the government to interfere and legislate people back to work? Will Canada Post be encouraged in the future to just hold our postal service hostage and hold Canadian mail recipients hostage any time it does not feel like bargaining? 
This is a dangerous path the Conservatives are leading this country down. It is one that can lead us to more entrenched positions; more, not less, labour unrest; and more, not less, interruption of services that Canadians use. In the future, what incentives will there be for corporations to bargain in good faith or to settle? 
The government should not be in the business of imposing labour contracts for businesses or workers. It is not free or fair collective bargaining. It is not letting the process work. It is not the way it has been building and developing for decades. It is wrong-headed.
I am also left wondering if this has something to do with the government's desire to increasingly privatize Canada Post services and reduce services to Canadians, as they have been reduced in my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North to small communities. It is Canadians living in rural and remote areas who are going to suffer the most. My riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North has 31 communities, one large one and 30 small ones, and they have been increasingly impacted by Canada Post's reduction in services. The people in those communities feel threatened by this trend.
Canada Post insists it is still respecting its so-called policy of not shutting down rural services itself, because it can just throw up its hands and say there is no alternative. The government is supporting Canada Post in that.
The irony here is that Canada Post is profitable. It does not need to shut down rural services any more than it needs to privatize or walk away from the bargaining table in labour negotiations. As we know, it has been highly profitable for many years. The CEOs are well paid. Some would say they are quite overpaid. They have been getting much larger increases than the workers have been asking for.
I can agree with one thing that the Conservative government has been saying inside and outside the House, which is that we want to see the mail moving again. Both sides want to see the mail get moving. It is a shame that we have this impasse and that we have to have this impasse. It is mostly within the government's power to do something about that, quickly, in an hour, a day or a couple of days at the most. I hope it will reconsider.
I am a small business person. My businesses, like many across the country, rely on the post office for services. Many businesses rely on the mail to ship their products, including mail-order businesses. Many of them are waiting to send or receive cheques. 
Canada Post's lockout and shutdown of all services has negatively impacted small business more than it has most Canadians, although all Canadians are negatively impacted.
It is also impacting the workers who want to work but who have been locked out of their jobs in the same way that Canadians have been locked out of their delivery services.
Let me talk about a worker from Red Deer who has worked for 37 years and used almost no sick leave during his entire career. Then he became very ill just as the lockout was happening. He was denied benefits, of course, because Canada Post locked him out.
My office has also talked to workers in my own riding. There is a single mom of two children, a 20-year veteran who has worked Canada Post, who needs medication to stay alive and be able to support her family. Like many Canadians, she has a mortgage to pay, but because Canada Post has locked her out, she can no longer afford to pay both. Her family either has to give up their house or give up the life-saving medicine.
It is our duty as parliamentarians on both sides of this House to figure out how to get the mail moving again and how to get people in these kinds of situations back to work so that they can receive the benefits they sorely need.
The other thing I would like to comment on is a big issue, but I am not going to go into it in big detail. It is the pension issue. 
There is a real problem here in Canada. The Conservatives need to decide what they are going to do about seniors in Canada. They were resistant to the idea of giving us a CPP system that people can live on.
The NDP suggested basically a doubling of benefits so that people could actually live on CPP. If the government is not going to do that, in the short term it should at least allow a defined benefits program for crown corporations, public service workers and other workers in Canada who need sufficient money in retirement and need the security of knowing that it is coming and they will actually be able to live on it.
What is at stake here is much more than just the way the government has handled this one labour dispute. It is about the precedent set by interfering with the collective bargaining process. The right to organize and the right to collective bargaining was affirmed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, most recently in 2007.
The court ruled that collective bargaining was a right, not a privilege, protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Collective agreements are central to freedom of association, according to the courts.
The court also said that substantial interference with collective bargaining over essential rights violates Canadians' freedom of association. In 2007 the court found that the charter gives the same protection for collective bargaining as is contained in the international labour conventions that Canada has ratified internationally.
In interfering with free collective bargaining and imposing its ideology, the government is dangerously close to violating fundamental freedoms that generations of Canadians have fought hard for. 
Kellie Leitch: Madam Speaker, I do take issue with what the member had to say and I want to be very clear. The Minister of Labour and this government are acting in the public's interest on the Canadian economy and for Canadians to get mail delivery restored. 
There were a couple of questions that have been raised with respect to Bill C-6. This member raised them and some others throughout the morning have raised them.
With respect to pensions, I encourage the member opposite to take a look at subsection 11(2)(a):
 (a) that the solvency ratio of the pension plan must not decline as a direct result of the new collective agreement; 
The fact is that this legislation includes guiding principles to provide direction to the arbitrator that the desire of the government is to see that no increase in the unfunded portion of Canada Post's pension plan moves forward. Our government's desire is to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not left with the bill for Canada Post's pension plan.
The second issue I raise, and I ask the members to take a look at, is the wage issue as it has been noted with respect to two-tier wages. Again, I would like the member opposite to explain to me exactly where those two-tier wages are. I do not actually recognize them in this legislation.
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond by saying that I am somewhat an expert in management, but I am not an expert in negotiation, union contracts, or collective bargaining. Therefore, I will decline to comment on the specifics of what should be a collective bargaining process.
 However, I do not think that this is the level of detail we should be getting into in the House at all, going back and forth by either side. We should be empowering both parties to go back to the table and do that collective bargaining. Let the workers go back to work. Let the mail be delivered. Let us empower and encourage them to solve the situation themselves.
Gerry Byrne: Madam Speaker, the government, during the course of the debate, has accused the New Democratic Party of filibustering this particular debate. However, I would like to point out that the closure motion, which was tabled by the government, has interesting implications. 
The government did not set any limit whatsoever on the time allocation of each stage of the bill. It used standing orders to set times for each individual speech by each individual member, but each stage of the bill was left without any special consideration. This is not how the government treated the HST bill in the previous Parliament, or the Budget Implementation Act in this Parliament. 
In the previous parliaments and in this Parliament, the government had set, through government business specifically under Motion No. 3, a specific limitation on the time allocation for each individual stage of the bill. Actually, in the HST debate, the entire debate lasted six hours according to the government's own motion of closure.
If the government is so incensed about filibustering, why did it invite the New Democratic Party to do so and enable it by establishing rules for a filibuster?
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte for his incisive question. I have wondered this myself.
A cynic might say that this is a wonderful opportunity to hold the Canadian public, postal workers, the system and House process itself hostage, if you will. It is to give only the appearance of caring about the delivery of service from the postal department to Canadians.
Peggy Nash: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in the debate on Bill C-6. We are now in almost the 39th hour of debate on the bill. There are about 46 hours left before mail service could resume on Monday morning. The government does not have to pass this bill to have that service resume. In fact, Canada Post workers have volunteered to go back today. They could go back within the hour if Canada Post, with the support of the government, would take the locks off postal stations and post offices around the country. We could have our mail resumed and postal workers could go back to work if the locks were taken off. We still have lots of time to encourage the government and Canada Post to do what is right and resume our postal service.
I represent the urban riding of Parkdale—High Park. It is a riding with a lot of small businesses and a lot of seniors. Our community cares a great deal about our postal service. It supports it and understands the importance of it. 
There is a postal substation in my riding on Keele Street near where I live. I make a practice of going in there periodically and thanking the people who sort our mail and the people who deliver our mail. I know I speak for our community when I say we appreciate their hard work and their efficient service. We get our mail on time every working day, and they do an excellent job.
We have had some demands in our community. There was the threatened loss of a postal outlet in the junction in my riding. After huge community opposition to the closure of that postal outlet, we were successful in keeping it.
There are some new condo developments in my community. The placement of post boxes seems to be lagging behind the condo development, so people in the condo have to organize and push to get a post box. 
People support their postal service. They care about it and they are concerned about it.
Our postal service is a success story. Our postal service has pumped profits and taxes into government coffers for more than 15 years. We have one of the best postal systems in the world. It is good value for money. We pay 59¢ for a letter, which is among the best prices in the industrialized world. Our postal service is fast and efficient.
Canada Post does have a top heavy management structure with 20 VPs, as my colleague from Vancouver has pointed out, who I am sure are generously paid. It also has the best paid CEO among any Canadian crown corporations, who receives huge bonuses. 
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which represents the people who work at Canada Post, has managed to negotiate, through very hard work, a decent wage for the people who work there. It is not exorbitant. It is in fact the average industrial wage for difficult work. Letter carriers are out in all seasons. We get a taste of that during elections when we go door to door, when we run up and down stairs and are out in all kinds of weather. We get a little taste of what letter carriers face day in and day out every day of the year. They do an excellent job. They make an average wage and they get benefits and pensions.
I have been contacted by many members of my community who expressed concern because Canada Post has locked out its employees and not allowed them to deliver the mail. I have also received a lot of support for the work that their elected representatives across the country are doing to try to pressure Canada Post and the government to resume the postal service. 
I want to just read one letter from a constituent. She says: 
 I am writing to you today with a story about my family. 
 My aunt Diane works at the post office on Eastern Avenue in Toronto. She's locked out and on the picket line in her pink baseball cap. I called her last week and she explained to me what was happening. 
 “This isn't for me,” she said. “Myself, I'm looking forward to retirement, but we're sticking up for the future”. She explained the big issues in negotiations that concern her. The top three are an attack on pensions, two-tier wages, 
which means lower wages for new hires
 and outsourcing sick time. 
 I should just insert here that in fact because letter carriers are out delivering mail in all kinds of weather, their injury rate is actually quite high. It has one of the higher rates of injury in workplaces in Canada.
 Canada Post wants to move from a stable deferred compensation of defined-benefit pension, to the crapshoot of defined-contribution pensions. This puts old people at the mercy of the stock market. 
 We have seen how reliable that has been for people.
 My aunt is also out because of the corporation's efforts to create two-tier wages, with new hires making much less than their co-workers. These are co-workers doing the same jobs, on the same equipment. Says my aunt—“Young people today don't deserve good jobs? Says who? I know how hard it is for you guys to find good full-time work with benefits, and that just isn't right”. 
 Finally, workers at Canada Post don't want their sick time controlled by an outside insurance company. 
 I'm proud of my aunt. She sorted social assistance and pension cheques as a volunteer. I'm also very proud of her for sticking up for good jobs for young people. I know she doesn't want to be out on the line in the heat and the rain, but I'm behind her all the way. 
 So—I know the [Prime Minister's] conservative government talks about family a lot. And what do families do? We look after our elders. We look after our kids. We take care of each other when we're sick. These sound a lot like the issues postal workers are concerned with, like pensions for old people, good jobs for young people, and provisions for sick people to stay home and get better. Frankly..., going after my aunt doesn't seem very family-friendly of our government. Could you please talk to them about that? 
 Yours...Jody Smith. 
I want to thank Ms. Smith for her excellent letter. I am so pleased and proud that she, as a constituent of mine, took the time to write.
I have to ask myself, and it is a question really to the hon. members opposite on the government side: Why would they go after hard-working Canadians like Jody's aunt Diane? Why would they go after hard-working Canadians? What is behind this? Why are they attacking the hard-working Canadians who have built Canada Post to provide such a fine service for our country? Is it because they want to privatize Canada Post? We know in other countries, for example, where the postal service has been privatized it is a very different situation. The mail is much less reliable, but also the jobs are very different. These are not the kinds of jobs I described earlier where people have an average income with benefits. They are usually part-time, independent contractors, which is kind of a way for an employer not to be responsible for any benefits or any injuries if someone gets injured or ill. 
I wonder why they would want to undermine the success story that is Canada Post, because they are certainly undermining it by poisoning the labour relations climate. I appeal to the members opposite. Let us work together. We are here. We have all been sent here by our constituents. Let us work together. Let us take the locks off the doors at Canada Post. We have 46 hours that remain before Monday morning. My constituents in Parkdale--High Park, and I believe all Canadians, want to get this great mail service at Canada Post moving again. Let us work together and get it done.
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Madam Speaker, the member opposite and the member of the NDP who spoke before her asked several questions in their speeches, but they also have engaged in irresponsible and unfounded speculation. 
We have been asked what kind of government we are. We are a government that believes in effective leadership. We believe in informed decisions. We believe in leadership and taking action, particularly when we are dealing with a fragile economic recovery that is threatened by a work stoppage for a crown corporation that provides, as we all seem to agree, an essential service and contributes $6.6 billion to the GDP.
The members opposite like to use the language of compassion, but they seem to have no problem denying mail delivery to those most in need of that compassion. Will the member opposite urge her opposition colleagues to walk the talk and let the mail through?
Peggy Nash: Absolutely. We will completely work with the members in this House to encourage Canada Post to remove the locks from the doors. Canada Post workers have said that they will come back to work with the same terms and conditions they have had. They are saying they will come back with the conditions they went out under. We are absolutely prepared to do that. 
When we have a crown corporation like Canada Post that has had profits of $1.7 billion over the last 15 years, $281 million last year alone, and has pumped another $1.2 billion into the federal coffers in dividends and income tax, I fail to understand why the current government wants to tamper with that success. We have a winner here. We have something that is the envy of other countries. Why is the government undermining it?
Gerry Byrne: Madam Speaker, the government members have been citing the need for expediency, referencing the essential nature of the service. They are saying this needs to be passed. The New Democratic Party is obviously taking up the challenge of the filibuster, but again I will go back to how the filibuster may have been arranged to begin with. 
For those who may be tweeting this, on Thursday, December 3, 2009, pursuant to Standing Order 57, the government issued a motion regarding the implementation of the HST bill. The government prescribed very specific terms and conditions as to how that debate would be allowed to proceed should the motion be adopted by the House. The motion was indeed adopted by the House. 
The motion indicated specifically:
 not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill and, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill...[be granted]. 
And then it said: 
 not more than four hours following the adoption of the second reading motion, any proceedings before the Committee to which the bill stands referred shall be interrupted, if required...and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the committee stage of the bill shall be put.... 
While the government professes to be angry about the NDP's filibuster, and the NDP is angry that the government is not responding to their requests, the reality here is that a trap was set and a trap was taken. That is what has happened here with this filibuster-- 
The Deputy Speaker: I interrupt the hon. member to give the member for Parkdale—High Park an opportunity to respond. 
There is one minute left. 
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Madam Speaker, the member has pointed out something very interesting, which is that the government, if it was so concerned about the timeliness of this debate, because it sets its own rules here in this motion, could have set a time limit on the debate. 
I disagree with the member's implication that defending hard-working Canadians is somehow something not worth standing on. On this side of the House, and in this party, we support decent jobs, decent wages, and the hard work that Canadians do. We are proud to stand for that principle today and any day in this House. 
Jonathan Tremblay: Madam Speaker, my colleague just spoke. I just received messages on my BlackBerry because I told my constituents that I would take the floor at 10:45 a.m. They said they would wait until I rose to speak. There are currently people watching CPAC to find out what is going on. They are gaining an understanding of what the Conservatives are trying to sneak through.
Earlier, I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons speak, and I thought I detected some openness there. He said that Canadians want to receive their mail. We just have to remove the locks from the doors for people to get their mail. Before the lockout, people were receiving their mail.
When will the government realize that the NDP is not preventing postal employees from working, the Conservative Party is? The Conservatives are the ones who conspired to impose the lockout. When will the government realize that it has the power to allow the postal employees to work? With the consensus in the House, we could immediately decide to let them work. 
When will the government realize that it has the power to unlock the lockout? If we had a consensus, we could put an end to the lockout right now. The NDP supports reopening post offices and getting postal workers back to work. Furthermore, when will the government realize that it has the power to unlock the lockout with a simple phone call? When will the government realize that we could require the employees to go back to work by ending the lockout, while we continue to consider the rest of the special legislation before us? 
When will the government realize that small businesses could receive their mail as well as send and receive packages, that seniors could receive and send letters, cheques and gifts, that both workers and the unemployed could receive their cheques, and that all Canadians could once again have access to postal service, as soon as the government agrees that it is essential to immediately end the lockout, well before voting on this bill?
When will the government realize that ending the lockout is the only way to remove the threat to the economy, a threat it created, economic losses it created? When will the government realize that preserving a healthy employer-employee relationship is the only way to ensure a company's future prosperity?
When will the government realize that creating an unhealthy climate and adding to people's workload, which already is not obvious, will hurt the economy? Has it assessed how costly an increase in the number of workplace injuries will be to our society?
When will the government realize that it is flouting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and disregarding rights that were recognized and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007? When will the government realize that Canada Post is a profitable and efficient crown corporation?
Is the government's objective to increase the profits of its friends at the expense of workers? Is its objective to destabilize postal services in order to privatize this sector? When will the government realize that disregarding the rights of workers will do nothing to improve their physical and moral well-being, or the economic health of the country? 
When will the government realize that in order to stand up for democracy in the world, it must also safeguard democracy here at home?
Since being elected to power, this government has thumbed its nose at democratic rights in Canada. I am talking about the rights of trade unions, the right to associate and everything connected with union rights, party financing, voting methods, the use of the media and public funds, to give you just a few examples. 
When will the government realize that members have a duty to represent all citizens? They have a duty to work for all citizens. When will the government realize that the public will not put up with this kind of behaviour for very long?The official opposition is prepared to work with the government, but the government does not appear to be listening to us. The message goes in one ear and out the other.
We have a duty to represent all citizens and to do everything in our power to preserve our vested rights. Our duty is to defend our democracy and our democratic processes, along with our young people, their future and their rights. We must work together, not merely defend the interests of a select few. 
Why is the government not worried about public opinion? Just like some government members, I, too, I have been flooded with words of encouragement to continue our opposition to this bill. 
But what is the cost of the Conservatives' interventionist policy? The workers are paying the price by being oppressed. Negotiations require a consensus of both parties, we recognize that. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers knows that; the law recognizes it; and the people, whether they belong to a union or not, also know it; but not Canada Post and the Conservative Party.
Finally, with regard to a brief debate that took place earlier, I, too, would like to know why the minister misled the government by proposing this bill to deal with a strike. As everyone knows today, we are not dealing with a strike, but with a lockout. In fact, I would like her to take the time to explain this to us. Perhaps it was only the result of some confusion and not a premeditated act. She will now have the opportunity to clear this up or simply to explain things to us. But if the government was truly misled, this means it has introduced a bill for which there are no valid grounds. I simply want to ask the minister to take the time to reply, because we are debating this bill which may well have a questionable rationale.
Hon. Alice Wong (Minister of State (Seniors), CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the presentation by the hon. member.
I have already heard from a lot of seniors in my riding who are feeling really depressed because we have not solved this and because we are still talking and talking and talking, without taking any real action, because the opposition is stalling everything.
 We all understand that this work stoppage of Canada Post is already directly affecting the lives of many people, including seniors in my riding. Young people are waiting to get their student visas extended, and a lot of low-income seniors and other residents need their cheques, as well as all the other convenience of the mail.
Why is the member opposite not cooperating with the government to pass this important legislation? We need to make sure that both sides get back to the table so that the workers can resume their duties in service of the general public.
This is the time when they really should get back to work, instead of politicking.
[Interjection]
Jonathan Tremblay: Madam Speaker, let us end this lockout. Let them continue to negotiate. No one will be treated with contempt, and everyone will receive their mail.
Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, it is curious that it is Thursday in the House, but of course it is really Saturday, and it gets more bizarre after that. 
It is entirely correct that the government itself set the stage in the terms of the motion we are debating today, so it's all nonsense about when will we stop. The Conservatives themselves decided not to put in any time limits.
To add insult to injury, I would point out that a lot of the questions that have been asked we cannot ask directly of government members because they are not participating in the debate. They are asking a few questions and making comments, but they are not taking any turns whatsoever to be part of the debate. So all of these questions that we have had directly from all of the members we cannot ask directly.
 The parliamentary secretary earlier said that they are doing this, apparently, in the public interest. I would like to ask the member, what is the public interest here? Is the public interest forcing workers back to work, or is the public interest actually upholding collective bargaining in this country and allowing the parties to do the job that they need to do and to find their own solution?
[Interjection]
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. The public interest means respecting the rights of everyone in the country. In that way, we will be respecting the economy and the health of our businesses.
I note that the member said this is still Thursday, June 23, 2011. We also see that on the other side they keep repeating the same things. It would indeed be desirable for us to co-operate in the public interest. We are already proposing solutions. We are simply waiting for some phone calls to be able to put an end to this lockout.
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Madam Speaker, I had the chance to visit my riding yesterday. I met people who have placed their confidence in us and they asked me something. It was a young couple, Marie-Josée and Martial, who have just had a baby. They are now the proud parents of two little boys. They mailed in the documents to claim their parental leave. Everything is all tied up. This young couple needs their money to make their mortgage and car payments and to survive. 
Will the member opposite work with this House to call a vote on this bill so that Quebeckers and Canadians can start receiving their mail again on Monday? 
[Interjection]
Jonathan Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my former MP—since I once lived in his riding—that I would like to work with the government and with him in our vast region. We are already bringing forward proposals. Let us end this lockout. It will all be settled and people will get their mail. 
Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the members opposite are all in fine form this morning. I am also pleased to see so many ministers here. It is comforting to know that the government truly wants to end this crisis in an honourable way. 
I heard the parliamentary secretary say that he went to his riding and that people support him. Oddly enough, I just read in the newspapers that 53% of Quebeckers support the NDP. Our popularity is up again in the polls. With these polling numbers, not a single Conservative member would be elected if there were an election tomorrow.
I am here to defend the rights of postal workers and indeed of all workers. They government wants to dictate the collective agreement for postal workers. The government is not even giving the two parties the chance to negotiate. 
It is odd that this government—which wants to redefine the role of government and wants a government that does not intervene as much in public affairs—has used this sledgehammer to meddle in the first labour dispute involving a crown corporation. It did not use this level of intervention to prevent the devastating crisis we were forced to endure because of all kinds of speculators in 2008. The government did not intervene then. But when postal workers want to preserve the gains of past generations, maintain their buying power, it quickly intervenes to keep them in line.
Perhaps the Conservatives are telling themselves that their actions will disrupt the labour movement, that they will scare the postal workers and other workers who are fighting to maintain their buying power. But they are wrong.
I know that many members on the government side hate unions, and they candidly admit it. They do not like our country's labour laws. They do not like the right to freedom of association; they do not like health and safety laws; they do not like minimum wage legislation. I know that some members opposite firmly believe in the invisible hand that guides the economy, the one that pushed us into the 2008 crisis and that is currently pushing countries like Greece, Spain and Iceland towards bankruptcy.
It is up to the general public and us to repair the damage that this hand, insensitive and unqualified to make society more fair, has wrought on the savings of small investors and families. The people are the ones suffering from the financial sector's lust, those small investors who lost $40,000 billion during the crisis. But the government did not intervene then.
Canada Post is telling its young employees that it can no longer ensure that the current pension plan will be available for future generations. That is strange, is it not, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary? Canada Post can no longer guarantee pensions for future generations. Yet, our companies are making record profits year after year. Our banks are making record profits year after year. Canada Post Corporation is also making profits. So why reduce benefits for young workers?
I feel that if we cannot understand the Conservatives' objective, the objective of these ideologues, we cannot understand the situation. It is incomprehensible that a crown corporation making $281 million in profits is asking young workers to accept lower wages and no guarantees in terms of pension plans. Where is the logic in that?
On this side of the House, we believe that pension plans are essential and that all Canadian workers should be able to have a pension plan to help them to live their later years in dignity and get out of poverty. The mere $1.68 a day that this government is offering is not going to help our seniors get out of poverty.
On this side of the House, we do not believe that the unions are too big. On the contrary, we believe that they should continue to grow and that more unions are needed. More unions should be created in our businesses and throughout the world to provide balance and ensure that the wealth that is generated benefits everyone, that it is redistributed.
A recent study showed that the purchasing power of the average Canadian worker increased by $1 a week over the past 25 years. People are not idiots or fools. They know that, today, it takes two salaries to support a small family. Even with those two salaries, they have difficulty buying essential commodities and paying for heating and electricity. Meanwhile, billionaires in Canada and throughout the world are growing richer. It is not normal to live in such a society. Our role, as members of the NDP, is not only to tell the government that we do not agree with Bill C-6 and the hypocritical role that it is playing in this dispute, but also to help all workers maintain and improve their working conditions.
On this side of the House, we do not believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand. We also do not believe that Canada Post negotiated honestly and in good faith. It negotiated in such a way that the government was able to introduce Bill C-6. Coming out of the election, the Conservative Prime Minister said that he was satisfied with the result because, finally, the debate would be clear. For once, I agree with him. It is true. The debate is very, very clear.
On this side of the House, it is clear. The NDP wants postal workers to maintain and improve their purchasing power, working conditions and pension fund, and it wants the young people who are hired by Canada Post to have the same conditions and benefits that have been negotiated over the years.
On this side, we want Canadian workers to have access to job security, and real protection against unemployment and illness. Clearly, our objective is not to produce more billionaires, but to increase the number of families that do not live in poverty. That is our vision for the future of Canada, and each time the government attempts, by various means, as it is doing with Bill C-6, to weaken the work world, we will be there.
Soon, we will have third reading of the bill and we will introduce amendments. I hope that the hours we have just spent here will lead the government, in good conscience, to find an honourable solution to this crisis. Each amendment could be discussed endlessly, but we will be here. We must find a solution to this crisis. I encourage the members opposite to reflect, in good conscience, and to find solutions. 
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. He talked about how we need more and more unions and how we need redistribution of wealth, two hallmark policies of socialism. I thought when the NDP went to the Vancouver convention they were talking about removing socialism from their party constitution. I was happy to hear that, because socialism does not work. 
Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing not of money but of misery.” That was Winston Churchill, one of the greatest leaders of the previous century. He knew what socialism was and he recognized it for the dangers it provides.
The NDP also talk about democracy and the democracy of the union. Now, why are thousands and thousands of Canadians across this country forced to join unions? Why must they join a union to be a teacher? Why must they join a union to be a postal worker? If they are democratic, why can they not have a choice?
[Interjection]
Pierre Dionne Labelle: Madam Speaker, in what a demagogic way my words have been twisted. I never said that Canadians must join unions. I said that we hope that there will be as many unions as possible. In fact, in modern western countries where unions exist and wealth is distributed, life expectancy is higher, there is less illness, and social services are well supported. Those countries have the most vibrant economies. We need only look to Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. 
This is the basis for my comment about the need for unions. In countries where there are no unions, people work for 10¢ an hour and have no services—no health services or social security. That is the logic behind my comments.
Guy Caron: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord. Over the 37-hour debate, the sound of a broken record has been reaching my ears from the other side of the House. The same arguments have been brought up over and over. The Conservatives claim that the NDP is to blame for the 37-hour debate, since it refuses to accept the bill the Conservatives have tabled. There are specific reasons why we do not agree with the bill. 
However, we have proposed alternatives to the bill, which the government knew we would not support. We proposed that the government replace the bill with back-to-work legislation that would not affect the workers' right to a rotating strike. We proposed that the government replace it with a bill that would extend the collective agreement by a few years, so that the two parties could come to an agreement naturally. Instead, the government presented us with a bill that imposes unfair conditions on employees and forces a return to work in violation of the free bargaining provisions. Therefore, I ask that my colleague tell me which of the three options proposed he prefers and whether that option would help us go home sooner. 
[Interjection]
Pierre Dionne Labelle: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that withdrawing this immoral and unjust bill would be the best solution. Postal workers have told us that if the government withdrew the bill and the Canada Post Corporation ended its lockout, the workers would return to work today. What are they waiting for to withdraw this bill? What are they waiting for to end the lockout? What are they waiting for to negotiate in good faith instead of pursuing a hidden right-wing political agenda? That is what we are wondering. 
Canadians are wondering the same thing. Where is the government headed when it comes to workers? What does it intend to do about our rights and our existing social benefits?
Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people in my riding of LaSalle—Émard and tell them how it feels to be away from my riding to discuss issues that are very dear to me. I would imagine that every member in the House feels the same way. I want to repeat how incredibly proud I am to be part of a team that is standing up to protect the fundamental rights of workers.
The legislation put forward by the government, Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, could, in the short term, achieve the goal of getting postal service back on track. But the long-term impacts of passing this legislation are still unknown. The reason the members of the official opposition are so vehemently opposed to this bill is that they believe it will have far-reaching long-term consequences.
What bothers me about this bill is that the conditions of the new collective agreement have been decided in advance. The government is putting shackles not only on the workers, but also on the employer and on the arbitrator who will have to decide the matter. What worries me about this bill are the long-term effects of the conditions being imposed, a concern that has been raised articulately and exhaustively by my colleagues. The conditions being imposed will lead to reduced incomes and a lower standard of living for the middle class. And that includes working conditions and future pension benefits.
In the long term, this measure will jeopardize the economic recovery that is so important to the current government, as well as Canada's future economic stability. Even more troubling is the fact that this lockout and this bill will only serve to poison labour-management relations. These conditions create a two-tier system of new hires versus existing employees, something that goes against the values of fairness that Canadians hold so dear.
Canada Post is part of our daily lives. It is a public service that ensures mail delivery to every community across this beautiful and vast nation of ours. Unfortunately, the lockout and Bill C-6 send mixed messages. The job actions taken by Canada Post management—service interruption on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the lockout—were a draconian response to the rotating strikes initiated previously. The government responded by introducing Bill C-6.
What message is the government sending to Canadians? First of all, they are being subjected to the effects of a lockout, and small and medium-size businesses are suffering financially. Unfortunately, the long-term impact of this government's actions will be the erosion of the very notion of public service. Why do we need public services like Canada Post? Because they provide an affordable service that meets the needs of all Canadians, regardless of where they live across the country, from coast to coast, from the far north to the south.
The Public Service is also a large employer, one that offers interesting working conditions for its employees and provides them with a standard of living such that they can help the country's economy to flourish. It is also important for us to remember that as Members of Parliament, we are part of the Public Service, in that we serve all Canadians, regardless of where they live.
I am disturbed by the fact that this government is trying to turn us into a society where the legitimate right to collective bargaining to secure attractive working conditions will be denied and where collective rights will take a back seat to economic interests.
I am proud to be part of a team that stands united in its opposition to Bill C-6, which threatens the right to freely negotiate a collective agreement.
Dean Del Mastro: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that a lot of people are being harmed through this work stoppage at Canada Post. We need to go back to October. There were some eight months of negotiations that occurred, three months in January into the spring with conciliation, a month with a mediator that was appointed. 
Clearly, this is a stalemate that will not be solved by the parties. We saw the rotating strikes, which cost Canadian taxpayers, who, ultimately, own Canada Post, some $100 million. Today, the postal workers from coast to coast who are part of the losses that are occurring, postal workers in places like Peterborough and right across this country, are not being paid and some of them are on disability. If we could pass this bill, they will start being paid immediately. They will go back to work, postal service will resume and we will have put in place a solution.
the New Democrats constantly tell us to take the locks off. They know that is not a solution. They know that is simply a path to another impasse. It is more uncertainty for Canadian businesses and postal workers who just want to go to work. I keep hearing about young workers. I can say that if positions open up at Canada Post in Peterborough or elsewhere, there will be no shortage of young workers. However, I hope Canada Post does not engage in ageism because I believe new hires should be open to people of any age, not only young people.
I hope the NDP members soon come around because the pain and suffering they are thrusting upon Canadians extends to postal workers, too.
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I did not hear any question. However, I did listen closely to the comments of the government member.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I appreciated the thoughtful and well laid-out arguments that my colleague made to try to explain to the public that might be watching the charade that is unfolding in front of their eyes as the Conservative government, the architect of this whole problem, stubbornly maintains its manufactured crisis and yet tries to pitch the blame on the NDP.
I wonder if my colleague would take a moment to sum up her thoughts in that regard.
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, it is important to remember that the lockout was ordered by Canada Post, a crown corporation. If government members are concerned, especially in light of the economic losses that are apparently mounting, the solution, quite simply, would be to advise the management at Canada Post that a lockout adversely affects economic growth and has a destabilizing effect on Canada's economy.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak English very often, but I will give it a try. I have just received via Facebook a rather interesting message from an Anglophone, someone whom I do not know, who lives in a riding in British Columbia. He is asking the following question and I would like to pass it along to the member for LaSalle—Émard.
He said: “Remember when unions crashed the stockmarket, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no taxes? No? Me neither”.
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, this is a clear illustration of the strength that a community that stands up for the rights of workers can have. Currently, the economy is out of control and the profits of large corporations are not being redistributed. That is partly what is being expressed here and what we want to rectify. We want to see a power relationship in which a community, where there is strength in unity, can defend the rights of workers.
Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government tells us that we should accept this bill because the proposed agreement includes salary increases. That is irrelevant. If the government is waiting for us to approve this bill based on that argument alone, it is going to be waiting a long time.
I even wonder if the government has read its own bill. If it had, it would have realized that we are not rejecting this bill because of a single aspect.
 If we cannot make ourselves understood by the government, if it refuses to hear us because it believes it is above everything that happens in the House, let us try something else. Let us try to make the government understand that we are refusing to approve this bill because Canada Post workers are asking us to do so, and not only are they asking us to do so, but they are explaining why.
Here is an example a Canada Post worker sent me. He points out that one of the issues with the collective agreement that Canada Post is trying to force upon them is very important for future postal workers, and that is the shortage of workers and the demographics of the new workforce that we will see in the future. 
First of all, the new contract would reduce the salaries of new employees from $24 per hour to $18 per hour. He explains that the new workers available for hire will be Aboriginal people and newcomers to Canada. These new workers will work for lower wages and reduced benefits, making them a separate class of workers and citizens. Once again, it is an insult to see co-workers being treated as second-class citizens.
There will also be retirees, and young men and women trying to support their families. They deserve a decent salary, the one that Canada Post already pays for the same work. Equal pay for work of equal value.
The many issues also include, as he points out, preserving sick leave and other benefits. In his letter this worker begs us not to let Canada Post cut their sick leave. For nearly 40 years, Canada Post has included sick leave in its offers, and the cost of this measure has not prevented Canada Post from making profits during the past 16 years. 
Moreover, although the figures vary depending on the source, from 10,000 to 20,000 positions would be eliminated over the next 10 years. That means that Canada Post would have less vacation leave and other costs to pay. This worker cannot believe that, with these savings, Canada Post executives could no longer afford to provide sick leave for those whose jobs will not be cut. These sick days are a form of insurance. Some workers use them and others do not, so they are not a heavy burden on the system, as suggested by the executives. 
His letter also mentions the high workplace injury rate and the many employees dealing with chronic physical ailments. 
 The union members are also affected by high rates of depression and mental illness, most of which are due to the high level of stress in the workplace, something that even the Canada Post executives have confirmed. 
They even declared themselves to be champions of mental health. Despite this, they tried to cut sick leave instead of leaving current programs in place to help employees. Canada Post is saying that it wants to make the corporation a model employer, but its actions do not match its words.
Canada Post is saying that revenues are down, but it has done everything possible to shoot itself in the foot in terms of customer service. It is as though the company were purposely trying to fail on this front. It has cut the number of service counters and staff, both in rural municipalities and in large cities. How can Canada Post make money if it has no employees behind the counter to sell products and services?
There are long line-ups and not enough employees to serve customers. In the post office where this postal worker works, there used to be two customer service staff. Canada Post got rid of them a few years ago. Needless to say, sales have dropped significantly. The other service employees are trying to serve customers, but they do not have the necessary time or training, so there are no performance guarantees.
In addition, management is not available to respond to clients' needs. Clients are referred to a 1-800 number, which is now run by a private company. The employees are also required to fill out all of the paperwork required by management, which further reduces the time they have available to help customers. Customers must fill out forms themselves. High error rates slow down processing and create a lot of dissatisfaction.
The range of services needs to be increased, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. It should not get harder for them to send parcels. Many of the problems at Canada Post have nothing to do with the work or wages of employees.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to wait until the hon. member finished her speech as I did not want to interrupt. I realize that she is new to the House but I believe she is in violation of a Standing Order while wearing a prop while she speaks. I am sure she is unaware of the rule and if she could correct that we would appreciate it.
The Speaker: Earlier today, the Speaker made a ruling that props and visual aids are prohibited. I am therefore asking the hon. member to remove her prop.
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments talking about the future and really that distant future. I am actually a surgeon by training and this bill does not need the three, four or five days of labour; it needs a C-section. We need to move rapidly and ensure that we do things for Canadians and for Canadian businesses today.
Based on a few of my concerns from things that were raised earlier, I wonder whether the members opposite read the Bill C-6 clauses with regard to wage increases as outlined in the bill in clause 15. We are here supporting our strong, stable national majority government and my rural postal workers would like to know whether the member will agree that there are increases outlined in Bill C-6, clause 15.
[Interjection]
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond to the member opposite. She is a surgeon and I am a family doctor.
A C-section is performed when a person is in pain. Agreed? When a C-section is performed, it is done to alleviate pain, not simply for the joy of cutting.
I am telling the hon. member that I carefully read her bill, and I do not think she understands what it means. This bill means that, in the future, when there are other disputes involving companies other than Canada Post, the government will systematically intervene.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the government has repeated its belief that urgent action is required. It was indeed the government that conducted itself with urgency when the crown corporation locked the employees out. It was the government that acted with urgency in tabling back to work legislation. Now the government says that urgent action is required to end this filibuster. 
I repeat observations I made earlier in the House. The government did indeed have options available to it. When the government tabled government business Motion No. 3, there were specific opportunities missing from that motion that could have allowed expeditious passage of this bill, different sections referencing various standing orders, similar to the orders that were offered in the passage of the HST bill, the megatrials bill and the budget implementation act. They were not in the government motion.
I am asking if the New Democratic Party has engaged in any discussions with the government on amendments and if the government has accepted the New Democratic Party's offer to sit down and discuss amendments. It appears that the only way this is going to be resolved is if those two parties get together and cut a deal.
[Interjection]
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member please repeat the end of his question? I did not hear what he said.
The Speaker: There is very little time left. If the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte would like to briefly put the last part of his question, I will allow a very brief response.
[Interjection]
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, that is very fair of you. I appreciate the member's frankness.
The question was whether members of the New Democratic Party have put forward options for amendments to this legislation. Has the NDP engaged in any discussions with the government? Has the government engaged in any discussions with the NDP and what is the status?
The Speaker: There are only 15 seconds remaining for the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
[Interjection]
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, as both hon. members indicated, I am a new member of Parliament. The NDP has done a little but I a assume that we will have amendments to make later. For now, we are trying to discuss this bill, which we find unacceptable and unfair for workers. 
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn to kill 10 minutes, so I am going to set about doing that.
We are all getting tired of hearing the same questions and answers back and forth. We all know we are engaged in this process to allow the parties to continue to negotiate in the absence of the draconian and heavy-handed imposition of the terms and conditions of their settlement as found in Bill C-6. However, it has been a useful exercise in the sense that over the course of 36 hours, as we get more physically exhausted, members on that side of the House are getting grumpier and are starting to reveal a little more about who they really are and what their real agenda is.
[Interjection]
Mr. Gordon Brown: Why did the hon. member not show up for the vote? Where was the member for the vote?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, as they get crankier, they slip from the PMO's talking points and start to reveal how they really feel about organized labour—
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: That was just how I felt about the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. It's not all organized labour, it's just the hon. member.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: —and about elevating the standard of wages and working conditions through free collective bargaining. We get insight and glimpses about how they feel about pension plans, how they feel about defined benefit plans. We start to see what they are really trying to do here is take on some big issues.
As the media has been saying, the Conservatives have a majority government now so they better get busy and throw some red meat to their base because their base is getting itchy. They are starting to wonder why they elected them when they have compromised—
[Interjection]
Mr. Randy Kamp: The member is one to talk.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind members there will be a five-minute question and comment period when the member is finished his 10-minute speech. If they have points they would like to raise or questions they would like to ask, I would be happy to recognize them at that point, but until then, if they could just restrain themselves, we could hear the member for Winnipeg Centre.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that ruling. 
As I was saying, as the party of grumpy old guys gets grumpier, its base is getting grumpy as well. That party's base is getting frustrated. Every single principle upon which those members got elected by that base, the party has compromised and jettisoned overboard, thrown overside in the interests of political expediency, whether it is stacking the Senate with their cronies, which the Conservatives said they would never do, or whether it is racking up record deficits, which they said they would not do. The Conservatives' base is starting to wonder where the party is that they elected. Now that the Conservatives have their majority, now is the time to come on strong.
I would think the Minister of Finance was channelling Maggie Thatcher, if he had a sweater set and pearls. Every time I am in the men's washroom at the urinal, I expect to look over and see Maggie Thatcher right beside me, but no, it is the Minister of Finance.
The Conservatives are looking south of the border. If people liked the Mike Harris government, they will certainly like the labour legislation those guys have in mind. We are getting an inkling of what that will be like now. They take on big ticket items, such as defined benefit pension plans. Thomas d'Aquino and the 140 CEOs in the country are who those guys work for. That party is the political arm of the Business Council on National Issues. They have said that we have to do away with defined benefit pension plans, so those guys are dutifully falling into line. They would have us put in place some American-style 401K plan, and we know how well that has worked for American workers who invested their life savings in Enron and others. 
The Conservatives would have us revisit our labour laws, like the right to work laws in the United States. As they have set about trying to recreate Canada in the image of the George Bush or Ronald Reagan United States, or however limited their vision is, I do not know if they realize what a fight they will get from the official opposition. 
Also there are predictable consequences. There is a point in law that says a person can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his or her actions. I will tell one story as a graphic illustration of the predictable outcome of the direction in which the Conservatives are taking us. 
In 1913 there was a famous fire in New York City at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Hundreds of workers died because of the sweatshop conditions, et cetera. It was at that time that workplace health and safety conditions began to improve, just out of public outrage, until about the time the Reaganites said, “Enough of these union nuisances. They are holding back prosperity. We have to smash the unions”. They put in place right to work states, like North Carolina, not unlike what the Harris government tried to do in Ontario.
I will tell a story about a chicken factory in Durham, North Carolina. This is a recent story. It happened in the 1990s. In a chicken processing plant, the chickens go by so fast that the poor women who work in the place have to do 40 actions per chicken per minute. They have to cut the wing tips off, cut the neck off, and so on. It goes so fast and it is ice cold in the plant, they do not know they have cut themselves until they see the blood dripping on the ground because their hands are so cold. They are paid $7.50 to $8 an hour. They started stealing the wing tips, the necks and the giblets that would otherwise go into hot dogs, and they would sneak them home. This is a true story. The employer padlocked the doors from the outside. The place started on fire.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Pat Martin:  Some members are laughing. 
The Speaker: Order. If members want to ask questions during questions and comments, they should wait until then. Otherwise the Chair will not recognize them if they are using the time provided for the member's speech to ask their questions or make their comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to tell a story that happened in the 1990s as a graphic illustration of why our side gets so animated about these issues. The employer padlocked the door on the outside. Underpaid rural black women from North Carolina who largely made up the workforce were taking home wing tips so they could make soup out of it and the place caught on fire: 43 employees died and another 110 were hospitalized. This was the worst industrial relations incident since the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory of 1913 in New York City, so we have come full circle. 
If anyone has travelled in rural Pennsylvania, rural North Carolina, or Florida, I think there are 60 of these right to work states, which smashed the labour union in the United States thinking it was the road to prosperity. I saw a bumper sticker the last time I was in the United States that said, “At least the war on the middle class is going well”. That is the only war they are winning. They have gone from the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world to almost a failed state. It is a false economy. 
There is no utility in forcing wages down. We are not going to shrink our way to prosperity. Fair wages benefit the whole community and the direction we are seeing revealed in the Conservatives' weaker moments when they are tired, sleepy and grumpy and their true colours start to show, scares us a great deal. It is not the Canadian way. We are 33% unionized. 
My colleague argues we should be more unionized because fair wages and free collective bargaining have led to labour peace. That was the post-war compact. Right after the war there were a lot of wildcat strikes and a lot of violence on picket lines. Guys had their heads split open on picket lines, but by free collective bargaining through a prescribed negotiations process we eliminated that violence. We eliminated work stoppages with fair wages, et cetera. 
The Conservatives are inviting labour unrest the likes of which we have not seen since the 1930s and they are starting with the most volatile industrial relations environment in the free world, which is the Canadian post office. Believe me, one does not mess with the Canadian post office's labour relations. One does not invite tourists to the bargaining table in that particular environment, because it is a tinderbox that is ready to blow at any given time and the government just pressed the plunger. The postal workers have offered to go back to work. 
If it were not for the irresponsible, reckless, mean-spirited, inflammatory actions of the government with this unnecessary back to work legislation, the workers have agreed to go back to work with no rotating strikes. However, they want to press their agenda because it is the tea party all over again here. It is the Republican Tea Party political environment. Conservatives have to throw some red meat to their base, so they are going to take on the big, bad union of Canada Post Corporation and show it a thing or two with a stable majority Conservative Government. 
The government does not know the damage and the misery it is inviting. The worst thing that could be done for an economic recovery is to invite labour unrest and that is what it is doing. Conservatives are a bunch of amateurs. 
[Interjection]
Phil McColeman: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in the House a long time, the last Parliament and this session, but the last comments sounded unparliamentary and I would ask you to request an apology of that speaker. 
The Speaker: I did not hear anything specifically unparliamentary. If the member is referring to the word “amateur”, I am not sure if that would fall into the realm of unparliamentary. 
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I received a communication from the publisher and managing editor of a small business magazine. Its online survey which began on June 3 to find out how the strike was impacting small businesses in Canada has been ongoing. It has received hundreds of responses from small business people across the country.
As of yesterday, 91% of small business respondents have said the lockout has been having a negative impact on their businesses. 
My question for the member opposite has to do with choosing sides in this dispute. It is clear that the official opposition is standing in solidarity with CUPW. Can the member please explain to the House how he can justify turning his back on the rest of Canadians and so clearly picking sides in this dispute and frankly, not picking the side of business where people have jobs they depend on? As the official opposition, is it not supposed to take the sides of all Canadians in this dispute?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, someone used a quote from Winston Churchill against us a little while ago.
There is a quote from Disraeli that says: “A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy”.
The hypocrisy that exists here is the government that manufactured this crisis in a classic wag the dog kind of a scenario and then points to us as if we are problem here. The government picked a fight and it is a scrappy thing to do.
There are some scrappy guys on that side and they like to throw their weight around now that they have a majority. So the government picked a perfect enemy, a straw man. It decided to jump all over Canada Post's union because it has the reputation of being sort of a militant union. The tough guys here are going take the union on, so that they show their base. As the Conservatives say, throw some red meat to their base by getting tough with big labour. They just love it. They eat it up.
What worries me is it is like the Wisconsin experience. All over the United States the public sector unions are being taken on and sure enough, the Republicans are trying to ride that into the next—
The Speaker: I will have to stop the member there to allow for some more questions and comments.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, first, is the member aware that the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives is no longer Thomas d'Aquino but former Liberal cabinet minister, John Manley, who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister in May specifically asking to do away with supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board in the agricultural sector? That shows the influence.
Second, is the member aware that in Sweden over 70% of the labour force is unionized, that it is mandatory for labour to be on the board of directors with management and it has had labour peace since that policy was instituted? And who is leading the economic recovery today? It is not Canada. It is Australia, with a labour government, and Sweden. Is the member aware of that?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, most successful western democracies have a relatively tripartite approach to their economic development: business, government and labour. Whether labour is at the table or not, their rights to negotiate fair wages are enshrined in ways that cannot be eliminated.
Again, we have a saying that fair wages benefit the whole community, but the only way to elevate the standard of wages, working conditions and working people has been through free collective bargaining. Again, we cannot shrink our way to prosperity, we believe we grow our way to prosperity. A burgeoning, healthy, consuming middle class is key and integral to our economic recovery.
Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the consent or approval of the members opposite to wear this small Quebec flag since I am unable to participate in Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
The Speaker: I do not think that the hon. member needs consent. It is not a prohibited prop.
[Interjection]
François Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say hello to my constituents. I would have liked to have been with them yesterday. I would especially like to salute shift workers. We have come to a better understanding of their reality over the past few days. I think of them every time I get up in the middle of the night. I have a great deal of respect for them. 
I would like to come back to what I consider to be the main problem with the current government's attitude. This government systematically manipulates and, in particular, polarizes the debates that are important to our society. I will present three arguments because I do not wish to make such an assertion without providing valid reasons.
The day before yesterday, the hon. Prime Minister did something that had not been done since 1964. He took the liberty of exploiting a national holiday. He rose in the House to say that the opposition needed only to vote on what was on the table if it wanted to be with friends and family on the national holiday. We have not seen this kind of contempt for such an important symbol of one of the founding nations of this country since 1964.
Did the hon. Prime Minister subsequently tour Quebec to explain his point of view? I still would not have approved, but I could have respected his actions. Did he stay in the House to support his troops? I still would not have approved, but I could have respected his actions. No, the right hon. Prime Minister went to Thetford Mines— where asbestos is a hot topic, as we all know—to throw some oil on the fire. Once again, event after event, they throw oil on the fire and polarize the debate. That is no way to govern Canadians.
Before getting back to the bill being examined, I would like to speak about the gun registry. I am fortunate to come from a rural riding that also has some cities. There are organized women's groups. There are also organized hunters' groups, which include outstanding citizens who hunt duck. They help maintain a balance for farmers by ensuring that there are not too many ducks eating their crops. 
For the past three or fours years, those two groups have not needed a government that polarizes the debate. Women's groups have told me they want the gun registry maintained. The police have also told me they want to keep the registry. When two neighbours start threatening to kill each other, I am not the one who has to step into the line of fire and break it up; it is the police. The police themselves have told us they need this tool.
The hunters I often meet in the mountains tell me they do not want us to get rid of the gun registry. All they want is a few changes that would show them more respect. They do not want to feel as though they are looked upon as potentially dishonest people. That is all they have asked me for. None of the groups has told me they want to see the gun registry eliminated. Once again, polarization.
Now back to the bill before us. Yet again, the government is using this bill to manipulate and polarize the debate. The union was acting responsibly, taking reasonable job action: rotating strikes. There were workers who committed, regardless of the events, to volunteer their services to deliver important cheques such as employment insurance payments.
The union had more than 90% support for its actions. Barely a week ago, the minister herself admitted that the rotating strikes were not really creating much disruption. Then all of a sudden, a lockout. What for? When something that was not called for by anyone happens in the public domain, there is a reason behind it, a desired outcome in mind. Unfortunately, this lockout made it possible for the members of the current government to assert a falsehood: that this was a strike.
We are starting to get the correct message out to the national media that this is a lockout, because they have not had the decency to call it by its rightful name. This is a lockout, not a strike. It has taken us three days to get the truth out to the public. 
What are they trying to accomplish? To their way of thinking, they are siding with Canadians who work hard and who are fed up with capricious unions. Thirty-three per cent of Canadians are unionized. They have brothers, they have relatives. When their wages increase, what do they do with the extra money in their pockets? Well, they buy another beer, or another item of clothing from an establishment in their community.
Finally, I was floored to see the union itself being vilified. I have an advantage that the Conservatives do not have. When I join workers on a picket line, they talk to me. I am still looking for the bad guy in the union who threatened these workers and forced them on to the picket line. I still have not found him. 
It is time to stop manipulating the debate. Quite simply, what we are dealing with is a postal workers union that, backed by over 90% of its members, resorted to reasonable pressure tactics. The right-leaning Conservative government, in the meantime, orders a lockout to achieve its objectives.
Before we get around to discussing the unfairness of many of the provisions in the bill now before the House, there is something very basic that needs to be explained to Canadians. Given its unreasonable attitude and approach to this debate, is it possible that the government will soon no longer grant parties the right to resort to reasonable pressure tactics? Are we about to see a motion tabled in this House calling for pressure tactics to be limited to no more than three or four days? I have an idea: perhaps pressure tactics should be approved by the Minister of Labour three days in advance. There is a good idea. 
I am tempted to continue in English because I see that many of my colleagues on the other side are not wearing their earpiece. I want to be very sure that everyone understands what I am saying.
If they respect seniors waiting for drugs, they will unlock the lockout. If they respect rural and native communities living far away from services, they will unlock the lockout. If they respect small business, and do not want to cut salaries of thousands of young workers who will then still be consumers and bring good business to small businesses, they will unlock the lockout. Workers should be allowed to come back to the table to negotiate. Doing that will fix it all. They should unlock the lockout.
Since I have one minute left, I would like to conclude with three or four suggestions I disagreed with, which would at least present a consistent picture.
I am willing to support a bill that would decrease the salary of all new Conservative members by 18%. Let us put that motion on the table. That would make me happy. I would vote for that.
I would like to see another motion, one to change the title of the Minister of Labour to the Minister of Lowering Working Conditions. At least that would be honest.
I would also like to see legislation put forward to prohibit reasonable job action without prior consent from the Minister of Labour. This would clearly show the true intentions of this government.
Mr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have all been here a long time. This morning I have heard members of the opposition talk about how often they speak to union leaders. Throughout this debate they seem to be repeatedly parroting the CUPW talking points. It is clear they have a hotline and are beholden to the big union bosses. The lack of mail service is crippling small business. It is crippling the economy, and it is hurting Canadian families.
I have two questions. Number one: why will the opposition not get on that hotline or the “Batphone” or whatever they use to talk to the union bosses, and tell them to get back to the bargaining table so we can get this solved or to support our legislation so mail delivery will resume?
Number two: is the opposition repeating talking points coming directly from CUPW that are in fact on CUPW letterhead?
[Interjection]
François Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, if this can reassure my colleague across the way, personally I have not even seen a letterhead from the union in question; therefore, I could not have repeated the content of such letters. I would like to clarify one thing: I have spoken to unionized workers on the street, not to union leaders. I have heard the views of these people, my fellow citizens, consumers, and my brothers-in-law. So, I could not comment on hotline. 
That said, one comment comes back repeatedly: under suitable conditions, the parties could simply agree to resume negotiations while the former collective agreement would continue to apply. They are totally open to that.
The solution is not complicated. Unlock the lock-out! That is simple enough. Solutions are right here in front of us and the situation could be resolved within three hours.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in regard to the question the member just asked, I walked the picket line in the first rotating strike at the Hamilton sorting centre. I would not know the president of CUPW if he walked into the room. One thing I do know is we share solidarity in wanting to take care of the workers of Canada, and in this case particularly the workers at Canada Post. That is what we share.
 Personally, I have not seen one piece of paper in this lobby from CUPW. I do not know that there are any there. The reality is that we understand the issues and we share CUPW's perspective of the issues. That is very clear.
The member says he met workers on the street. Was that on a picket line?
[Interjection]
François Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, it was right in my riding. There is not one big centre but rather several centres: Montmagny, La Pocatière and Rivière-du-Loup. It was in Montmagny that I met about 20 employees, including a union leader. It is not my field so I do not know what his rank was, but he was an extremely nice union leader who seemed to be very well liked by his members, and not a monster that they had forced to come under some mysterious threat. 
Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have heard throughout this entire debate over the past just about 40 hours now how important and valued the postal service is to every Canadian. I have heard that Canadians have been handcuffed by this disruption and that small business is jeopardized. It sounds to me as though we are dealing with an essential service for all Canadians.
 My question to the hon. member is this: Is he willing to support designating Canada Post an essential service?
[Interjection]
François Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, that would be a job for another committee or another bill. I do not want to mix things up, definitely not.
The mail is very important. So important that I think that they should unlock the lockout today. 
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we listen to the member for Winnipeg Centre and other members, it is obvious that their true colours are starting to show and they are beholden to the union. They have forgotten about the small businesses they are crippling and about ordinary Canadians.
In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain there has been severe flooding from Yellow Grass, Weyburn, and Estevan to Roche Percee. People are losing homes.
I got a letter from the Chamber of Commerce. It says:
 As you are aware, the past seven days have been taxing for everyone in southeastern Saskatchewan.... Flood damage has forced the closure of a number of our retail and service businesses.... 
 Many of our businesses are already in a crisis mode as a result of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers strike. Businesses are not receiving payments from many of their customers, and we fear that having more hurdles in their way at this time may cause job losses, bankruptcies, and migration of people out of our area. 
Given all of that, why do these members not put the interests of Canadians at hand, ensure that their benefits are looked after, and support this bill to get the mail moving?
[Interjection]
François Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, we are everywhere in Canada and in Quebec for people have suffered terrible losses as a result of floods. This is what is happening. On the other hand, the union is ready to go back to the bargaining table and is offering solutions. 
Unlock the lockout.
Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. I have heard both sides talk about different issues and go back and forth on a number of different things. I think what we all agree upon is a sense of fairness. I think members on both sides would agree that we want a sense of fairness. Let me try to use what happened years ago as an illustration of how we would like that fairness to happen. 
 In my previous life as a union elected official, I used to keep agreements. Some called me a union boss, but my members never called me that. They used to call me by my first name. I used to go to co-op classes in schools and do a bit of a history of how collective bargaining started and show them what collective bargaining books looked like.
 One of the very first books I showed them was all of about 12 pages. That was it. I used to bring in the most recent agreements, which were about eight books that had all kinds of measures and clauses in them. The one that had 12 pages had a very unfair clause in it, and I think all of us would agree with the unfairness of the clause. Let me explain what it was about.
It was about the three classes of workers, which were men, women and boys. For those three classes there were three very different wage rates, regardless of what they did. Regardless of how severe or dangerous the job might have been, men made more, women made less, and boys made even less. This was at a time when companies could actually hire boys, which meant they were under the age of 16.
I met a man, who has fortunately retired and has a decent pension courtesy of what was then the United Auto Workers ans is now the CAW, who was a boy when he started working. He actually had that classification. He was the last boy ever hired in the GM plant in St. Catharines. He told me about what used to happen at the time.
There were three classifications of workers all making different wages regardless of the work they did. How were folks laid off when things got slow? I am sure people are wondering that. Men were the first to stay. 
One would expect, because the wage classification was men, women and boys, they would have been laid off exactly the same way. They were not. Women were laid off first and employers kept the boys. The boys would then be made to do the jobs that the women used to do for the same wages they made doing what was termed a “boy's job”, which for the most part in those days was bringing water to the assembly line because there were no fountains. They used to bring water to the men working on the line.
I heard my colleagues on the other side talk about a sense of fairness. Is it okay that new workers start with less pay in the postal service because other workers do? The illustrations that they used were about workers who would eventually move to the top rate of pay. 
They talked about teachers. It is true that new teachers do not start at the same rate of pay as senior teachers. That is absolutely true in most provinces of this country. That is not what Canada Post is talking about. It is not talking about a wage rate for new employees that is lower than that of those who are already there but that over time, with experience, they will eventually get to the same rate. It is talking about the wage rate being lower for the rest of a person's working life. A person would continue to work with someone who got hired the day before the new contract came into being. 
Let us say two people of the same age, 22, get hired. One gets hired the day before this new agreement and the other gets hired the day after the new agreement. Those two workers work the same number of years, because they are the same age. One will work for 18% more, and the other will work for 18% less and the one who works for less will never catch up. That is the intent. Surely, that is as unfair as the three classifications of workers.
By the way, that was in the 1930s. It was a unionized workplace with a recognized collective agreement. It was around the Second World War, not that long ago. It seems like a long time ago, but there are members in the House who would have been alive albeit very young at the time this agreement was in place.
People understood that that was patently unfair and changed it over time. Surely we can see the unfairness of two workers, one hired the day before, one hired the day after a collective agreement, one working for more than the other and doing exactly the same job. Whether it be a letter carrier, a sorter, a clerk, whatever the job they happen to have within the postal service, the rest of their working days they would work for less than the other, doing exactly the same work. 
Surely we see that is unfair. I think we all would see the unfairness in that. So why would we want to propagate that on those workers? If we want to have some sense of fairness we would want to actually have them all work for the same wage. I hope they would not ask me whether they should all just not take a reduction. If it is a profitable corporation, I do not see why wages should roll back. 
I will give an example of what would happen. In my riding of Welland, we have lost major manufacturing like John Deere, Atlas Steel and Union Carbide. This has been going on since before the recession of two years ago. It has been going on for the last 15 years. What we see are workers, who used to make $28, $29, $30 an hour, now working for $12 and $14 trying to raise the same family, pay the same mortgage, pay the same debts for their cars and trying to get their kids into post-secondary education but having to live on less than half the wage. What we see in Welland is folks in poverty. 
The rate of poverty in my riding has gone up exponentially over the last 15 years. Families are relocating. We have seen an erosion of the middle class because the good paying jobs have been replaced by those that pay less. We see defaults on property taxes going up. When I talk to the five mayors of the communities I represent they all say the same thing. They say that they have difficulty with folks who are getting into property tax arrears. 
When those folks come into my constituency office, they ask if there is any way I can help them with that. All of us know there is not. We ask them how that happened to them and they tell us that they lost their job at the Deere where they were making $28 an hour. They tell us that they were lucky enough to get a new job but that they are only making $14.50 an hour. Many of them have kids at home and mortgages to pay. Some have tried to sell their house but it did not move because of the mortgage. 
We are having some struggling times in Welland. Yes, there are some good things happening in Welland. For the folks who are listening, I want to say that Welland is a great place to invest. Things are happening in Welland but it will be a slower recovery because it has happened over a long period of time and we have literally lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. It will take time and it will have to take that change to get there.
Ultimately, when we talk about that fairness issue, if we continue to drive wages backward , as some of my colleagues talked about a little earlier, we indeed will have an erosion in the middle class.
My father, as a young man with a young family in the U.K., was a shipbuilder who came to this country at the request of the Canadian immigration board because he had the skills but he did not have any work. He brought myself, my two sisters and my brother to Collingwood to start work at the shipyards in St. Catharines. He came to this place because he wanted to be part of the middle class. He wanted an opportunity for his four kids. It turned out to be five kids because my brother was born here. Nonetheless, he gave us the opportunity to be part of that middle class. He got a post-secondary education. 
I thank my late father and my mother, who is still alive today, for the opportunity because they say that this is truly the greatest country in the world. There is no question in my mind about that. What other country in this world would allow a young kid like me who was not born here, who came with a funny accent, although I now speak Canadian, to be here. I once told my mother I would lose that accent, so I did so and now I do not have that funny voice. Nonetheless, this is the greatest place in the world that allows me to be in my place and stand up for all of us who are out there. 
 A member on the other side said that small businesses were saying that the lockout must end. They are right, end the lockout. The people on that side have the power to do that. They have the key to turn in the lock to open the gates of the postal sorting stations, the padlocks on those super mailboxes, and allow the postal workers, who have voluntarily put their hands up and said that if the locks are taken off they will be back to work tomorrow. 
The government has the power and we ask that it please exercise that power. We will be happy on this side if they exercise that power. We will not fight if the government decides to take that key, unlock the postal sorting stations, unlock the super mailboxes and unlock the postal workers who want to go back to work. If they are allowed to go back to work they will start delivering the mail on Monday.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. John Deere is gone. The member's area has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. In my area, Bundy of Canada has disappeared. Budd Automotive has disappeared. The common denominator here is unions, and we could get into that argument, but my question is not about that. We could also argue about bad employers who should go to jail and, if the NDP would support our crime agenda, maybe that too would happen. We could even talk about Jimmy Hoffa. We could go into this rhetoric.
However, I hear about how unions are democratic. I am not talking about the right to strike. I understand that 94%, so I ask the member not to go there. Postal workers are asking to have had the democratic right to vote on the offer by Canada Post. They were denied a basic democratic right. That is very offensive to Canadians. It is not about us taking the locks off the door. It is about the unions behaving democratically in the best interest of the country, not in the historic interest of the long gone Budd Automotive, John Deere and all of these industries that cannot compete, and guess why.
[Interjection]
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to guess why, I will tell the member. It is called free trade and it is propagated by the member's particular government. If the member would like to ask John Deere why it left, he can go ahead and ask it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. member and he sits right by the Chair. I will ask members to wait until they have an opportunity to ask another question to make their statements.
The hon. member for Welland.
[Interjection]
Malcolm Allen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think I have a small voice either. 
However, in response to the minister's question, and I will not use the 94.5%, the democratic structure of the union is somewhat like this Parliament. People run for office. The membership, just like a riding, elects them and empowers them to make decisions on their behalf because they were democratically elected, just like this side of the House does as the government. Elected by the people in their constituency, whatever number that happens to be, members are then empowered by them to make decisions on their behalf without having to go back to them every time with a plebiscite and asking if they are okay with it. That is what they asked them to do. That is the reality of how a democratic structure works.
This one works the same way. The unions actually looked at Parliament and structured themselves the same way as Parliament and said that they can go ahead and do that, and that is exactly what they do. When they have an offer to present to their members, they will and their members will vote on it yes or no.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member comment on how the proposed legislation would harm not only those hard-working Canadians who have union representation but also those who do not have union representation and are really struggling with a lot of part-time jobs and poor working conditions in Canada today?
[Interjection]
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park back to this House. It was a great thrill to see her come back to this Parliament. I know she was here in the 39th Parliament, then skipped the 40th because she had other things she needed to do and then came back to see us again in the 41st.
The member is absolutely right. When we talk to other workers who are non-unionized in communities around the country, they want the unionized workers to get as much as they can when they bargain because the higher their wages the more competitive it is in a wage-structure sense for those who are unorganized. In other words, employers out there who have non-unionized places will need to compete with the unionized places for labour, which actually pulls up wages for non-unionized workers.
When it runs the opposite way and unionized workers are suppressed. put down and lose benefits and wages, the non-unionized workforce heads in the same direction, the only backstop being minimum wage. Once employees are at minimum wage, it is the law and they are not allowed to be suppressed below that. Some employers take advantage of that in different ways by making folks contractors and doing other things, but that is a debate of another kind.
Clearly, this is a fight not just for the unionized members of the postal service but for all workers across this country who are actually trying to get ahead when it comes to labour relations aspects.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I will first thank all the Speakers who have been doing their rotation in the chair. I think we are all aware, as there are only four Speakers who occupy the chair, that their time off from the chair is much less than those of us who are on different and various shifts. We very much appreciate the current Speaker and all the Speakers who have been involved in this debate. Although it has sometimes been a little bit hot in the House, I think, overall, there has been very good order and the Speakers have really assisted.
I also thank all of the other House of Commons workers, whether it is the clerks or the security. There are so many people involved who keep this place going so that we can actually be here to debate. I think all of us very much appreciate the long hours people are keeping so that this debate can happen and so that democracy is alive and well in the House of Commons. I do think, regardless of our political perspectives, we all agree on that point.
As we approach 39 or 40 hours, I do not know as it is still Thursday in the House, I want to make a point. The point, which was made in the debate but maybe not well enough, is that this so-called filibuster was created by the Conservative motion that allowed us to do this. That is the reality. I hear the hon. members saying “oh, no”. Maybe they are having second thoughts now about what they said in motion. The motion that they created for the debate on this bill has in effect allowed for ongoing debate because there is not a time closure and that point has been made. Maybe they thought members of the NDP would somehow just give up after a couple of hours and pack it in and that would be the end of it. I think the Conservatives are beginning to see that they have a very strong, tough and principled official opposition in the 41st Parliament. We are here to stand up for the rights of the people and we will do that job. Maybe there is a little bit of surprise over on the other side that this debate is now in its 39th hour. However, it was the government that created that optic and space to do that and we are certainly using the opportunity we have to speak loud and clear about why this back to work legislation is so offensive, not only to the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, but also to all workers and Canadians generally. 
After listening to the debate now for many hours, I heard two themes, at least from this side of the House. One of those themes is the need to respect and uphold fair collective bargaining versus the proposition that we have before us which is a lockout and back to work legislation.
This issue of upholding a regime, a history, a reasonable environment of collective bargaining is very important in this country. Member after member on both sides have talked about the economy, small business and our local communities, and surely part of a stable economic environment is having healthy labour relations where two parties can sit down and negotiate. That the sensible way to do things. We have had many examples put forward in the House where, in other jurisdictions and in other countries, there is an emphasis and importance around collective bargaining that the stability is there. We have had examples where workers have representation on the board, where they are part of the governance structure.
It has been a very interesting debate from that point of view to examine the things that work and the things that do not work. The sorry state that we are in right now, where we are facing back to work legislation, is an example of the direction that we do not want to take in this country. Many of us have been raising questions as to what it will lead to. What are the implications of this legislation, not only for the employees at Canada Post but other workers in this country. I think that is a very important element of this debate.
The second theme that has emerged is the overall impact on Canadian society because of what Canada Post has done and what this back to work legislation would do.
Many of us have been raising important issues about the growing inequality in our society. In fact, some amazing information has come forward. For example, three decades ago the gap between an average worker's salary and a CEO's salary was maybe 85 times higher. Now it is up to over 250 times higher. The income gap is growing, whether it is due to the erosion of pensions, or downward pressure on wages, or wage restraint.
Again, those of us who are standing and fighting against the legislation can see what is taking place under the Conservative regime and we are deeply concerned about it. It not just for the members of CUPW, but for all working people and what this would mean in the future.
A very important Canadian value is that sense of equality and equal opportunity. It is the sense that if people go into a work environment, they will not get less wages because they come at a later date or they happen to be younger. We faced that in British Columbia when we had a two-wage minimum wage. People were outraged. Eventually the provincial government had to get rid of it because it was such a bad fiscal, social and economic policy. 
These are some examples of terrible directions that have been taken. Some of that discussion has come out in this debate over the last 39 hours.
I want to draw attention to other situations that are taking place because we are discussing and debating federal labour relations.
 I draw the attention of the members to another lockout that happened a couple of days ago. About 130 attendants who work for the Rocky Mountaineer Rail Tours were locked out. They are members of Teamsters Local 31 in British Columbia. This is a very popular rail company because of what it provides for tourists and residents who go from Vancouver into Banff. A couple of days ago it locked out .
 Adele and her co-workers came by my office to make us aware of what had gone on. I want to let them know that we support them in their struggle and we know what they face. As members of the NDP, we want to show our support and will do everything we can to ensure that their employer does not mirror what Canada Post and the government are doing. 
When the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, began this debate on Thursday night, he spoke about the implications and consequences of the legislation. He expressed his concern about what it would mean in other collective bargaining. We already see that another employer, under federal jurisdiction, has now locked out its employees and not allowed collective bargaining process to take place. We have to be very concerned about this.
 I remember the huge campaign that took place on Parliament Hill to bring in anti-scab legislation. We almost got it through. I also remember going to the Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories north of Yellowknife to visit workers who were on the picket line and faced strike breakers. A lot of areas of federal law and labour relations need to be addressed.
What is happening with the postal workers and the back to work legislation serves to remind us that we need anti-scab legislation. We need to reinforce and uphold free collective bargaining, and this debate is about that.
I am very proud of our members who have participated in this debate. I only wish the Conservatives would. They will ask a few questions and have some comments, but we have been unable to question them. We can only guess what their answer or position might be. It is a great shame that they have not participated in this debate. 
Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions. I have listened to the debate on and off, around the clock, as most members, and trying to get some sleep. The debate seems to be stuck on two different views. On the issue of fairness, I am curious to know the thoughts of members on other side of the House. There was an allusion made to hypothetical workers, ones who come in one day and ones who come in the next day. 
The first question I would like answered is this. Would it be better, for example, to simply roll back wages or benefits to all workers in that scenario as opposed to having two different wages? If that is the case, it opens up all kinds of possibilities. I suspect the answer is no, but I would like to hear that from the other side. 
If the answer is no, then let us get out of this stale debate and into the world of numbers. Canada Post has had a declining circulation rate of 17% in letter mail volume since 2006. It has a $3.2 billion pension liability. Canada Post members receive, on average at the top year, seven weeks of vacation. Their wages are 17% higher than they are in equivalent jobs in the private sector. 
If the solution is higher wages for all, or equal benefits at the high end for all, how on earth does the opposition suggest we pay for this? I do not think it is up to taxpayers across the country to pay for these lavish benefits. 
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of wage control or wage constraint, I am sure the member and other Conservatives would probably love to see that across the board. However, would they take the same position when it comes to wage restraint for the 20 vice presidents, the president, the CEO and the chairman of Canada Post who make hundreds of thousands of dollars, or the bank presidents? There is a question of basic equity and fairness. This is why we have collective bargaining. 
The question begs the answer. That is why it exists, to have that discussion between the two parties as to what is a fair and reasonable compensation. This bill strikes that down. The bill nullifies that process and imposes a wage restraint that is lower than what the employer originally offered. 
How could the member possibly support that?
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is a follow-up to the question from the previous member. 
As a young person, my generation is entering the workforce. Along those lines, would it be fair for younger workers to be discriminated against? 
Also, we know that Canada Post Corporation has recently attempted to implement employment equity, which means it is trying to recruit more persons of visible minorities, women, younger workers, persons with disabilities and aboriginal peoples. 
As a result of the government's interference and support of Canada Post Corporation, does this mean these types of workers will enter the workforce and earn a lower wage rate? Would my colleague comment on that? 
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post, like all other federally regulated businesses or enterprises, is required to implement employment equity to ensure its workforce reflects Canadian society at large. 
We have to remember that Canada Post is a profitable crown corporation. How many times have we said that? It has a revenue of $281 million. It is not losing money. Therefore, the idea that it would have a two-tier wage system and would discriminate between existing and new workers, again, sets an incredibly low bar. This is not about a race to the bottom. This should be about fairness, equity, free collective bargaining and the right of people to have decent wages and a decent standard of living. 
I cannot understand why the Conservative members do not understand that or see it as being something that is equitable and reasonable in Canadian society. 
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about logic because unfortunately I think some of my colleagues on the other side of the House really need that today. 
 First of all, let me clarify something. Everyone wants mail delivery to resume immediately. That is wonderful; all the parties in the House agree on this point. Canada Post employees are not asking for anything more than to start delivering the mail again. Small businesses that make frequent use of Canada Post services to deliver their bills and merchandise, and all Canadians who are waiting for cheques, letters and probably postcards from their cousins who are travelling abroad also want mail delivery to resume. The mail is an essential service that all citizens rely upon. 
How did we get to this point? This is where the logic really starts to unravel. To the delight of my colleagues, I will review the events in the month of June that led to the lockout.
On June 2, at 11:59 p.m., Canada Post employees began rotating strikes. On June 8, Canada Post cancelled delivery services throughout the country on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On June 10, the union proposed suspending the strike to continue negotiations and reverting to the previous collective agreement. That same day, Canada Post refused and rejected the union's offer. Four days later, Canada Post declared a national lockout. It is management that has been keeping people from getting their mail since June 14. It is management's fault that the postal service has shut down completely.
I would like to remind the members on the other side of the House and the new CPAC junkies who are currently watching the debate that Canada Post is a crown corporation. The government has the authority to act and it must do so. The government is calling for an immediate return to work with this bill that will impose a labour contract on the workers. This seems a bit inconsistent for a party that favours non-interference.
The Conservative Party need only do one thing if it wants the employees to return to work. It simply needs to do its job and request that the doors be unlocked immediately so that the employees can return to work. It is as simple as that.
It is a fundamental right for employees to be able to negotiate their collective agreement with their employer. The government wants to pass a labour contract that, as my colleague for Gatineau said earlier, the Supreme Court of Canada has deemed illegal. Imposing a labour contract and denying employees the right to negotiate their own collective agreement is completely unjust, especially after these same employees were locked out. Canadians fought too long for a just and fair workplace. 
Let us talk about this bill, particularly its lack of logic. Canada Post was proposing a salary increase of 1.9% for the first three years and an increase of 2% for the fourth year. However, this government is proposing an increase of 1.75% for the first year and 1.5% for the second year. That is less than what the employer was offering in its most recent offer. This proposal is totally unacceptable for new employees and we will not accept it. This represents a loss of $875.50 over four years for young families.
Where is the logic in all this? The government wants to lower the salaries of a generation that is already having trouble making ends meet. The government wants to worsen the living conditions of thousands of people simply for partisan purposes and to keep a few friends happy. It is unacceptable to diminish the quality of life of people who are just entering the labour market. It is unacceptable to cause so much disappointment for young people.
In addition, clause 15 of the bill, which imposes these salaries on employees, has already been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the highest legal authority in Canada.
On top of all that, this same generation will have to work five years longer before they can retire. Employees will have to contribute much more than their predecessors, up to 10% more, to be able to live with dignity. This is completely illogical. They will be doing exactly the same work as the employees who were hired before them but they will have much more precarious working conditions. They will be doing the same work, but will not have the same rights. Equal conditions for equal work.
On May 2, the Prime Minister promised to work for all Canadians. That includes workers. It is the duty of all members of Parliament to defend their rights and to not attempt to impose an unfair contract.
This government has not used common sense in handling this dispute, and it is directly attacking my generation, the generation that is just entering the job market, by violating its fundamental rights. 
I find it most disturbing that this government, with its irresponsible policies, is increasingly distancing itself from the people just a few weeks after being elected. Young people, like other citizens, have never been a priority for this government. To this entire generation, or should I say to my generation, which is disappointed in this attempt to reduce its rights, I say that I will always stand up for our shared principles. I will tirelessly defend the gains we have made and that to which we are entitled, namely freedom and justice. 
I realize that, with this government, we must travel a road that will be long and hard. We have no choice and history will judge us. In closing, I will quote a poet whom I really like, Quebecker Valérie Forgues:
 Caught in the trap, your life and your dreams taken hostage, your hands tied. When you have heard what is left of that voice, some white stones, a few minutes, the silence, this blue ray up above. 

Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on her speech.
I would like to take a moment to congratulate the workers and management at Cambridge Toyota auto manufacturing in my riding, which just won as the best auto assembly plant in the world. I am very proud of them. Congratulations to them. The plant is non-unionized, by the way.
 Folks in my riding have written to me indicating that they would be quite happy to work at Canada Post right now. They would be happy to take a few bucks an hour less, and less benefits. They want the job and would be happy to do the job.
Based on “fundamental rights”, if I could use the member's own words, does that person, male or female, young or old, have the right to work for Canada Post and not join the union? Is that fundamental right not to join respected by the union?
Current postal workers are being denied the right to vote on the offer. Why is that not a fundamental right?
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for that charming question.
Gains were made in the past by people who currently work for Canada Post. What the government is doing is imposing another condition on the new generation of workers entering the job market. So we have two classes of people who are totally equal but who will have different rights and wages. That is the thing that makes no sense. Here, we are going to have equal workers who will make different wages and have to work more for the exact same thing. That is what we have a problem with.
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the last question. 
The Conservatives seem to think it is justifiable to expect people to work for less money. Before the election, I noticed the Conservatives raised the severance pay for all of their high-level officials. They did this at a time when people in this country were facing a $40 billion deficit. 
This is a bloated cabinet. It is the second-largest in Canadian history. At a time of recession and restraint, there are more parliamentary secretaries and more cabinet ministers. It is always the height of irony to hear people who make $200,000 a year ask why people cannot take less and work for $18 an hour. It is easy for them to say that.
I also want to point out that when the Conservatives gave billions of dollars of loan guarantees to the banks, they certainly did not put the condition that the executives had to take reduced compensation.
I am wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on that double standard.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question, which is very relevant might I add.
Yes, we have a problem. When it is convenient in other circumstances, the discussion will be different. But here, our problem really has to do with the rights and freedoms of workers across the country. 
We are prepared to work together to make the bill a fairer piece of legislation. I want to ask the hon. members across the way whether their hearts tell them to come together at the table to figure out what can be done.
Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was reported on the news this morning that this debate has been going on in the House of Commons for close to 50 hours, and that this was a record. I would have liked to see us agree on a settlement after going at it for 50 hours. What has happened between Canada Post and CUPW is a complete failure. When parties are unable to sit down and negotiate and when a dispute results in a strike or lockout, I call that a failure.
As parliamentarians, we have decisions to make. I am aware of what is happening in the world today. Wages are being eroded and small and medium-sized businesses are having problems. I am also well aware of what workers are experiencing. They are the ones whose wages are being eroded and who are living in uncertain times, facing the possibility of a two-tiered system. Our job is to come up with a solution. As our slogan so aptly states “Let's work together”. If every person was willing to give a little, then we would be able to find a solution, instead of imposing legislation that comes down hard on people.
Bill C-6 will impact people's everyday life if adopted by the House. The workers are the ones who will feel the effects. As parliamentarians, we must also think about that. We pass legislation and that is the end of it. However, these workers will have to live with the consequences of this legislation for four years. This bill will help to create an unhealthy climate. No other outcome is possible when a lockout is ordered, when a strike is called or when strikebreakers are called in. I have experienced these situations firsthand and the climate is most unsettling. One can feel the tension in the cafeteria. Disputes arise among workers, harassment occurs, undue pressure is brought to bear, scuffles break out and verbal assaults take place. What will happen next?
The number of workplace accidents will increase, because employees will be angry and will work faster. They will fall and injure themselves. The problem of workplace accidents will then need to be addressed. Workers will file grievances, because they will be dissatisfied and unhappy. More money will be spent and the climate will deteriorate even further. One can imagine what this will mean for managers and for employees forced to work in these conditions. For four years, the situation will be unmanageable, akin to conditions at the Tower of Babel. What can we do to help these people?
As parliamentarians, we have to find a solution to allow the workers to go back to work. We have to work together, democratically, without imposing legislation. We could force the two parties to sit down, negotiate and find a solution. But we are forgetting that even after we have passed a law, life goes on. And so we have to think about the people involved. We cannot get along amongst ourselves, so how can we impose legislation on people who are not getting along either?
And so I am asking that we amend this bill, in order to get the parties to negotiate within a certain period of time, with the help of an arbitrator or a mediator. As I have said before in the House, the workers, the employer and society are going to have to pay the price for sick leave, work accidents, an unhealthy work atmosphere and the grievances that are going to follow in the wake of this. We could even see another conflict break out when the agreement expires in three or four years.
Consequently I am asking the Conservative government to put water in its wine and amend Bill C-6 so that this law is not rammed through, doing damage to everyone and making people angry. I am aware that things aren't going well for anybody. If we want to do this, we can do it together, and if we can't agree, this too will have failed. Bill C-6 will go through, but we will not have solved the problem. Yes, the workers will have returned to work, but we are going to create a whole other set of problems. This is not right, not logical, and not the kind of work we should be doing. Our work is to rally a strong and united country, where people work for good wages and live in decent conditions, with fair pensions. 
And insofar as the two classes of workers or the “orphan clauses” are concerned, obviously it is not very pleasant in a factory or an office when one employee has this while another employee has that, and another employee does not have this or that. You can just imagine how difficult that is going to be to manage later. Think about the quarrels and the work atmosphere this could bring about. We have to look at the human side of the equation. I know that there are going to be decreases in salaries, but these people are not cattle. They are workers who pay sales taxes and income taxes and who keep Canada's economy going.
I want to say it and repeat it, and I will beat this drum until the last possible minute in the House: this bill needs to be amended.
We have to come to an agreement and force the two parties to sit down. We need cut-off dates to make sure there is a positive outcome so we can overcome this impasse and so everyone will be a winner—the government, Canada Post and its workers. That is how we will get out of this crisis. We must not create a climate that would be unfavourable for us. People will be up in arms and we will pay dearly for it once again. 
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contribution to the discussion this afternoon.
I just want to inject some facts into the discussion. Some facts were given earlier. It is good to have passion about these issues. It is important that people have a good living and a good pension. I want to talk briefly about the Canada Post pension plan and ask a question.
Canada's pension liability in 2011 is $14 billion. Currently Canada Post Corporation employees receive a fully indexed defined benefit pension by age 60, including comprehensive health benefits. Good for them. 
Close to 22,000 employees, about a third of the workforce, will retire in the next 10 years. Canada Post employees and the corporation pay into that pension plan. The employees contribute about 40% and the corporation contributes another 60%. Currently there is an unfunded liability in that pension plan of $3.2 billion. 
I would like to ask what helpful advice the member opposite can give to Canada Post to find that $3.2 billion to ensure that those workers have a viable pension going forward.
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, I come from a company that has a shortfall of $540 million currently. Agreements have been negotiated with the employer, which over a given period will slowly inject money to make up the shortfall. We cannot ask the employer to pay that whole amount tomorrow morning. It is not possible. It is possible to make a commitment to pay an amount every year over the next 6 to 10 years to make up the shortfall. That is how we can manage this situation.
Where I come from, contributions were suspended at times in the past. Not any more. Yet the employer will inject $98 million this year. Next year or in other years, it will pay a bit more to make it up over six years. If we can do this, so can Canada Post.
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank my colleague from Jonquière—Alma for sharing his professional and life experience with the House. 
On another note, a few months ago, Charles Sirois, chair of the board of CIBC, a major chartered bank in Canada that needs no introduction, spoke out against the heavy emphasis on natural resources in our economy. In his view, this is a sign of an economy that is at risk of stagnation.
Canada Post on the other hand is a crown corporation that adds a lot of value to our society, especially to the millions of small businesses that support our economy every day. 
I would like to ask my colleague if he can explain why the Conservatives are so determined to reduce the quality of life of all Canadians. 
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, what concerns me, as I said in this House the other day, is that this sends a message to private companies and others about pension funds. These days, companies are all talking about pension funds. Everybody wants to eliminate pension funds. Pension funds were not built in a decade. My father fought for them in 1957: he went on strike at Arvida to get a pension fund. In 1976, I went through a lockout and a strike to get a pension, too. I paid out of my pocket and the employer paid out of its pocket. But if the employer had paid its share every year as usual, we would not have been in the hole.
If we start doing that, we will not need to pass laws to make our people work after age 65: they are going to have to work until they die because they will not be able to retire with a decent pension.
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am thinking about that pension plan and looking at the holdings in the Canada Post pension plan. The pensioners, the union members, actually own shares in these companies through their pension plan: Toronto Dominion Bank, $202 million; Royal Bank of Canada, $185 million; Bank of Nova Scotia, $176 million. 
The NDP's stated policy is to massively increase taxes on this pension plan through those holdings. What is the hon. member's position on his party's policy of a 30% increase in taxes against this?
[Interjection]
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, I am not a tax lawyer or an accountant, but I do not believe we will have to raise taxes. We might do better to cut the million-dollar or billion-dollar bonuses given to company executives and distribute them to those people. That might be a solution.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to point out how totally unacceptable the approach taken by Canada Post is to New Democratic members, but also to a majority of my constituents. Speaking today on behalf of the legitimate battle being fought by Canada Post employees is a very important duty for me, because this will be an historic battle and will remain in our memory for numerous reasons. And I believe the outcome will have a decisive effect on our collective future.
First, it is essential to note that this battle is part of a long fight to preserve public services, which are too often under attack from present-day governments. We do not think that the Conservative members understand the importance to a country of strong public services.
Canada Post is in fact one of the best examples of successful Canadian public services. It is important to the Canadian public to have an excellent postal service that is accessible and affordable. Postal services are essential for all countries. This is particularly true in rural areas. Recently, in my riding, we have received letters from people who are worried about the closing of a post office in a village in the riding. People have good reason to be worried.
The post office is often the last remaining place in villages where federal public services can be accessed. As well, with our low population density and the great distances that must be travelled, how are services like these supposed to be profitable, at a reasonable cost, if a private company operates them? It is impossible. The reason we are able to provide excellent postal services to as far away as Îles de la Madeleine is because Canada Post provides them, as a crown corporation.
The extremely lucrative Quebec City-Windsor corridor means that affordable services can be provided for people in large regions like the Gaspé and Îles de la Madeleine. The role of a government that wants to support its people is precisely to preserve a crown corporation like Canada Post.
A government with vision would use the existing infrastructures, all those many post offices, to deliver more federal services to residents of rural ridings. They would be able to obtain forms and information about passports, income tax, employment insurance, and so on. Post offices could be used as a satellite antenna for all federal services.
But instead of that, instead of this vision for the future, Canada Post's managers want to deregulate and enter into business partnerships. They are privatizing the postal services by stealth.
For example, they refuse to extend post office opening hours, so that they are open for business past 5 o'clock, or over the weekend. Instead, Canada Post favours postal outlets in pharmacies. The employees of these businesses end up doing the same work as Canada Post clerks, but with a salary half that of their Canada Post counterparts, and with no working conditions to protect them.
The union estimates that this subcontracting has led to loss of approximately 6000 wicket clerk jobs with good working conditions, replaced by jobs that are not protected and have no job security. Is a crown corporation that acts this way, and promotes job insecurity, being socially responsible? Do these indirect employees of Canada Post deserve these conditions? Of course they do not. 
Canada Post’s attitude, which indirectly favours privatization, is directly threatening services to the public. Private sector businesses will lobby harder and harder to privatize Canada Post's services. If the crown corporation continues to sell off its best assets, the other services may no longer be profitable, and then might disappear or become very costly.
The attitude being displayed by Canada Post management and by the government, which is in bed with the employer on this issue, is extremely obnoxious. Obnoxious, because it is an attack on public services, when in fact Canada Post is a profitable crown corporation. In 2009, Canada Post made $281 million in profits. 
Thanks to the conscientious and devoted day-to-day work of its employees, Canada Post has been raking in profits for roughly 15 years. It is, therefore, a profitable government enterprise. How can the government justify diminishing the working conditions of the employees of a profitable government enterprise? There is no rational justification. There are only ideological explanations. 
In fact, the current battle being waged by the employees of Canada Post, in addition to being a fight to preserve public services, is part of a backdrop of a very long history of union battles—battles fought to improve people’s working conditions, and by extension the living conditions of families and entire populations.
Canada would not be the country that it is today without the battles waged by workers. People in my region have been a part of this struggle for over 60 years. I would like to single out the epic struggle by the workers of Murdochville, which remains etched in our memories. 
The battle Canada Post workers are waging will not only help clerks, mail carriers, and other Canada Post employees. This struggle will be an example for other public servants and for private sector employees. This is a battle to have the rights of workers recognized. 
First and foremost, it is about the right to negotiate a collective agreement. Currently, we are faced with a public institution, the government, the caretaker of the law, and yet it does not follow this law. This government does not recognize the right to negotiate and is allowing a public employer to treat its employees in a most unfair manner by denying them the right to strike and to bargain. 
How can the Conservative members, in all good conscience, vote for a bill that rides roughshod over fundamental rights recognized by thousands of public servants? I would like an answer to that. Are they not aware that these employees are their fellow citizens, that they to contribute to the public purse, and that they have family responsibilities? Why is this government refusing to share Canada Post’s profits with postal service employees? 
Why does it accept that an increasing number of non-unionized subcontractors work in their facilities, including those who do maintenance work in post offices? Another example is the work usually done by mechanics who are qualified union members. That work is increasingly done in garages outside Canada Post facilities. These people should be unionized and covered by health and safety provisions. 
In fact, the Conservative government is showing the public that it does not care about employees' working conditions. Conservative members are proposing to force postal employees to go back to work. They do not care about the plight of these men and women who work around the clock to provide this essential service to our community.
Indeed, Canada Post management wants to make the employees take many steps backward. First, it wants to impose clauses that create a double standard adversely affecting new employees, and that is totally unacceptable. It wants to raise the retirement age for these employees and reduce their annual leave. It also wants to lower their basic salary by 18% compared to that of their fellow workers. Why should new employees be treated so unfairly?
The employer is also jeopardizing workers' health and safety. That worries many people and it is highly objectionable. Workers' health is threatened through many restrictions relating to medical coverage.
Many postal employees are women and their working conditions are often not on par with those provided by provincial governments. For example, they are not eligible for preventive withdrawal when they are pregnant. That is the kind of reasonable demands that employees are making. These are not whims. It is only normal that these people would want to protect their salaries and their pensions. Their fight will help other workers, but if they back down, it will adversely affect other workers too.
Workers have the right to negotiate and to go on strike. They did negotiate in good faith for eight months. They delivered the mail to their fellow citizens, including pension cheques. Because they did not want to drastically affect services to the public, they opted for rotating strikes.
It is the employer who took drastic action and imposed a lockout. The employer and the government are taking Canadians hostage by depriving them of essential services. They trample the rights of workers in a profitable crown corporation. Conservative members show no respect for laws or for workers' health and safety. That attitude is shameful for Canada. This is why, as the member representing my constituents, I oppose this measure and I condemn this deplorable situation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, some of the comments I have heard from this speaker and some of the others really upset me. One of the things he suggested is that we on this side do not understand the importance of a strong public service. Then he ended his speech by saying that we do not even care about their safety and all the other things. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
I belonged to one of the strongest unions in the country for almost 25 years. In fact, I was part of their negotiating committee. I was asked to step down for three years and then they invited me back because they needed someone with a little common sense on their negotiating team. I was asked to step down when I questioned the huge salary increases they asked for. I was asked to leave because I asked who would pay for that. That is the question I will be coming to in a minute. 
I have been here almost all night listening to the speeches. The rhetoric that is coming from my socialist friends is almost frightening.
I come from the province of Saskatchewan, and it was not until we got rid of the NDP that the province took off and became successful.
Who are the customers of Canada Post that we should be considering? Who are the people who will have to pay the bills? Who is standing up for those customers? Who is defending their needs?
[Interjection]
Philip Toone:  I thank the member for the question. It took a while for me to understand it, but I think I have it. Sometimes on the other side it may take a while to express it, but I think I have it now.
Over here it is clear that we are very concerned with the health and safety of workers in this country. For instance, in my riding the government has proposed in its budget to cut search and rescue services for people out at sea. I do not think that the people in my riding will take kindly to paying with their lives for the budget cutbacks that this government has proposed and passed.
If the Conservatives really want a good health and safety record, they can start right here on the Hill and start proposing health and safety for their own employees.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention.
One of the things we have been trying to get across to the government is that there is an opportunity to actually get a compromise going, if they want to. We have been here for the last couple of days and we have put the offer out to take a look at what is in this legislation that could be changed. In fact, the two parties would be amenable to actually changing the legislation.
I am glad my colleague brought up the health and safety provisions, which have not been promulgated. Those who work on Parliament Hill do not have the same health and safety standards as if they are across the street, on Bank Street. That is a fact, and that should be changed.
I just wanted to know from my friend whether or not he thinks--
The Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister of state is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting. 
The member suggested that the NDP has put forward some compromises. I have not seen any such thing, just demands from the NDP. So I am asking him to table those amendments and compromises. 
The Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is more a point of debate.
I will allow the hon. member for Ottawa Centre a few seconds to wrap up his question.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to find a compromise here. Would that not be what Canadians want? What is reasonable and fair? That is the question that I have to my colleague.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, certainly the first thing we should be looking at is we should be negotiating collective agreements in this country, not imposing them.
There is a question here that there might be a lack of good faith if the offer that is on the table is actually inferior to what the bosses had proposed in the first place.
The law we are looking to pass here is actually a slap in the face for the workers who have worked for years offering excellent service to the Canadian public, a service that has been profitable. I consider this completely unacceptable.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to read a message from a British Columbia resident, somebody who voted for the NDP in the most recent election.
He names the leader of the NDP, and he says that he voted for his party in the last election but that now he regrets it. He says that the NDP promised they would look out for the average Canadian's interest but now they are against back to work legislation for the postal workers who are affecting average Canadians. He stated that incomes and payroll are the single most important thing to every Canadian and the postal lockout does not help at all. 
He asks when did the unions became the average Canadian. Because the NDP is the opposition party, he says that does not mean they need to oppose everything that is put forward without even looking into the matter. 
He says the NDP has become the crying baby—
The Speaker: Order. I will have to stop the member there to allow a few seconds for the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine to respond.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr.Speaker, certainly I share the concerns of many Canadians when it comes to the lack of postal services.
However, we have to remember that the reason the cheques are not being delivered is because Canada Post has imposed a lockout. It is not the workers who are the problem, it is the bosses.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, from the outset, one of the Conservatives’ arguments has been that it was necessary to consider the economic stakes associated with the labour dispute at Canada Post. I am in complete agreement with them that this is something very important. What I deplore, on the other hand, is that in the context of the debate they have not taken the time to explain the full details of all the ins and outs of this economic damage. They have been content with generalities, with simply spouting slogans and constantly repeating the same questions. This is deplorable.
I will modestly attempt to put all the economic impacts of Canada Post’s activities and the stakes of this dispute into perspective. First, I must say that I have had a longstanding interest in economics. I have read some classics in the genre and particularly admire the work of the Canadian-born American economist, John Kenneth Galbraith. Mr. Galbraith began his career as a member of President Roosevelt’s team during the depression of the 1930s. He was on the team that created the New Deal, and made his contribution to correcting the problems arising from the Great Depression. Next, he took on certain responsibilities during World War II, and studied the effects of the Allied bombing on the German economy. He also looked into wage and price controls in the context of that conflict. So in the postwar era he was someone with the right experience to develop a highly articulate economic philosophy that could clarify the issues and the ins and outs of the decisions made by our governments, our companies and individuals themselves. 
One of the conclusions he reached was that any very large consolidated company has almost total control over both its activities and its prices, and hence over its fate and its future, as is not the case for the small company or the single individual who is at the mercy of economic ups and downs. What is interesting is that it is clear that Canada Post has virtually total control over the price of its products, which are offered to all Canadians. This possibility does not prevent it from offering its products at prices which are very low relative to other countries in the world, even though it is a crown corporation. Clearly, the fact that it is a public, crown-owned corporation is an advantage.
Mr. Galbraith examined the role and the importance of the various economic players. He came to the conclusion that the state, in its interventions, had a place comparable to that of any company. Where he was much more far-sighted was in giving a central place to the human being as an economic player. It must be said that he was not the only expert to come to that conclusion.
Mr. Galbraith then wanted to understand what the effects of the major economic decisions made by the entire population of a country might be. He observed that, for every dollar given back to the wealthiest people in a country or an economic unit, through massive income tax cuts, for example, that dollar was unfortunately not reinvested in the economy. Those people did not need the extra dollar, and so they hoarded it; in other words, they took it out of economic activity, and eventually that can lead to stagnation. On the other hand, when that dollar was given to the middle class, and particularly to the most disadvantaged people in our economy, it was immediately reinvested in the economy, since those people could not hoard it or save it, because they had urgent need of it. 
Mr. Galbraith then came to the conclusion that investing in the population was basically the best engine of economic development, as many countries in the world have in fact proved.
Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, was a professor of moral philosophy, and his magnum opus has been widely quoted virtually everywhere. Unfortunately, it has been quoted wildly incorrectly. All Adam Smith did was observe the cruelty of life in his day. He did not make laws or principles to be applied from that; he simply observed that without safeguards and regulations, unfortunately, human beings were the playthings of the interests of the powerful.
The conclusion he reached was that it was very important to have economic ethics, to guide all the players and, ultimately, the state, should these players fail to behave properly.
It is rather unfortunate to see the ideas of such great men taken hostage to justify ideas and policies that may be harmful to all Canadians.
I am now going to change subjects. Let us come back to the present day and apply the ideas of great Canadians to the subject of current impacts and policies, Bill C-6 being basically one more step, one way of diminishing our quality of life.
Charles Sirois, whom I quoted earlier, said this a few months ago:
 We can decide to dig holes in our subsoil and pump out all the natural resources we have. We can decide that this is what will secure the future of our children and grandchildren. 
However, in his opinion, the consequences of that choice will be:
 Perhaps we will not be in a state of complete poverty, but we will also not be wealthy; that much is obvious. And we will not be part of the movement that can be observed all over the world, where genuine value is created through creativity and innovation, and putting them to use. 
I would note that Mr. Sirois is the chairman of the board of directors of CIBC and the former chairman and CEO of Teleglobe, a company with communications systems covering the entire world.
A few days later, Mr. Stephen Jarislowsky, the great Montrealer and renowned investor who founded his business in 1955, was concerned about the boom in company acquisitions in the natural resources sector. He saw nothing logical in this, on the contrary. He compared the situation to the real estate bubble in the United States. The $1300 price tag on an ounce of gold a few months prior was, in his opinion, an unfortunate harbinger of things to come. An ounce of gold now costs almost $1600. At the same time, the TSX plummeted. These were all signs that our economy was shrinking.
All the while, the government claimed that everything was fine and dandy. That attitude is bizarrely reminiscent of the Conservatives in the 2008 campaign. Blinded by their blinkers, they were alone in failing to acknowledge the threat of a looming recession.
A quality postal service is essential to support the creativity and innovation that Mr. Sirois was referring to. As I said earlier, it is vital for the millions of small and medium-sized businesses that rely on these postal services to run their operations. 
Bill C-6 is further evidence of the Conservatives weakening our economy and refusing to acknowledge the fundamental role that human beings play in any healthy economy. Standing up for the general working conditions of workers is of paramount importance to ensuring a future for our children and our grandchildren. I make this statement unequivocally, with evidence to back it up.
Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, like so many of us, I have been receiving literally hundreds of emails over the last 48 hours. The emails are from Canadians across the board. Some are from small business owners who are very upset that their mail is not delivered, and some are from seniors who want to have their mail delivered. 
I am also receiving emails and correspondence from postal workers. They are telling me—and I have just become aware of this over the last few hours—that they are actually not allowed to vote on the offer that has been presented.
They will not listen to Canadians. They will not listen to postal workers. It appears they are only listening to one group, the unions. They are being driving by their left-wing social ideology, which has destroyed countries around the world. When will the NDP begin to listen to everyday Canadians, including the postal workers?
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for having provided us with a childhood memory and for rehashing a question that has already been asked dozens, if not hundreds of times already. It reminds me of those long car trips counting different coloured Volkswagen Beatles. It helped us wile away the time when we were children.
Sadly, as I explained previously, all the complaints being levelled at us are but a mere smokescreen. In any major union organization of tens of thousands of people, it is quite normal for there to be dissenting voices. There are limits to everything however; we need to focus more on the substance of the debate.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the remarks he made in this House.
I would also like to ask him to comment on one of the central facts in this debate: that this government is denying Canadians and the representatives of postal workers the right to collective bargain. It is all very well for him to talk about the importance of collective bargaining and how it benefits our society in general. But does he not consider this but a sign of the extremely perilous times ahead for our entire country?
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent question which deserves our full attention and consideration.
Indeed, it is very troubling that bargaining rights are being denied for a group of workers who are members of a union where all the democratic operating mechanisms are functioning. We have had absolutely no evidence that there was a problem from that standpoint.
There have even been some virtual suggestions, though I would not want to draw any hasty conclusions. It has almost been suggested that it was necessary to limit, if not deny, the right to organize. Personally, I find that shocking.
Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for our colleague on the other side of the House regarding profits for small and medium-sized businesses. As we know, the present lockout has caused problems for SMEs.
I will share with the House an email from an entrepreneur in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. 
Here is the statement: “As an owner of a small business who employs a dozen people, I can tell you that the impact on our cash flow is crippling. The flow of money into our company from our many customers, most of whom are independent retailers, has basically stopped for two weeks while our suppliers, who are large businesses, are stopping shipments because cheques have been caught in the backlog of mail. We, and many other small businesses I interact with, are facing the reality of having to lay off employees, which is the very last thing that should be happening.”
What does the member opposite have to say about how his proposed solution will help small business?
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I find my the hon. member's remarks particularly relevant. As the small business critic, I am also very concerned about what is happening now.
I find it truly deplorable that this government, in supporting the actions of Canada Post management and going even further, is taking the people hostage and creating sky-high costs for our small and medium-sized businesses. I demand that the government remove the padlocks immediately so that negotiations can be started again.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government says that it cannot stop the lockout ordered by Canada Post. And yet it has the power to legislate on wage increases. There is a rather flagrant inconsistency here. Either they can intervene or they cannot. If they can intervene on wage increases, maybe they can also simply put a stop to the lockout. That way everyone will be satisfied, for it is the simplest solution. What is important is that everyone comes out a winner. As I understand it, with a special bill everyone will instead come out a loser, that is, no one will be satisfied. The workers will not feel that they have bargained freely, and management will feel that its workers are going back to work reluctantly. Most important of all is that things such as the workplace climate and productivity will suffer in the years ahead with this sort of bill.
It would be so much simpler to stop the lockout, allow the employees back to work and send the parties back to the bargaining table. But that is simple. We often hear that Canada Post is autonomous. And yet the authorities at Canada Post are continually demanding more autonomy. So they must not feel all that autonomous.
The other important thing is that Canada Post is a public service. It is a public corporation. It is not a private corporation. When managing a public corporation, the priorities are not the same as for private corporation. When one manages a private sector company, one works for shareholders, and when one owns a small or medium-sized business, one works for his own benefit. However, when one manages a public corporation, one does not work for his immediate boss, namely the government, but rather in the best interests of all Canadians. That is the actual mandate of Canada Post. Its mandate is not to manage based on goals set by the employer, but rather based on the best interests of Canadian society. I do not have the impression that this is the kind of management that we have seen at Canada Post in recent months. I find it deplorable that Canada Post lost sight of the notion of public service and interest. I would love to see it rediscover this notion, because it may be the best way to serve.
Since we should manage with the public interest in mind, I am asking Canada Post, because the government cannot do anything, to have the courage to end the lock-out and allow employees to return to work, in the best interests of Canadian society. That is fundamental. It may require a bit of courage, but it is in everyone's common interest. The simplest solution would be for Canada Post to have the courage to end the lock-out. I am putting this request on the record here, in the House of Commons. 
Let us get back to the bill as such. I do not like the way it deals with the notion of arbitration, because the arbitrator who might be appointed will not be free to fulfill his mandate properly. He will be bound by a series of rules. The result is that anyone could do the job, while this is actually a highly complex task. Indeed, the arbitrator is already being told what salary increases will be imposed. He is already being told whether to opt for solution A or B, and he is already being told, through guiding principles, which way he must lean. A professional arbitrator will find that this is not a very challenging mandate, because collective agreements are usually complex documents.
I would have liked for the arbitrator to have full authority to determine what is satisfactory, based on representations made by both sides. It should not be a matter of siding completely with one side and rejecting everything from the other side. I do not agree with that approach. I am convinced that both sides have interesting proposals, and it would be unfortunate to let four years go by without the best ideas from both parties being included in the agreement. I find that approach deplorable. It is like denying the fact that both sides can make reasonable proposals. I think there are intelligent people on both sides, and I wish the best ideas would be included in the agreement. This could only benefit Canadian society. 
My other concern relates, of course, to the clauses that create a double standard regarding salaries. I find these clauses totally unacceptable. It is ridiculous to discriminate on the basis of age, as is essentially the case here, since these clauses primarily affect younger workers. We have abolished discrimination based on salary. Ever since I was young—and that was many years ago—I have heard that we should have equal pay for equal work. Suddenly, we are backtracking. I simply cannot understand that. I cannot understand why we would backtrack on such a fundamental principle in Canadian society.
I understand full well that there may be objectives, but perhaps they can be achieved in another way. Some day, these things will be redefined within Canada Post and we will have to see how that can be done, but I do not believe in solving one problem by creating another.
To give my colleagues an idea of what it means on a daily basis, over and above the fact that it is unacceptable, let them imagine trying to manage two different salary groups with different vacation time and pension funds; to someone with an understanding of management, it is already a nightmare. It is not helpful; rather, it is like shooting oneself in the foot. The savings they think are being generated will have to be reinvested to manage these problems, leaving no one satisfied. I do not believe that this is a solution, either in terms of management or morally. In fact, I believe it is truly reprehensible. 
Furthermore, I fear that the orphan clauses being imposed at Canada Post will serve as an example and later be extended to other sectors. Is this a Trojan horse, bringing orphan clauses to the entire federal public service and society in general? I should hope not. I truly hope that we will not go down that road, because all we will be doing is creating resentment. I do not believe that anyone on either side of the House wants to create resentment. I do not believe that. But we must consider the consequences and the options. We need to consider where this will take us. That is why we must consider these problems from a different angle.
I truly want to believe that senior management at Canada Post is independent. People are appointed and given mandates. However, when senior managers are hired and given their mandates, perhaps they could be given real incentives not to engage in confrontation. For example, why not cut the CEO's salary during a lockout. Those kinds of things could be done. Perhaps then they would be more proactive in resolving issues.
In conclusion, it is important to remember that Canada Post is a public corporation. For that reason, it must set an example in the way it treats its employees. I think that there is still work to be done and ending the lockout would be a step in the right direction.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the official opposition realizes that this chamber is not a negotiating table; it is a table.
This House is for the voice of all Canadians. We are not supposed to be mouthpieces for unions. We are supposed to represent the common people. As such, I am going to read two brief messages from the people we represent.
First, from a postal worker:
 I want to deliver mail to my customers. They deserve better than this. They are the big losers in this. And for some of them, they depend on their mail for drugs and other medical supplies. Some elderly live pay cheque to pay cheque. As for myself, my wages are cut. 
This one is from someone who identifies himself as a former NDP supporter:
 People striking for pensions are out of reality, as hardly anybody has pensions anymore. Don't they realize that the post office could quickly be out of business due to competition? I got my CPP cheque, but no other mail. No bills, no medical notices, but I pay my bills online because of stamp prices. Maybe it should all go private. Oh yeah, this former socialist can actually say that. 

[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her remarks. She has backed up the point I was trying to make. Canada Post, as a public entity, must be able to establish policies based on the best interests of Canadian society. If Canada Post is aware of this, clearly, the first thing it should do is end the lockout and then everything will go back to normal.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I really liked the hon. member's speech. He raised some very interesting points.
I would like him to elaborate on several of them. There are a number of draconian clauses in the bill before us. Take, for example, the orphan clauses. Can he tell us more about what he thinks the long-term consequences of these clauses will be for young families?
[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, when a person is young—I was young once, just like everyone—one of the first things that person wants to do is to become independent, start a family, be responsible and raise children. If orphan clauses are imposed, there will be two types of consequences. First, the young people in question will be unhappy at work. They will be jealous of the older workers who are not affected by the orphan clauses. Second, it will take them longer to achieve their goals, like buying a house, taking vacations, buying things for their children, and so on. That is unacceptable.
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, I am just revisiting the Canada Post pension plan.
Take a look at the companies whose shares are owned by pensioners at Canada Post: for example, Suncor, $154 million; CNRL, $117 million; Talisman, $94 million; and Encana, Sunova, Chevron, Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, all owned by the pensioners of Canada Post.
Curiously, during the election the NDP proposed a platform that would have imposed billions and billions of dollars in taxes on the holdings of these Canada Post pensioners. I am wondering if the hon. member has given any thought to the devastating impact of NDP policies on Canadian pensioners.
[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for repeating this question, which we have heard numerous times.
I do not believe that we spoke of tax hikes in our proposals, as the members have suggested. What is clear is that the objective of the pension fund is to provide a nest egg for employees. It must grow as much as possible for the benefit of the workers.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair earlier when people thanked the Speakers in this place for the duty you are performing for this House. I want to thank you for the many hours you are putting in.
I am rising once again to address the Conservative government's back-to-work legislation. From what I have been hearing from Canadians from coast to coast, they are waking up to what they consider the absolute abuse of power to be found in Bill C-6. The good people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek know me well, and they will tell members that I have a fundamental and profound belief in the rights of all Canadians, rights that are guaranteed by our charter.
 Because of my career in the labour movement, in which every post I held for 28 years with the labour movement was unpaid, the rights of workers to be represented by a union of their choice and for free collective bargaining is especially important to me. That is the one and only way Canadian workers can improve their collective well-being.
Before I go further, we have heard all the talk about big labour bosses and whatever. We have never heard Thomas d'Aquino called a big labour employer representative. Why the language thrown at people all the time?
 Another fair question to ask would be, just what has Canadians' membership in a union done for them?
Canadian workers have seen advances in health and safety protection. They have seen improvement to their hours of work. They have had their deferred wages invested in workplace pensions, and of course increases to their pay. We had one member talking a moment ago about how there are few pensions in Canada, as if it is a good thing. It is a terrible thing.
One of Canadians' charter rights is to collectively bargain with their employer. In this House, during this debate, the members of the Conservative Party love to throw around what they consider slights: “big labour”, or “big labour bosses”, or “friends of big labour”. They do so with a disdain that can only come from lack of knowledge. I will give you one example. I am sure most of today's non-progressive Conservatives have not only forgotten this but perhaps even their new members may not even know it. It will probably be a surprise to the younger members that one of their own groups of base supporters were the very same people who started the modern-day labour movement.
It happened in 1946 in cities like Hamilton and Windsor. It took the returning veterans from the Second World War who took to the streets of those communities, demanding fair wages and better and safer working conditions. In Hamilton, workers and veterans fought side by side in the streets, even on the waters of Hamilton harbour, for collective bargaining rights and the right to form a union. These were the very same veterans who had fought the Axis powers to a standstill. Then they had to come home and fight corporate Canada, with the same view of protecting their rights and improving the lives of all Canadians, as they had just done overseas. These brave souls were the same people who lived by such creeds as “an injury to one is an injury to all”. These veterans now turned trade unionists lived by the philosophy as well that what they asked for themselves they wished for all.
That philosophical view of how to better their lives and the lives of working Canadians 50 years ago led to a grassroots prairie political party, made up of farmers, clerks, church ministers, and workers of all stripes in the CCF, to come together with those veterans turned trade unionists and other labour activists to form the NDP, a party I have been a proud member of for 35 years. So this government should have little doubt as to why our party, the NDP, will always come down on the side of the working people of Canada.
I mentioned in my opening speech in the hoist motion my history in the Hamilton labour movement and the position my local membership of Bell Canada workers at the CWC chose to vote me into, that took me into the broader Canadian labour movement via the Hamilton and District Labour Council. It was at the Hamilton and District Labour Council in the late 1970s and early 1980s, along with the member for Hamilton Centre, that I learned of the struggle of the 1946 strikers in Hamilton and Windsor.
I heard directly from those old timers of their sense of shame and humiliation upon returning to Canada from defending their country. They could not get decent-paying jobs, nor the respect of employers, until they finally stood up to them in 1946. 
My own father worked as a section man on the Canadian National Railway. He was a low-paid labourer, and in New Brunswick in the late 1940s or 1950s, it was a secure position that he valued. I remember well the buttons he used to wear on his cap that showed he had paid up his union dues. He was a member of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers, CBRTGW. It was that union that struck CN in the 1950s to get their workers, and ultimately all Canadians, the 40-hour work week.
One of the phrases that came out of the late 1970s that epitomizes much of the way I look at the world is “Question authority”. In fact, I first noticed that on a bumper sticker on a car of a delegate at the labour council. 
Questioning authority has never been more important than it was in the 1970s in northern Ontario. Miners went on strike because of the extremely poor working conditions in their mine. That strike led to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 70. That gave workers the right to do what should be obvious: the right to refuse unsafe work. 
Questioning authority is exactly what the NDP has been doing in these long hours of debate. We are questioning the authority of this labour minister and this Prime Minister, because, to be clear, in our view they have overstepped their authority with Bill C-6.
I seriously doubt this will come as much of a surprise to most Canadians, who have seen this “my way or the highway” approach regularly from this government. Particularly, the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservatives already know this government has taken positions on foreign affairs and in other areas that not only surprises them but greatly concerns them. They know the shifts of policy that have taken place have led to a loss of respect for Canada in Europe and much of the rest of the world. Now, in our own country, once heralded around the world as protector of human rights and people's rights, we have the spectacle of the Canadian government prepared to shut down the collective bargaining rights of the workers at Canada Post.
I would suggest that this would lead Canadians to ponder the obvious question: who is next? 
For the record, I would like to make an observation. On a recent vote on the NDP hoist motion, our good friends in the Liberal Party of Canada switched sides on that vote and cast their lot with the Conservatives. I am sure there will be a cheer that comes from the other side of the House. The workers of Canada in the last election finally came to understand the fairweather friend the Liberal Party of Canada truly is, and the result was that Canadians significantly reduced the Liberal Party caucus. Older Canadians had known for a long time that the Liberals could not be counted on to go the distance in protecting their rights, because sooner or later they would have to choose between Canadian workers and their Bay Street friends. The history of that choice is very clear.
The NDP, on behalf of Canadian workers from coast to coast, calls on the Conservative government to simply pause to reflect on the fact that they have overstepped in this case. The posties are not your enemy. Canadian workers are not your enemies, so do not treat them as such. Use your position as the Government of Canada to further improve the lives of Canadian workers. Do not trample on their rights. Assume the responsibility of your role as protectors of the Constitution of Canada. Work with the NDP. Amend this bill. Restore the balance to labour relations for Canadian workers and end the lockout. Let us put the workers back to work.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I know a nice lady who worked at Bundy of Canada in Cambridge, my riding. The workers went on strike and they did get some increased benefits. A couple of years later they went on strike and got increased benefits, and a couple of years later they repeated the same scenario. The company went bankrupt. The lady lost her job. To my knowledge, she has never worked since. She was a single mother of three, and I know this in such detail because I married the best looking of the three kids. No offence to Alan and Glen, but Val was the best looking. 
This is what the Government of Canada is concerned about, the fragility of the public interest in this current economic climate and protecting the financial security of Canadians overall. 
Why does this member continue to risk literally playing Russian roulette with the Canadian economy by filibustering? 
Let us vote for this legislation and get the economy back on track.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that it was the government in consultation with Canada Post that caused the lockout. You stopped the mail. The mail was moving. There were rotating strikes. You stopped the mail.
I want to make another--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please.
The member for Essex is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is very enthusiastic, but he should not be criticizing you. He should direct his comments through the Speaker to the members on this side.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I thank the member for his intervention. Indeed we do try to refer to members in the third person.
The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have had for years in the labour movement is a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. I want to read out what fair pay is for some people. 
For Mike Lazaridis at Research in Motion, it is $51 million. For Gordon Nixon at the Royal Bank, it is $44 million. For Robert Milton at Air Canada, it is $42 million.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: How much does a union leader get?
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: The average union leader is probably making in the area of $150,000 a year.
 Now Jim Balsillie--
[Interjection]
Candice Bergen: Why not release that information? Circulate it. Make it public.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Excuse me, but the figures are released, by the way. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. 
In the province of Ontario, the salaries of labour leaders are published.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has done notable work on human rights and in standing up for pensioners. Right now I am thinking of what happened to the workers at Nortel. I am thinking of those who were on long-term disability. I am thinking of those who had a pension. I am thinking of those who were abandoned by the government.
What can my colleague tell us about his experience working for those who are left out, and how does it relate to this debate today?
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, a huge tragedy took place. Four hundred workers lost their long-term disability--
[Interjection]
Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Bob Rae.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. 
There is no respect for workers in this place if somebody can talk like that at a time when we are discussing 400 workers who lost their livelihoods. They got zero, thanks to the government's inaction.
Government members sit here and make jest of that. That is a shame. That is an outrage. The reality is that at a time when the corporation had billions of dollars in cash and billions of dollars in assets, the rest of the Nortel workers lost 37% of their pensions because nobody would stand up for them.
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's presentation today is yet another regurgitation of the NDP speech that we have heard some 140 times over these last hours here in the House. We completely understand, as do all Canadians, that NDP members feel obliged, given the news from their national convention that they are not true to their union roots, to use this grandstanding process as an opportunity to prove to their base that they are true socialists. 
When are the members of the official opposition going to realize that Canadians across this country overwhelmingly want the postal service back? They want their mail. Seniors, families, small businesses and businesses all think it is time to vote this legislation in. 
Members of the official opposition must stop this charade. They are not convincing anybody.
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, the regurgitation the member talks about was a speech I wrote at 2:30 this morning. I did not check with anybody else's notes, so if it sounds familiar, it is because people in our party come from the same place. They come from a place where workers are respected for their contributions to this country. 
The reality is very simple. If there had not been a lockout by Canada Post, we would not be here today. It is as simple as that. If you end the lockout, you will end the problem. 
We have offered to work with the government. Our leaders have talked to the government, and we are prepared to end this debate the moment the government makes the right decisions on the offers made. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I realize, of course, that members are probably going on little rest, but we encourage hon. members to use the best language they can in respect of their colleagues.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on the bill, I will take a brief moment to bring to the attention of the House the recent death of Hay Mu Tha Kyu, a 15-year old resident of Ottawa who tragically drowned in a lake not far from Ottawa. 
There will be a memorial service for him today. I think those who knew this young man and knew the family would certainly want us to pay our respects to him. He was a Burmese refugee. I know he was well known by people in this community and by members of this House. I wanted to take a moment to pay my respects to him and his family. It is quite a tragedy. 
The bill we are continuing to debate today is fundamentally about how we are going to operate as a democracy. 
I think this situation touches on things like responsible government. Yesterday I quoted two former Reform Party Conservative members who were very adamant about the use of closure. We have seen this government not only bring in closure but bring in closure before a bill was even presented, which is perhaps unprecedented. 
If we go back to the 1840s and look at what responsible government meant, it meant that we would have representatives in the legislature who could speak on behalf of their constituents to be able to oversee law and legislation. When closure comes in before a bill, it undermines responsible government. 
I will quote again two well-known Reform Party Conservatives. On May 12, 1998, Chuck Strahl said the following:
 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 continually 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. 
That was Chuck Strahl on May 12, 1998. 
On November 22, 1999, the leader of the then official opposition said the following:
 Mr. Speaker, the government's idea of democratic government makes a mockery of the very concept. 
 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? 
That was Preston Manning. It was Preston Manning who wanted to actually clean up politics and have more accountability.
I am going to go right from what Mr. Manning said to what this government had promised in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, because what is also missing in this debate is the idea of accountability. 
Right now the head of Canada Post is appointed by the Prime Minister. Mr. Chopra was appointed by the Prime Minister.
What was in Bill C-2? There was an amendment that the NDP got in, which was accepted by the government and passed. It was called the Public Appointments Commission. The Public Appointments Commission would finally bring in merit-based appointments. Appointments would no longer be based on who one knew. We would have merit-based appointments and oversight by Parliament. That goes back to responsible government. 
The government never brought it into force. 
We had no parliamentary oversight in terms of the appointment of the person who heads Canada Post. Who is he beholden to in the end? 
It is just like the Senate. When someone is appointed solely by the Prime Minister, appointed with no oversight by Parliament at all, who will that person be responsible to? It will be the person who put him there. There is no mistake about it.
I have heard the other side talk about democracy from time to time. I leave them with the former leader of the Reform Party, the former opposition leader, who talked about closure. I asked him if this is what the Conservative Party has become. 
On Senate reform we have seen half a loaf. We have seen that all their friends go into the Senate. In terms of who is appointed to agencies, boards and commissions, we have seen that accountability is really to who one knows.
What happened to those members of Parliament who were going to clean up politics and have accountability? Right now they would pass a bill that would not only bring in closure, but would bring in terms as well.
I am hearing the members on the other side saying that they will.
Let us look at what is in the legislation. The government would bring in not only closure, but wage demands that are lower than the offer that was on the table, an offer that been freely negotiated. I wonder what happened to the ideas of accountability and reforming democracy. 
We believe it is not too late. We believe there is an opportunity, if the government wants it, to amend this legislation so that we can have a fair deal for people and make sure that for once Parliament will give Canadians what they want, which is to see people work together for the betterment of the country. 
We are not seeing that today. Sadly, we are not seeing reform, but government using tactics and power.
Finally, the government was elected by 40%. Conservatives say they got a majority, but they did not get a blank cheque.
Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have heard this theme of 60% not voting Conservative in the last election. I would point out to my friend that 70% did not vote NDP, 81% did not vote Liberal, 94% did not vote Bloc and 96% did not vote Green, all of which rates a big so what. 
Since we have had more than two parties in Canada, there have been 28 elections, 16 of which have been majorities. In only five of those cases did the winning party have 50% of the vote. It did not happen during any of the three Jean Chrétien majorities or the three Trudeau majorities, so to suggest or imply that somehow our majority is not legitimate is, I think, a little rich.
I would also make a comment on the Public Appointments Commission that my colleague brought up. We had proposed a man, Gwyn Morgan, who was incredibly well qualified and would do the job for a dollar a year. However, that side trashed him unmercifully. It was a disgraceful display of vigilantism and it robbed Canada of one of the finest people that would ever have graced that position.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the facts are the following. We still do not have a public appointments commissioner. For the government to throw the whole thing out because it could not have its way is unfortunate. 
What Preston Manning came to Ottawa to do is gone. It evaporated as if the corpse of Preston Manning is lying there, and there is nothing left.
In fact, the Conservatives decided to use all the tools. I just heard the member compare the Conservatives to the Liberal Party, which used to be an example of what government should not be doing. The Conservatives say they are not quite as bad as the Liberals were. 
What happened to real reform, real change and real accountability? All we see now is closure, using the big boot and, unfortunately, the undermining of Canadians. When most Canadians see what the government has done, they will wonder what happened.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I wear on my lapel a pin depicting two shovels in memory of the union workers who passed away recently from workplace injuries and accidents.
I would ask my hon. colleague to talk about the importance of workplace health and safety. How did we arrive at the point that we now have workplaces that respect workers and their need for health and safety in the workplace?
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question, and while I am on feet I would remember Peter Kennedy, a worker here on the Hill, who passed away while working to keep us safe here. That was a tragedy, and we are still not sure exactly what happened.
The new members may not know this, but a couple of years ago there was legislation brought forward to make sure that we had health and safety laws brought into force here on Parliament Hill. However, the law was never promulgated. This means that workers here on the Hill do not have the same rights of health and safety that every other worker in Canada has. That is up to the government to do. 
We fought hard to make sure health and safety would be there for all Canadians. Sadly, on the Hill it is not. 
We have to make sure we are vigilant on this issue, because health and safety are paramount. Unions fought for it, ordinary Canadians fought for it, and that is why we have it today.
John Williamson: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess to my hon. friend across the way that I am not sure where he is going with this and what this has to do with the business before the House today. Every chance I get between now and when this closes I am going to keep asking these questions until I get an answer.
 Delivery in Canada by Canada Post is declining. It has fallen by 17% since 2006. Its workers are well treated by the corporation yet what the members opposite are suggesting is to spend more on benefits than can be afforded over the medium or long term. Already members at the top end are entitled to seven weeks of vacation. Their pay is 17% higher than what is found in a private sector equivalent. The unfunded pension liability is $3.2 billion. How on earth does he propose that Canada Post make up for this let alone provide additional benefits down the road when the market appears to be falling. I agree Canada Post is an essential service, albeit a declining one.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: It is very simple. You actually negotiate fairly. If you follow the logic here, it is bring in younger workers at a different level of pay, and, guess what, their contributions will be less. It is not going to help them with the unfunded liability. What you can do is actually sit down with the workers and say, let us figure out this problem. You do not legislate them back to work and legislate terms. That is not how you solve a problem. That is the problem with this government, and that is the problem with this legislation.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to speak to this critical issue that is before the House of Commons. Like my colleagues, I have taken my place here to represent my party during this historic debate; however, I found that even when I am not here my TV is on and I am listening with continued interest to this debate.
My New Democratic colleagues have defended with passion the rights of workers. While we are debating back-to-work legislation that impacts on our postal workers, the core of this debate has to do with the government's pro-corporate and anti-worker attitude. The Conservative government initially undermined the collective bargaining process by making it clear early on in the process that it would not hesitate to legislate workers back to work. It brought in legislation when Air Canada was in the midst of negotiating with its workers, and it did so again a week later with Canada Post. This is not about protecting the economy, as they like to pretend, this is about undermining the collective bargaining process and reversing the gains workers have made over the years.
The bill before us is nothing short of an attack on workers. Conservative members may rise and pretend to care about workers. But the truth is Bill C-6 is not about resumption and continuation of postal services, it is really an assault on collective bargaining. No one in this room denies there is an impact on people and businesses, however, the fact that Conservative members insist on denying pension cheques are not being delivered because of the lockout is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.
Do they actually believe Canadians do not know the difference between a rotating strike that ensures critical mail is delivered and a complete lockout by the company? Who are the naive members of this House? My constituents understand the difference. In fact, all northern Ontarians understand the difference. Northern Ontarians have the right perspective on this government's horrible piece of legislation.
As I have noted previously, many generations have made their living as miners. They have been proud members of the United Steelworkers 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 as a shop steward or as a picket captain, I took my responsibilities seriously. Health and safety were foremost in our thoughts because our work was so dangerous, however, these standards came about because the workers organized and pushed the government to introduce health and safety standards. 
We know this Conservative government has always had a fundamental dislike for workers' rights because they have always placed corporate profits ahead of decent wages. CUPW has taken a responsible approach. The union believes in a modern postal service that is universal, public, affordable and green, that maintains, improves and expands services and promotes economic growth in our community.
Between 1997 and 2000, Canada Post has recorded over $1.6 billion in net profits. Since 1997, Canada Post has paid over $0.5 billion to the federal government in dividends. Throughout this time Canada Post has been among the most trusted and self-sustaining public institutions in the country. Why? Because postal workers have done their job. They have delivered the mail on time all the time. They have been professional and have worked to keep the public's faith in our public postal service.
Instead of standing up in this House and congratulating the workers for their dedication to public service, we have the Conservative government attacking their rights. Again, I feel that I need to remind my Conservative colleagues across the way that with respect to strikes we have never taken a strike vote lightly.
In 1978 and 1979, my union spent nine months on the picket line. I was married with two young children. The strain on our family was severe, but at no point did my wife complain. At no point did I waver in my determination to fight for our rights. At no point did my brothers and sisters at USW Local 6500 complain. Why? Because management was unwilling to bargain in good faith, which is exactly where we are again today. 
I have mentioned before how this legislation is contrary to the International Labour Organization convention. It contravenes the fundamental right of all workers to organize and bargain collectively.
New Democrats believe that this legislation is a clear signal about where the Conservatives intend to take labour relations in this country. Conservative members have refused to acknowledge that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been trying to bring proposals to the bargaining table and address health and safety issues around Canada Post's new sorting machines and delivery methods. And, contrary to the myth being perpetrated by members of the Conservative government, CUPW has also offered proposals for innovation and expansion of the public postal service.
Canada Post's focus on concessions has made it impossible to negotiate. Back-to-work legislation is unjust and unnecessary. It is quite clear to us on this side of the House 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 Swiss secret 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.
Northern Ontarians understand the value of good wages. They understand the value of a defined benefit pension plan. They understand because they experienced firsthand how good wages and good pensions benefit their communities.
Canadians across the country are watching this debate. They are watching with great concern how the government is undermining the only process unions have to negotiate fair wages and pensions. This renewed trend by the Conservative government runs contrary to the values of Canadians. It runs contrary to the values of my constituents.
I will be here, alongside my NDP colleagues, fighting for the rights of workers against a government that is blinded by ideology and influenced by corporate donors. This bill is a black eye for Canada, but it is not too late for this legislation to be amended. We just need the government to have an open mind and negotiate in good faith.
I would like to share with the House some of the emails we in the NDP have received supporting our stance and the CUPW workers. I will not read them because there are too many. 
If the government was really interested in delivering the mail, all it has to do is unlock the doors. If the doors are unlocked today, the postal workers will be back to work Monday morning and the mail will be delivered, as they have done over and over again.
Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's speech. I know he has been working on it for the last couple of days.
It is my second Saturday in Ottawa since I was elected five and a half years ago. The first Saturday that I spent here was for a wedding and it was much more enjoyable.
The question I have is very simple. New Democrats have been saying that all we have to do is call Canada Post and tell them to unlock the doors. Does that mean there is a commitment from the NDP that it will tell the union that if Canada Post unlocks the doors, the union should make a commitment not to have rotating strikes and sit down and negotiate?
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot do anything about the first Saturday that my colleague spent in Ottawa. It was his choice to go to a wedding. 
However, he cannot blame us for this Saturday. All he has to do is to come down here, walk this way and speak to the man who is pulling the strings. Do not go talk to the puppet, but speak to the man who is pulling the strings. Then this strike would be over on Monday morning.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, my colleague comes from a strong labour background, which has also shaped the community I am from in Thompson, Manitoba, and here I am thinking in particular of the work done by the steelworkers. 
I would like to ask him if he could elaborate on the value of having unionized workplaces. We hear so much criticism from the other side. Is it not the case that the process of collective bargaining has managed to bring so much benefit to communities across our country and truly raise the standard of living in Canada? 
Rather than hearing such contempt for the work of unionized people and workers, could this member talk about the benefits of their work?
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to repeat that this lockout could be over on Monday if the government unlocked the doors.
We all know what collective bargaining means. It means that the workers in those communities will have decent wages that they can spend in their communities on a house, a new car, or at local malls, compared to workers who are not unionized, who are working at minimum wage and have to shop at food banks.
Trade unions are very important to the economy of this country.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to many nostalgic comments across the way about the old labour movement and the unions back in 1946. I am wondering if the members opposite recognize that we are in 2011 and that we have just come through a great recession that has damaged so many countries and from which we are just recovering. 
I am also wondering if they will listen to Canadians who are dealing with problems today, as well as the postal workers who want to get back to work, who want to earn money and be productive.
When will they realize that we are not in the old socialist days of the good old union? We are in 2011.
It is leadership that we need in this Parliament. Leadership looks ahead. We are not looking in the rear-view mirror at what happened in the past. We need to look ahead at what we will be dealing with in the future.
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. We are in the 21st century. However, the government, along with this member, would like to bring us back to 1946.
 Today, modern unions give their members the right to vote on collective agreements, unlike what the government wants to impose on workers.
As the hon. member was saying, back in the 1940s people were starving. There were a lot of people who were hungry back in those days. However, it was because of good trade unions that we were able to raise the standard of living so that people could have a good life and afford to put their kids through college or university and pay for health care. Everything is good, but the government would like to take us back to 1946. 
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on May 2, Canadians voted for change. The Conservatives like to say and let it be known that Canadians voted for the following: 
a stable, strong, national majority government.
The ship should be called the SS NMGO  from now on. That will be my name for it, shorthand.
It is as though Dorian Gray was admiring himself in the mirror believing that he was still young. Canadians did not vote for a majority. They voted for change, and they are disappointed because they believed that things would be done differently, here, in Ottawa. I can see the members opposite. They are tired and spent from defending this bad ideological law. Canadians deserve better than this. That is what we get when we allow ideologues to introduce their legislation and when they are not prepared.
I feel sorry for the members on the other side who have to defend this sloppy legislation of their leader. I had a conversation yesterday with a member of the government. The member regrets that politics in Ottawa has become so leader-centred that members must follow party leaders in every decision he or she makes. I feel sorry for that member because I feel that our caucus is based on respect and teamwork, not the leader. We respect our leader, but he respects us too. He would not present legislation that the caucus would not support.
I truly feel sorry for all members on the other side of the House who have to follow their leader's sloppy legislation, this back to work legislation.
I do not think the members opposite believe in this legislation. They have to get up to defend this terribly sloppy legislation.
Canadians voted for change on May 2. They wanted to see Parliament work differently. The Prime Minister wanted to win the trust of Canadians. Canadians trusted him to make incremental changes. He betrayed Canadians with this legislation.
I have a message for the Prime Minister and his increasingly restive caucus, that we will not let up. In four years when Canadians see how the government legislates and betrays the trust put in them by Canadians, we will be on that side. We will be the government.
The Liberals have asked us many times what we would do to this legislation. We would take the final offer out of the legislation. It is a bad way to legislate. There are judges, academics and experts who say this is not the way to legislate. It does not work. It puts all the weight on management's side. It shows bad faith on the government's part for taking the side of management. This is not a fair way to proceed. This is not the way to legislate workers in this country.
The other thing that we would change is the wage offer clawback. The government is being so unfair to workers by offering them a lower wage than the corporation itself offered. All Canadians know that is a bad way to proceed; it is a slap in the face of all working people in this country.
Some people may look at the postal workers and say, “Oh, they have it cushy. They have a good life.” These postal workers work their hardest, working their bodies to the bone. They deserve all of our respect. The government does not respect those workers with this sloppy legislation.
Apart from that, the government is sowing the seeds of inter-generational strife. It is dividing the older workers versus the younger workers. The older workers will have more benefits, the younger workers will have fewer benefits.
This is not a way to bring the country together. We need real leadership. This is not leadership but an ideological push of sloppy legislation to appeal to a very narrow base of voters. This is not what Canadians asked for when they elected a stable majority government. This is not a stable government. This is an irresponsible government because it is not taking care to properly craft legislation. It was less than two weeks ago that the Minister of Labour, at the Conservative Party convention, said that it was too early for back to work legislation. That was less than two weeks ago.
It was too early then, but on the last day of Parliament, its last sitting day, that was the time to introduce this legislation. All of a sudden it had become time, very quickly.
This legislation has been a spoke in the wheels of negotiations between the two parties because it sends a message to the management side that it does not have to negotiate in good faith. The government has been all about divide and conquer.
Some people in my riding have complained about cutbacks in the infrastructure of the postal service and the fact that it has been centralized. I want to speak to that. 
The government speaks a lot about reforming the postal system and how it is not working anymore. However, Canada Post made $281 million in profits in 2009, much more than in previous years. Workers of Canada Post delivered more than 11 billion pieces of mail in 2009. It is a profitable corporation. The workers and the people who have supported all the changes that have happened deserve more than this terribly sloppy legislation. 
I would like to read a letter, or in fact an email. We are not getting letters anymore. This is from a constituent: “We are writing to let you know that we support wholeheartedly the striking postal workers. It is clear that the issues in this strike go beyond the workers' immediate financial concerns. As serious as those are, there are forces at work in North America which hope to degrade the power of united working people.” 
The constituent continues: “Throughout this continent, unions made the benefits of industrialization available to the masses. Within Canada the postal workers have been at the vanguard of the fight for such essential and just matters as maternity leaves and reliable and sufficient pensions.” 
Let me say that this party will stand behind the working people of this country and will defend their rights, whether it is today, tomorrow, the next day, or the next four years. We are here to defend the rights of workers to bargain collectively. 
Canada Post Corporation is not bargaining in good faith. The CEO makes more than the Prime Minister of the country, with a 4% increase every year. The union offered to stop rotating strikes if Canada Post Corporation came back to the table and reinstated the contract temporarily. Canada Post Corporation refused. Why? They knew this legislation would save them in the end. Why would the corporation negotiate in good faith if they knew that the government was going to back them up?
To the leadership and to the caucus of the government, take off the locks and let the workers get back to work. 
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member opposite. 
I would ask him to take into consideration a few things: the state of the world economy, the situation in Europe, the situation with Greece, the challenges the United States faces with respect to deficits and debt, the modest economic recovery we are seeing in Canada, and the realization that disruptions to the economy now are clearly undesirable and create further risk to the modest growth we have in the Canadian economy.
Does the member not recognize that such disruptions as this work interruption are harmful to the Canadian economy itself and are a risk that we ought not to take at this time? 
[Interjection]
Jamie Nicholls: I thank the hon. member for his question. I agree the recovery is slowly happening. However, we do not build recovery by stopping people from working. 
There is a lockout on these workers. When working people are allowed to work, they start stimulating the economy. We have to let the system work out the way it is supposed to work out rather than intervene.
The government said it was not going to be interventionist, but obviously with this legislation it is intervening in the bargaining process. It is intervening in the ability of postal workers to get back to work. Not letting these postal workers work is actually harming the economy.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to intervene one more time. 
In my first two speeches in this place I very rigidly tried to explain the evolution of and reasons for the trade union movement. I did this because I know that across the way not too many people really understand. I thought in fairness, to help the debate, I would try to help bring that understanding forward.
In a debate like this, with the very reasoned question that came from the Minister of Finance, the reality is that we can raise the level of debate. We can stop the silliness of name-calling or whatever. However, what concerns me is that this particular piece of legislation has a direction in it that will define an “us and them” in this country. 
I referred to 1946 because this was when the workers felt they had to push back. We do not want to create a climate like that again. 
[Interjection]
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member. It seems the current government is dedicated to dividing and conquering the Canadian people by separating out these postal workers from the rest of Canadians. 
The New Democratic Party believes in the evolution of things, and that all these rights for workers have built up over time. We strongly believe in evolution. I do not see that belief in evolution on the other side. 
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about email messages. I received a phone call from a local businessman who has an art gallery. Unfortunately, as a result of the union action and the NDP action, the flyers for a great event at the art gallery could not go out. The businessman expressed his concern, as did many others. 
The longer the NDP delay this process with their filibuster--all Canadians are quite disgusted by the filibuster going on here--and the more the NDP speak on it, the more Canadians realize that the NDP have ideologies that are basically self-serving and serving their union leaders instead of Canadians. 
Why do the NDP disrespect Canadians so much, after they were elected?
[Interjection]
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, simply put, I think it is the government that is disrespecting Canadians. The member's comments show his disrespect for the democratic process. This is a democratic process we are undertaking. It shows Canadians that the Prime Minister cannot just shove through sloppy, badly written legislation. 
I have sympathy with the small business owner who is unable to send his flyers out, but it is the Conservative government that refuses to intervene to stop this lockout. It is the government that is stopping the work. 
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity--on Thursday afternoon, June 23, 2011, according to the calendar right in front of me--to speak to the House and to Canadians who may be watching.
We do have, I think, an obligation to explain to Canadians why we are here. Why are we here on a Saturday afternoon after two days of debate? The calendar says it is June 23. It is a technicality, because we have been talking since then. 
It is important to know why we are still here. We have to understand what this debate is all about. It is called Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. However, it is very much a misnomer. There is no need for legislation to resume and continue postal services. The postal services are run by the government through a crown corporation. 
It does not take three days of debate in the House of Commons. It does not take legislation. It does not take the kind of legislation we have here. All it takes is a phone call.
The Prime Minister needs to pick up the phone, phone the CEO of Canada Post Corporation, and say take off the locks. The postal workers want to work and deliver the mail. We do not need to be here to do that.
This legislation must be about something else. What is it about? I think Canadians are wondering what it is about. 
It is a Saturday afternoon, and the post is not delivered on Saturdays or Sundays anyway. It will not make a difference if we are here one or two days. We are here trying to solve a problem. However, the government has decided they want to manufacture a crisis for a particular purpose. What is that purpose?
Parts of that purpose can be found in the legislation, but parts of it are coming out in the debate over the last couple of days. We can hear the kind of message that government members and the government itself are trying to send. 
The parliamentary secretary for the Prime Minister talks about union bosses and thugs. That is part of their message. Their message is anti-union: oppose the organizations trying to improve the lot of workers. These are “special interests”, supposedly. The Minister of Finance says that is what they are.
Let me speak about some of the special interests of the postal workers. I saw a message from one of our staffers that reminded me that if we think this is just about postal workers, we should think again. 
Does anybody in this country think that we should not have maternity leave, for example, or that maternity leave is a bad thing? Where did it come from? The first maternity leave in Canada was negotiated by the postal workers with Canada Post Corporation. It is now the law of the land. Everybody takes it for granted. Where did it come from? It came from workers seeking to improve the rights of women in the workforce through collective bargaining. That is where it came from. 
At the time, I am sure members opposite would have voted against it in the House. That was “special interests”: we need legislation to stop this kind of collective bargaining from going on. 
That is the kind of attitude we are seeing expressed over here.
I heard a member yesterday get up and read with approval a message from a constituent complaining about how these postal workers are looking for better conditions when they have decent jobs with pensions. She was talking about her grandson, who considered himself lucky to have a job for three days a week. 
I feel sorry for a person who believes that. I feel sorry for someone who feels they are lucky to have a job three days a week in a country like Canada, one of the richest countries in the world. I feel sorry for someone who feels that way. 
The member opposite is now talking back. The member opposite, instead of saying that he too feels sorry, says that these people, the postal workers, should also feel lucky to have jobs.
I am sorry, but that is not good enough. But that is part of the message the government wants to send to the people of Canada, that they should not expect to improve their lot in life. 
The government wants Canada Post Corporation to impose a two-tier system. New hires would be paid less than the people who are already there. New hires would not have the same kind of pension protection as the people who are there. There will then be two groups of workers inside the post office. That is the kind of system that is being encouraged by the government. The minute the post office is closed the government brings in legislation that not only deals with the manufactured crisis like we have but imposes a rate of wages less than what the profitable corporation had on the table.
We have a system of free collective bargaining in this country. We are supposed to have an opportunity for bargaining in good faith by both sides in a collective agreement. Bargaining in good faith means one side puts an offer on the table that it is prepared to abide by and the other side bargains back. It is a democratic process. The postal union has a mandate from 97% of its members to bargain a collective agreement. That is the kind of process that goes on in this particular organization.
A negotiation process was going on. Canada Post Corporation made $280 million in profits last year, which it turned back to taxpayers. It was prepared to put an offer on the table to its employees as part of that process. The government said it would impose a wage less than the one this profitable corporation offered. What is that about? Is that about the resumption of postal services? No. That is about trying to send a message to Canadians telling them not to expect to be part of this country's prosperity, not to seek a wage increase because the government will legislate it down.
One of my colleagues talked about the CEO. The CEO of Canada Post Corporation makes $350,000 a year. Apparently he received a 33% bonus last year. He also has an automatic 4% wage increase every year. There is such a thing as sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander, but what we have instead is the government encouraging an increased wage gap. The wealthy CEOs and the higher ups get their wages increased but the people working at the bottom get their wages decreased. The government will make that gap different in one of the most prosperous countries in the world. That is wrong, but that is the message the government wants to send. 
That is what this legislation is about. We are here to fight against it every step of the way.
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a couple of the statements made by the previous speaker.
The fact is that the dividend that Canada Post has acquired in the last little while has gone directly back into reinvesting in modernization programs at Canada Post so that it can provide efficient, effective and timely delivery of mail.
The member also suggested that the government can simply unlock the doors. The government does not get involved in the day to day operations of Canada Post. What we are trying to do here is bring together two parties that have not been able to agree. That is what the legislation would do. It would provide a vehicle to get the post moving in the country as soon as possible. That is what we are debating today. 
The NDP filibuster is just delaying what Canadians want. I think Canadians regret having elected a whole lot of people beholden to the union movement. This is harming Canadians. Please let us get the mail going. Will the opposition stop the filibuster and support the government's legislation?
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, we all want to see the mail moving. Nobody wants that more than the postal workers, who some days ago made it very clear that they are prepared to continue to negotiate and to continue to work under the existing agreement. It is simply a matter of taking the locks off the doors and that would happen.
I am glad to hear that over the last couple of years some of the dividends have been put back into the post office. We have a good quality post office but it could be better. Other services could be offered. That is a good use of that money. Some of it was offered to the workers and the government wants to take it back.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the member for St. John's East and earlier comments about the history of the unions, which some government members question.
I recall a very old retired coal miner from industrial Cape Breton who told me he must have gone into the mines very young, and he remembered how young he was when he recalled coming home one day crying and saying to his mother, “You should have told me”. He was a coal miner at the time. She said, “What should I have told you?” He said, “You should have told me there was no Santa Claus”. That is how young he was when he went into the mines.
Would the hon. member for St. John's East agree with me that unions gave us a great deal but that they must not be idealized and glorified? Everything changes over time and all unions are not perfect and all corporations are not evil. How does he respond to that?
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am quite astonished to hear that from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I do not recall being as idealistic as the member herself may once have been, to think that there was perfection to be found around us throughout our life, and I would not want to be accused of that. Obviously, we live in a democratic world where people disagree and people have many different degrees of idealism associated with their work.
However, I will say that more good has been brought by unions than just about any institution I can think of, over the last hundred years, in improving the lot of not only their own members but working people in society in general. Unions have brought about a great deal of progress and a greater sense of equality. Unfortunately, the government wants to put that backward instead of bringing it forward.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the members opposite have refused to explain the merits of Bill C-6.
In the last election campaign, I met one of my constituents with whom I exchanged tweets. He told me that he was disappointed with my position.
I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the current polarization of the members opposite, who refuse to talk about the dissenting opinions of their voters. They must receive them, just as I do.
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear that the government members are picking and choosing things they think will continue to divide Canadians, not things that will bring them together and hopefully see a solution to this particular situation.
Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are here, 43 hours later, because we fundamentally believe that we as people can work together. We believe that if you give people the time and the space they can come to an agreement. They can work things out, they can negotiate, they can see each other's points of view and find the common ground and find a solution. That is what New Democrats are about. We believe people can work things out if given the chance, if given the time.
Instead, what we have is the party opposite that believes in laying blame just on the workers. It believes in dividing, that there is an us and a them. There are these union bosses, or whatever they call them, and then there are the ordinary people, and then there are the Canadians versus the workers. 
If we continue to divide people, we just get a society that is not going to be peaceful. We are really, at the end of the day, in it together. We want our young people to have a fair wage when they start working in the post office. They should get the $23, which is the starting wage of previous workers, rather than get $19. That makes sense because young people are just starting this. They want to start a family. They want to maybe save enough to buy a home. They should be given a chance to do so. Let them work it out in their unions.
We also believe that there should be safety in the workplace. It is difficult to carry 35 pounds of mail from time to time and they do get injured. We know that 1 in 10 postal workers are injured on the job. Some are injured very severely. Many are disabled. In fact there have been 6,335 incidents of injuries in the last year.
We also believe, and the workers believe, that they should be given the right when they retire to know precisely how much money they are going to receive, and that it is not determined by the market but determined by how much they have contributed and how long they have worked, so that their lives can be predictable, that when they are ready to retire they will be able to do so with some sense of security. That is not too much to ask for.
What the workers are saying is “Look, give us the 2% or 2.5%; the dollar amount is not huge given that the CEO of Canada Post on average in the last few years has gotten a 4% increase in each year”. 
Canada Post would have given them 1.9%, but this legislation says “No, a 1.9% increase is too rich; give them 1.5%”. 
We have tried to give the space for people to come together and work together, because fundamentally those are Canadian values. That is what Canadians want us to do. Canadians believe in sharing. They believe in coming together. However, I think this is a first major test for the Conservative Party since the election. It has failed. It has failed miserably in trying to bring people together. It has failed to find common ground, failed to bring labour peace. Instead, what do their members want? They want war. They want warring parties, us and them. They prefer to bully, they prefer to put the workers in a corner, bully them some more and then blame them for not working. 
They want to work. They have been saying they want to work. They just need to be allowed to go back to work. That is why we have been saying that this Conservative Party, this government that appointed the board of directors of Canada Post, should pick up the phone, call the CEO, call the board members and say “Bring them back to work”. 
Allow them back to work and then they can negotiate and talk some more. No, that is not what the government wants. it just wants to push the workers into a corner, bully them and lower their wages. What a sad, lost opportunity we are witnessing here.
During these 43 hours, there have been negotiations. The unions have been trying to come to an agreement, but that is not what the government or Canada Post wants. They want to impose a solution; they want to tell people what to do. They do not want people to work together. It is about rubbing salt in an open wound. It is about kicking people when they are down. It is definitely not Canadian values, and that is not how Canada should be governed. 
Let me read a letter from a young person who lives in my riding. She said:
 As a young worker living in Toronto, I struggled to make ends meet. Even though I gave up on my dream of a career in the arts to be “practical”, lived in a dirt-cheap basement apartment that was, frankly, quite terrible and didn't own a vehicle, I was unable to afford both my living expenses and my student loans. As a person with a prestigious degree and a full-time job, I was too embarrassed to look for help and went into default. 
 It took me a long time to work my way out of the financial mess I built for myself by trying to get the education I thought would help me succeed. Working a second job after you leave your full-time job and living below the poverty line with absolutely no savings isn't something I wish on any young person. I'm thankful we have public healthcare in Canada, or the situation for a young person in the same situation would be even more precarious, and in fact dangerous. 
 A young worker's basic expenses are not lower than anyone else's. He or she is entering a job market with less experience. Being young, unless you have the fabled “connections”, which most of us don't, means you fight harder to earn a spot in a competitive workforce as an unproven commodity. You are less confident and afraid to rock the boat with your employer, so you are vulnerable to harassment, abusive work conditions and inequality. Who wants to walk away from one of the first or only jobs they've held with the infamous “bad reference”? Who will be believed in a case of conflicting accounts, the experienced manager or a young person who hasn't made it through the trial period? 
 As a young worker, your time and energy aren't worth any less. Even with equal opportunities, you may find it difficult to gain the trust of many employers who may see the world very differently and place less value on your skills. 
It goes on to say:
 Let's not fragment our CUPW workforce and tell young workers they have to start the career race from the starting line that is far behind everyone else's. That's just not right. In many ways the postal service is a flagship, and our flagship is going to be flying a black flag for Canada's youth if this legislation passes. 

[Interjection]
Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, I have the bill in front of me and it is very clear. Maybe the member has not read the bill. It is in front of me, and it talks very specifically about the new collective agreement. It imposes a salary range and it talks about when it would come into force. It would also fine the workers $100,000 for one day if there is an offence. This is a badly written bill.
Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague did, I too wish to thank you, and all of the speakers, deputy speakers and staff, including the staff on the Hill, for their patience and perseverance in continuing to make sure this democratic process continues and functions. My sincere thanks to you.
Similar to my colleague the member for Trinity—Spadina, who just spoke, I suppose it is my propensity as a lawyer to start with the legislation. I looked up the legislation that gives a mandate to Canada Post. It may be of interest to the House to learn what the statute provides for Canada Post in the way it is charged to deliver the service of providing mail service to Canadians.
How do we view this bill that the government has put forward in light of the legislative mandate to that institution? Under the object section of that legislation, it states in section 5(2):
 While maintaining basic customary postal service, the Corporation, in carrying out its objective, shall have regard to...the need to conduct its operations in such manner as will best provide for the security of mail; 
In other words, it is to give priority to the continuing functioning of the postal service and ensuring all families, small businesses, large businesses, the House of Commons receive their mail in a timely manner.
Secondly, they must give regard to “the desirability of utilizing the human resources of the Corporation...”, in other words the postal workers, “in a manner that will both attain the objects of the Corporation”, which is to ensure that we all receive timely, effective mail service, “and ensure the commitment and dedication of its employees to the attainment of those objects.”
A reasonable person would interpret that to mean that in establishing the delivery system and its salary bases, and in establishing the rules of operation for the workers, they need to make sure they have well-paid, healthy workers who will continue to deliver the function of Canada Post.
Regrettably the actions of Canada Post in locking out its workers, and the bill before our House, I would suggest go exactly against the purposes and intents of the legislation that Canada Post is operating under.
Clearly Canada Post has the power to open the doors to its institution. Clearly the government has the power to direct Canada Post to unlock the doors and continue the mail service.
Secondly, what has deeply concerned me and many of the members in this House, the public, and the constituents we are hearing from, is the tone set for this debate. 
I am used to being vilified personally by some of the members across the way. In the last Parliament I was used to being vilified every time I stood up. The screaming and harassment actually encouraged me to speak out more.
However, what I do not have patience for is the vilification of my constituents, many of whom include postal workers. What I found particularly offensive in this debate is that I heard very few references from the other side about how we value our postal workers, how important they are to the continuation of the economic recovery of this country, and how every family member and every business in this country values those efforts. Towards the end of my remarks I am going to give some examples of the high regard my community holds their postal workers in.
 Many have raised concern with the opening remarks by the Minister of Labour about setting the over 40,000 postal workers against Canadians.
I would really appreciate when the minister returns that she take back that remark, apologize, and commend the postal workers for their work by saying that postal workers are also Canadians and that we value their contribution to our society.
There is of course also the vilification of my fellow members of the official opposition, labelling us as communists, and labelling the senior union officers in the postal union as thugs. Only a few moments ago I had the opportunity of meeting two of those people and I could not meet two individuals further from that. I am advised that in the case of a lockout or a strike, they do not receive pay. That is hardly being a thug. They are not benefiting from speaking on behalf of their members.
I have been very disappointed by that language. Generally speaking, the dialogue has been what I would consider the type of dialogue that should occur in the House of Commons, but I found some of the language extremely distasteful, and regrettable for my constituents who have been listening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The Minister of State for Science and Technology is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I was waiting for the member to clarify the statement. No member on this side of the House made such a statement.
 That was being read and was from a postal worker who called the union bosses thugs and was afraid of pushing for the right for a free vote on the offer. No member of this government used that term.
 The member should apologize for yet again misleading the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I think the member's intervention is in fact on a matter of debate, although I think it is clear to hon. members that when this kind of language and these words are attributed to people or groups of people in this manner, it invariably inflames and, in some cases, can create disorder. It is a good idea to stay away from such language.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. We of course can select the information we put before the House. Some members chose to put forward those kinds of remarks and I think they are regrettable.
Also, I think the title of the bill now before us for debate is a bit of a misnomer. It is called “An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services”. One would have thought that what the bill was provided for was to unlock the doors of the postal service. Instead, the choice is to continue to point fingers at the postal workers. Of course, we are on a weekend so we do not have postal delivery, but on Monday, the reason why there may or may not be continuation of service is that Canada Post has locked out the workers. I find the naming of the statute rather peculiar.
It also appears to pervert the very role of arbitration, which is to bring together the parties and have a determination made in a fair way and in fairness to both sides. As many colleagues have pointed out, including the colleague who spoke before me, what the government has done is step outside of what has already been negotiated and agreed to in imposing lesser benefits to the workers.
A lot of my colleagues have also raised concerns with the effect of the bill before us, in that it creates a double standard and hypocrisy. In the wake of the $40-billion deficit created by this government, in the wake of the gift of raises to senior staff, and in wake of deeper tax cuts for major corporations, therefore leaving less revenue available to care for seniors and to provide advanced education, affordable housing, and affordable child care, many of these postal worker families are already hard-pressed. What this legislation will do is make sure that the next rung of postal workers will be even more hard-pressed and will join that class of citizens who are in debt.
In many ways, it is a manufactured crisis. We have been following a number of situations throughout North America and across the western world where we in fact have a manufactured crisis. A lot of Canadians are concerned about the manufactured crisis in health care when in fact, if our governments would intervene, we could solve access to health care, access to child care, and equitable access to advanced education.
I just want to share with the members some of the feedback I have received from my constituents. As there is limited time, I will provide one of the most heartwarming stories that was passed on to me.
One of my constituents phoned my constituency office and decried the action taken against the postal workers. She talked about last winter. We had a record snowfall and cold temperatures, and then a huge melt, with ice and major water to walk through, and still those postal workers continued to deliver the mail. She was particularly heartened and almost in tears at the fact that her postal worker kept in touch with a senior neighbour who was not picking up her mail and then managed to get neighbours to intervene. The woman was really ill and they were able to intervene.
We are talking about human beings here. They are not just numbers. They are real people who deliver an incredible service to fellow Canadians. I think that should be kept front and centre in this debate.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over these past hours I have been listening very carefully to all sides of this debate. It is a very sad day for Canada when we see the suffering that is happening outside of these walls, out on the streets in our cities and rural areas across this nation, because the mail is being held up. Businesses are being hurt. In here, everybody knows, as Canadians know, that the reason this is happening is that the opposition is putting in place every roadblock possible. In fact, one of my constituents called and said, “This is going to be a fine example of what an opposition could do if it ever got into government, and it never will.”
 I think we need to be very cautious and start thinking about Canadians. Pass Bill C-6 and do not allow the committee of the whole to go on and on, because Canadians are watching and they are very intelligent. The only thing that has been paid attention to is political agendas from the opposition, not the good of Canadians. I made that statement because Canada is at risk in this economic downturn.
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not receiving their mail because Canada Post has locked up the post office. I do not understand why there are these repeated claims. The honest reply to all of our constituents should be that Canada Post made the decision to lock the doors to the post office. Indeed, we would like to have this addressed. We have called for the removal of those locks.
As I have mentioned previously in debate here, where was the government when my constituents and many constituents were calling for the return of their mailboxes that had been removed and the reopening of the post offices that were closed? Where was the government in protecting the interests of seniors, who now have to go much further simply to mail a letter to their grandchildren?
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, what will come out of these discussions is the role of the Minister of Labour within the government. Historically, it has been clear that the role of the Minister of Labour was to keep the social peace, to ensure that labour disputes do not go on for too long, and to ensure that all Canadians have the right to speak, to be represented and to negotiate a collective agreement. 
But, right from the outset, right from the first move in the Air Canada matter, the Minister of Labour wanted to get involved by imposing special legislation to supposedly save the Canadian economy, though the company was saying that the service was not at risk. We have found out that the Minister of Labour is now someone who is stirring up social problems.
The government will no longer be able to take action to solve a problem, because it has lost its credibility, it has sacrificed it. I think that is quite a shame, and I would like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton to tell us what kind of credibility is still attached to the role of Minister of Labour.
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, to respond to the issue of where the credibility is, I could share a letter from one of my constituents, written to the Prime Minister and copied to me. It says:
 This is to express my disgust at the way that the postal strike has been handled. Forcing postal employees back to work at a cut in salary and a salary less than that agreed to by Canada Post can hardly be considered just and fair. Our postal employees deserve better than this. The astronomical fines they are threatened with if they don't return to work also does nothing to help the situation. Why were they locked out? They made sure that important cheques to seniors, etc., were delivered during their rotating strikes. I think this exhibited good faith, much better than that shown by the government. 

Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my second speech by sharing with members of the House, the constituents of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, all Quebeckers and Canadians my firm intention to continue this fight beside the NDP members who have shown me, day after day, how amazing they are.
We have been gathered here for many hours to defend rights that are fundamental, in my view: the workers' right to speak, the right to dignity, the right to negotiate with an employer in good faith and, above all, the right to be heard.
What the government has been proposing is not a balanced agreement, but an imposed contract. You are putting a gun to the employees' heads and, in so doing, all Canadians—and I mean every single Canadian—are being held hostage because of this lockout. Small businesses and the public are worried about not getting their mail, and rightly so. I understand their concerns. All the government has to do is to remove the locks and let the two parties negotiate properly. It is important to recall that mail was being delivered during the strike. The union was ready to negotiate, while continuing to provide postal services, which are essential. 
The government is sending a very negative message to the unions: there is no point in fighting because we will get what we want from you anyway. With this message, the government is literally trampling on the history of our country, the history of these people who fought tooth and nail during the industrial revolution and significantly improved the lives of everyone: my grandparents, my parents, the people of my generation and future generations. I do not have any children, but I am still fighting for them, for all these children, all these young people, all these young adults. I am fighting for the next generation.
What message is the government sending to them right now? Be rich, own a multinational corporation, be the CEO of a big oil company or a bank; otherwise, the government will not do anything for you because you do not matter to it. Once again, we are creating a gap between the generations, between younger and older workers. It is as if we are telling young people that we do not need them, that we prefer to pay them less because their work is not as valuable as the work of their counterparts.
This is also a struggle against social inequalities because the middle class is once more paying for the government's ideologies. I know that they are probably going to call me a nasty socialist, a nasty unionist, a left-winger, but that does not bother me. What is important to me is the rights of the workers, of all workers.
I have always understood, but now I understand even better why the word “progressive” is no longer next to the word “Conservative”. This word is the extreme opposite of the government's ideologies. The government is not working for a better society. It is working to set society back. It is working to undo the improvements that have been made to the living conditions of all Canadians.
We are talking here about workers' rights, but this is not the first time that the government has wanted to implement policies that jeopardize the rights acquired by Canadians. Let us remember when it wanted to reject the Kyoto accord and deprive future generations of a healthy environment. Let us also remember when it wanted to refuse to sign the agreement on aboriginal rights, jeopardizing the rights of first nations children to have access to a quality education, like all other Canadians.
Let us remember all the proposals to improve employment insurance that the government rejected for no good reason, preventing unemployed workers from living with dignity. Let us remember when abortion rights were threatened, leading Canadians to fear that we would return to the dark days when some women bled to death after trying to carry out their own abortions with knitting needles. Let us remember when the government cut taxes for large corporations, again making the middle class and organizations pay by cutting programs essential to the healthy development of our country.
This crisis is a calculated crisis brought about by the government itself. And the government wants to put the blame for this crisis on us—us, the official opposition that works with, and especially for, the people.
The government has a hidden agenda. This is the first offensive, but the war that the government has declared on the middle and working classes has just begun. Let us make no mistake, the government regards workers, and thereby Canadians, with contempt. It is shameful to see how little the government cares for people, not just Canada Post employees, but also the waiter at the neighbourhood restaurant, who at times has to count on the generosity of his customers in order to pay his rent, the shoe store assistant who has to sell a lot of shoes in order to afford a pair for herself, the carpenter who builds houses for us with the sweat of his brow in all kinds of weather, the chef who stands over his stoves even in the oppressive heat of mid-July, and the clerk at the corner store who spends all night on her feet at her cash register and still has to keep a smile on her face. 
With this attack on Canada Post workers, the government is attacking all workers, each and every one of them. It is attacking their legitimate right to negotiate improvements to their working conditions. It is attacking their right to a decent standard of living. It is attacking their right to live in dignity. It is also attacking their families' standard of living.
The government will find that it has the New Democrats to deal with. To show how serious my message is, how deeply in my soul it is rooted, I will end my speech in the same way as I ended my previous one.
We will fight for a fair and just country where no one—and I mean no one—is abandoned and cast aside.
Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate for some 30 hours and I am shocked with the rhetoric and amount of socialist propaganda that fills the House. I was born and raised in communist Poland and I never imagined that I would hear this in the House of Commons. Some of that rhetoric I know by heart.
Members are hearing over and over again how determined the opposition party is to fight for the rights of workers. What about the rights of employers? Do they not have rights? Are they not Canadian? Are they not the ones that provide the workers with a place to work?
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to inform the House that another Canadian soldier has just been killed in Afghanistan.
[Interjection]
Wladyslaw Lizon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot read Bill C-6 because I do not really understand what we are arguing about. If we were arguing about a specific thing, it should be very clear. We are hearing stories about the labour movement in Canada at the beginning of the 20th century, but at this moment we should be focused on the bill we are debating in the House.
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Yes, I have read the bill, as have all my colleagues. To suggest that we do not read our documents is almost an insult.
The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville mentioned just now that he was shocked. I too am shocked by this government's desire to privatize everything and trample on people's rights, and by its refusal to listen to what Canadians genuinely need.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, allow me to join with my colleague in saying that information has just been received that a member of the Canadian armed forces has been found dead in Afghanistan. We sincerely convey our deepest regrets and sincere sympathies to the family.
As we progress with the debate on Bill C-6, it is evident there is a flurry of activity on the floor of the House of Commons. It appears we may be moving into committee of the whole very soon. The debate itself at second reading may be collapsing soon and there may be amendments that may come forward.
Has the New Democratic Party been able to achieve any consensus with the government that it will accept any of the amendments which the NDP may be in the process of proposing? If there has been no consensus achieved, I am wondering why we are doing this at this point in time. From a purely tactical point of view, would it not have been better to try this at 4 a.m. when a tactical advantage could be achieved? If the NDP is doing this in the middle of the day, what exactly is the game plan?
[Interjection]
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
First, I, too, would like to express my condolences to the soldier's family. Because of the Conservative government, the troops are still in Afghanistan.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh! 
Marie-Claude Morin:  Mr. Speaker, I would ask for some respect from my colleagues.
All I have to say to the hon. member's question is that we, the NDP, are asking for nothing but an end to this dispute. We want people to get their mail and workers to get back to work with decent conditions. The government simply has to unlock the doors.
Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with all the courtesy we have come to expect from the Conservatives, they tried to make the members of the House and the Canadian public believe that they alone represent the people in the regions and the various aboriginal communities in this country. These people need postal service and often do not have access to reliable Internet service. Even cell phones and BlackBerry smartphones—which government ministers love to check during question period instead of listening to their colleagues' questions—are not always reliable in areas as remote as Kuujjuaq, which is in my riding.
In remote areas of my riding, communication methods complement one another and do not compete against one another. I know that the concept is likely difficult for the Conservative government to grasp, but that is the case.
People want to have the choice of sending an email, mailing a letter or making a telephone call. The Conservatives must understand the concept of choice.
Was it her difficulty understanding this concept that led the Minister of Health to take advantage of the fact that I was not in the House to launch a personal attack against me? I do not know and I do not hold it against her. However, I would just hope that, the next time she wants to debate, she will at least have the courage to do so when I am here. I would be happy to discuss the difficulty villages have accessing clean drinking water; health, education and environmental issues; climate change; or any other issues with her. I would take the time to talk with her about it.
If it makes them happy, I will let the Conservatives continue thinking that they are the only ones representing the people living in Northern Canada. However, this is not true. In reality, the ridings of Western Arctic, Churchill, Skeena—Bulkley Valley and my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are all represented by members from the NDP.
Our main objective is to come to an agreement as quickly as possible in the labour dispute between workers and management at Canada Post. This agreement can easily be reached. To come to an agreement that is acceptable for everyone, all the government needs to do is remove the clause that sets out the salaries and does not provide the arbitrator or the two parties involved in the dispute with any flexibility.
In actual fact, the members opposite have to do only one thing to return to their respective ridings and that is to ask the Prime Minister to call on the Minister of Labour to remove the salary clause from the bill.
In short, the Conservative members must realize that they have the power, should they choose to work with us, to end all this. They have the power to ensure that Canada Post ends the lockout. They have the power to ensure that people start receiving their mail again.
Imagine. If they would stop being so stubborn, we could return to our ridings and spend time with our constituents. We will all see each other again soon enough in the fall and we will have the opportunity then to conduct more in-depth debates on issues that are of concern to all Canadians. Right now, people are waiting for us to do something about this labour dispute.
It is important to remember that the two parties in the dispute have been trying to reach an agreement for over eight months. After eight months without results, it is time to start making things happen. The workers used the tools that were available to them and that are part of their rights—rights guaranteed by the highest court in this country.
With respect to means of applying pressure, the workers decided that it was vital to ensure that Canada Post's basic mandate be maintained, that is the distribution of mail to people in all cities and regions of our country. That was the rationale for rotating strikes.
Canada Post's principal mandate is not to make a profit. It is to ensure that Canadians, no matter where they live in our country, can send and receive mail.
Turning a profit is not its mandate because previous governments sold off the most profitable components of this crown corporation over the years.
Nevertheless, we are talking about a crown corporation that has made millions of dollars in profit over the past few years. This is not a company that is being restructured or that must sacrifice pension plans and reduce workers' salaries just in the hope of surviving. No. We are talking about a corporation that, to avoid negotiating in good faith, locked the doors and mailboxes, preventing people from having access to the service.
Does the government realize that all it has to do to resolve this impasse is to work with us to remove the unacceptable clause on salaries contained in the bill? This clause, by the way, offers wages that are lower than those on the table when the employer decided to stop Canada's mail service.
That is the issue, the injustice visited on the workers, who had proposed extending the collective agreement while negotiations were under way. Extending the term of the collective agreement for the duration of negotiations is also included in the bill. It is a clause that we support because it is fair and gives negotiations a chance.
The unjust clause that sets terms and conditions for the arbitrator is quite simply unacceptable. The government has no reason to step in for the employer. The government has no reason to restrict bargaining rights.
The members opposite have the choice and the power to end this stalemate if they decide to work with us.
It is time for the Conservatives to start working with us so that Canadians can have their postal service back.
Mr. Rob Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, being First Nations, and coming from a paramilitary organization, the RCMP, and having been on duty on July 7, 2006, when two members were fatally shot, and we had to bury them a week later, my thoughts and prayers are with the military family on today's loss. 
What I hear today is very hypocritical. I have read that the CEP, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 302, from which the MPs of the NDP hire, has not had a bargaining agreement for three years.
The member for Scarborough—Rouge River is looking for someone for her office. It is a permanent full-time position at a salary of $47,852. The salary level is subject to clauses 12 and 21 of the collective agreement. I think it is a little hypocritical to try to hire people who have a non-existent act.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comment. Since he did not ask me a question, I will take this opportunity to talk about this conflict again. I would always be delighted to do that.
[Interjection]
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member said that there is no question there. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is for questions and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member from Essex is correct. It could be a question or a comment. However, I am not sure that it was necessary to point that out at this time.
The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I understood the comment, but I also understood the accusation of hypocrisy. That is what I understood.
So I would like to go back to a few points that I mentioned in my speech. I believe it is essential to go back to the real issues of this debate that we have been having here for several days.
It is very easy to end this stalemate. We have suggested some courses of action, and the Conservatives can accept them now.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague from the north in looking for solutions to some of the issues that face us today. 
During the last Conservative government, we saw the government absolutely change the nature of Canada Post in the north by taking away the food mail program from Canada's north. The alternate program that has put in place does not allow people to have their choices, and it is causing great disruption in our communities. 
Perhaps my colleague would want to speak about this, because of course, his communities, like mine, are tremendously impacted by these types of government decisions. 
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, it was indeed an important program. The trend set when the government changed the program and imposed new rules was like what they are trying to do with what we are dealing with here today. I do not accept that. 
What needs to be done in this particular program for the north, which is so important, is that the government should sit down with the first nations people, the service providers, the chambers of commerce in the different regions, and so on and so forth, and iron out something that will suit everybody and make everybody happy. That is not happening. 
Mrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to take a few moments to recognize all of my colleagues who are here in the House and have been up for 30 or 40 hours now, who are here to continue to fight for our party’s values and to defend the interests of Canadian workers and families. 
We all had events planned in our ridings for Quebec’s national holiday. Yesterday, my colleague from Hamilton-Est—Stoney Creek was supposed to celebrate his 11th wedding anniversary with his wife. My colleague from Newton—Delta-Nord was supposed to spend time with her family, who made a special trip from England to see her. We all want and need to go home to our families. Our families need us, but Canada’s families need us more. 
An even greater need has brought us here to the House, and that is the need to fight together in an effort to make this government understand that its place is beside workers and that it has a duty to render a fair and just verdict. 
 I would also like to pay tribute to workers across Canada who are fighting for their rights. Postal workers are fighting not only for their own rights, but also for the rights of all Canadian workers.
 Since the debate started, I have heard Conservative members talk about this being a “joke”. Is that how they see our commitment to defending the interests of our fellow Canadians? For them, it is a joke? Is there anything more important than being here trying to find a solution that both parties can agree to? 
 We have all spoken at least once to say what we think. We have heard heated, poetic and passionate speeches. Some members explained very clearly what makes Bill C-6 unlawful. Others proposed specific solutions that both parties could have agreed to. But nothing changes. It seems as though the members opposite, already blinded by their partisan purposes, do not want to listen to us, do not want to understand Canadians and, most of all, do not want to change their minds. 
They continue to cling to reasoning that defies logic. They will not let go of their beliefs, however faulty they are. But I have noticed one single half-positive point, one little sign of evolution: the hon. members opposite now dare to utter the word “lockout” in place of the word “strike”. But they just mutter it under their breath, almost whispering it, as if they wanted no one to hear them say it, as if it were a swear word. But it is not a word that came from the workers; it came from Canada Post. The hon. members opposite must get used to that idea. 
They would have us believe that this lockout was imposed by the union. How ironic.
How often have my colleagues and I tried to explain the difference between a strike and a lockout, between a rotating strike and a lockout? 
Let me sum it up for those who have not yet grasped the difference. A rotating strike is a partial work stoppage. Let me explain “partial” very clearly. Canada Post workers decided that, in order not to harm the Canadian economy and in order for Canadians to continue receiving the service to which they are entitled, they were going to keep delivering the mail. The strike moved, in a symbolic way, from one municipality to another. In no way did the rotating strike put the country's economy in peril, since the mail continued to be delivered. The aim of the strike was simply to make people aware of the unacceptable conditions that the employer wanted to impose. It was not meant to endanger small and medium-sized business activity nor was it meant to keep cheques from seniors or from those receiving employment insurance benefits. 
A lockout, on the other hand, is a work stoppage imposed by the employer. On June 3, Canada Post decided to end mail service and to put padlocks on the doors. It held its employees hostage, employees who wanted to continue delivering the mail at the same time as they were demanding their rights. But above all, Canada Post is holding Canadians hostage, since Canadians can no longer receive their mail. 
Striking is a right for all workers. They have the right to negotiate their working conditions. It is not up to the government to step in for the employer, especially when we know what its goal is.
How can we possibly suggest such conditions to the workers? What image do we want to give to our young people? Canada Post employees are there every day. They accept working conditions that are increasingly difficult. They carry heavy bags that cut into their shoulders. They collapse under the weight of the mail, have to fight inclement weather and heat waves, and sometimes walk for hours. Should they also accept unfavourable wages? Why? Because their employer is not profitable enough?
Still, let us recall that Canada Post's most recent revenues are estimated at over $281 million for the year. Let us also recall that the CEO of Canada Post received the modest sum of $497,000 for his good and loyal service, and that he gets a bonus of 33%, on top of his annual salary. And we are supposed to believe that Canada Post is suffering from the recession and that that is the only reason driving the cuts to its employee's benefits? No. The real reason is that this employer knows that it is supported by the government, and so many other employers will follow suit if we do not put an end to this type of thing immediately,
 The employer proposed certain salary increases during the negotiations, and then the government interfered and put forward a contract that offered less. This contract is, quite simply, unfair. It not only fails to meet the employees’ demands, but also undercuts the salary offer made by the employer. What kind of world are we living in? 
 It is neither the government’s role nor its responsibility to impose such contracts. What the government is proposing is, quite simply, unilateral and irresponsible legislation. It flouts the right to negotiate a collective agreement. The government’s actions do not give the two parties an opportunity to properly negotiate an agreement. 
 The government should not interfere in this conflict, or in any other similar conflict. This debate is not only about the Canada Post issue: more than that, it is about the right of workers to negotiate with their employer. 
 Canadians fought long and hard for a fair and just work environment. They fought heart and soul for decent wages and basic benefits so that they could provide for their families. 
 Locking out these employees and forcing them to accept a contract while trying to take away their hard-earned savings will set us back many years and create a dangerous precedent. Canada Post employees refuse to be the victims of an unfair clawback scheme that will take money out of their pockets. They refuse to have their rights undermined, as well as the rights of all the people who work for other large employers and friends of the government. 
 They refuse to have their rights trampled on, but they are ready to go back to work. They are ready to start delivering mail to their fellow Canadians again. They just want to be treated fairly. They want to be treated in a manner befitting their work. They are asking neither for the moon nor for favourable treatment. They are asking only to be paid fairly for their work. They want to be able to feed their children and provide for their families. They want to be able to retire without worrying about whether they can make ends meet. 
 How will the government explain to young people who want to work at Canada Post that they are welcome to work there, but they will be paid a lower salary than employees with more seniority who do the exact same job? Are we not endangering the Canadian economy by acting in this way? 
Inevitably, our young people will navigate towards companies that respect their employees, if there are any left, with this government. How will Canada's economy be able to recover when we can no longer replace workers who have retired? Is it the government's intention to jeopardize a service as essential as the post office? 
The Conservatives will have to explain to us the long-term viability of such a contract. If they are really concerned about Canada's economy, they should stop telling us to pass this bill and go home. Let them make an enlightened decision for once and end the lockout to allow Canada's economy to keep running. Let them end the lockout to allow both parties to resume negotiations and come to an agreement that will satisfy everyone. 
Canadians are being held hostage and they know who is doing it. Not Canada Post employees, but their employer who, together with the government, is attacking the rights and the advances that our parents and grandparents fought for. That is why Canadians support the workers at Canada Post. Why do they support them? In a word, because they know that they could be the next on the list if they let the government get its way. 
The quality of life and the social justice that we enjoy in this country are indisputable rights that we will defend to the bitter end. On May 2, we were given a mandate to represent our constituents, and we will do so with honour and respect. We will stay here. We are ready to go all the way. We will stay on our feet, without complaining, and we will continue to fight for all the workers in Canada who are counting on us to represent them in this House.
Mark Adler: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my condolences to the family and friends of our fallen soldier. They do what they do over there so we can do what we do here.
There is a clear track record on this side of the House that the government stands with working families. However, we hear a lot of speeches and rhetoric on the other side. As it is the opposition party, we all understand that.
I will highlight a couple of examples of when the party opposite had the opportunity to be in government.
In Ontario, it put a major assault on workers' rights with the social contract, which made people who were making as little as $7.50 an hour take 12 unpaid days off a year.
In 1999, the Roy Romanow Saskatchewan government ordered nurses back to work after just 24 hours--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, they were not making $7.50 an hour. Those were the people on welfare who were told to use bent cans of tuna to feed themselves.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Langley.
[Interjection]
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, it is a continuing pattern of that member interrupting so that he can make a statement and be involved in debate. It is inappropriate. It shows disrespect to Parliament and it should not continue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The member is quite right in the sense that points of order ought not to be used inappropriately and I would urge all hon. members not to do that. Earlier today, about 27 hours ago I believe, we had this conversation. If the member for York Centre could quickly put his question.
[Interjection]
Mark Adler: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that last night over 30% of members on that side did not show up for the vote, is that party--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is new, but he should know that he cannot say whether members have been here or not. He is referencing the fact that members were not here and it is not according to the rules.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology is rising on the same point of order.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, no member was mentioned. It is a public record that last night we had a vote. I urge all viewers across Canada to check it out. The NDP was missing 30% of its caucus. The member opposite--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I appreciate that this discussion has taken place for a couple of days. All hon. members know, or ought to know, that you cannot refer to whether another member was or was not, is or is not in the chamber. That is correct.
Having said that, referencing the number of votes that were cast one way or another in a previous vote does not violate that principle. I would encourage all hon. members to allow our colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes an opportunity to respond to the comment that was made by the hon. member for York Centre.
The hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes. 
[Interjection]
Sana Hassainia: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the use of the information that the hon. member is giving us. We have all been here for many hours to support the Canada Post workers and all workers across Canada. That is the purpose of the position we are taking here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. Just to clarify for all hon. members, when you rise in questions and comments you have an opportunity to make a comment or ask a question. You do not have the right to continue to talk until you ask a question. At some point, the time may expire before you ask a question or you may in fact not be asking a question.
The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the postal workers have been locked out. They are trying to be forced back to work. I would like my colleague to comment on that. Has she seen this before? How does she think they feel? This is similar to having a spouse thrown out by the other spouse and the police bringing the spouse back and saying he or she must be allowed to stay in the home. 
I know the postal workers had indicated they were prepared to deliver the cheques to seniors and others. Did my colleague see in the legislation that the employers were able to lock them out?
[Interjection]
Sana Hassainia: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.
The Canada Post workers actually want to return to work, regardless of what the hon. members opposite may say. And the lockout does not allow them to do so whereas the strike was making that possible. That is the problem in a nutshell. The dialogue seems to be going nowhere. There is a complete lack of understanding.
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 motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #26
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The next question is on the main motion. 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #27
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Ms. Denise Savoie in the chair)
Denise Savoie: Order, please. I would like to open this session of the committee of the whole on Bill C-6 by making a short statement about the proceedings. 
This is the first time many hon. members will be participating in a debate like this, and I would like to explain how we are going to proceed.
The rules of debate are as follows.
No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes at a time. Speeches must be strictly relevant to the terms of the clause under consideration. There is no formal period for questions and comments. Members may use their time to speak or to ask questions, and the responses will be counted in the time allotted to that member. Motions do not need a seconder, and members may speak more than once. Finally, members need not be in their own seat to be recognized, just to make my job a little easier.
The committee will now proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill.
Before we begin, I would like to ask those members who have amendments to please bring them to the table.
(On clause 2)
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Labour, CPC): Madam Chair, today I am here to address the committee of the whole regarding the Government of Canada's proposed legislation, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. 
Before I start, I would like to sincerely thank my parliamentary secretary, my colleagues and all of our staff for their exemplary efforts. I am once again reminded of how strong a team we are on this side of the House.
This extraordinary bill has been introduced in the House as a result of an unresolved labour dispute between Canada Post and more than 50,000 employees of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers urban operations unit. Now that the work stoppage has continued, regular postal service has ceased. Canadians are turning to Parliament for a solution. That is what I am here to talk about today.
Context is important so that the extraordinary measures in the bill can be better understood. Let me start with three important points.
First, a reliable postal service without interruption is an important part of what keeps our economy running smoothly.
Second, when that service is interrupted, or when the reliability of that service is put into doubt, it does more than just create an inconvenience. Costs are incurred, and they are paid by Canadian families and Canadian businesses. 
Third, many months have passed since this labour dispute began and there is no end in sight at which the parties can reach a settlement on their own.
Given these facts, Parliament has an obligation to act and to do so in the best interest of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP): Madam Chair, in your opening statement, you told us that you would strictly apply the rule of relevance. The minister is supposed to be discussing clause 2, but she is just making a general introduction.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: I thank the hon. member but, as all hon. members know, clause 2 is quite broad and it can include these types of comments.
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Madam Chair, after so many hours of listening intently to the debates from the other side of the House, I thought it would more than appropriate that members would take the next 10 minutes to understand.
The important part here is that Canada Post is vital to the economy. It is indeed one of Canada's largest corporations. It is a $7.5 billion company, employing some 70,000 people right across Canada. A vast majority of them have union representation. Canadians rely on the services of Canada Post for many reasons.
 Canada Post sorts and delivers 11 billion pieces of mail every single year. It remains a vital part of how we stay connected to one another as a country, but it is also important as a business in Canada. It helps companies grow. It plays a key role in how bills gets delivered and paid on time and ensures that parcels reach their destinations.
Canada Post is an integral part of what keeps Canada in business and puts money in the pockets of many citizens. From the small business owners who invoice and get paid via mail to the companies that rely on the mail to issue bills, process orders, and receive payments, this is a service that matters a lot. Similarly, for taxpayers waiting for a tax or HST rebate to arrive or for citizens in rural and northern communities who rely fundamentally on the mail for many of their essential services and communications, Canada Post is a vital service.
For months, Canada has been dealing with uncertainty surrounding postal services. The collective agreement covering the union, the largest bargaining unit at Canada Post, CUPW, expired earlier this year and parties began their talks back in October of 2010.
In spite of there being both conciliation and mediation assistance, an agreement has remained elusive, and as of May 25 the parties acquired the legal right to strike or lock out. That presents a risk not just to mail delivery service but also to the good health of Canada's economy on the whole. That is a risk that Canadians simply do not want, nor is it one that they should have to endure.
The work stoppage at Canada Post is expected to have an immeasurable impact on our economy, resulting in losses of about $9 million to $31 million per week. Every day that means more jobs at risk, more productivity lost, more challenges for businesses, and more uncertainty for consumers.
My third point is that every other avenue has been tried to bring a full and lasting resolution to this dispute. Quite frankly, the time has come for Parliament to do the right thing and intervene. Consider how much has been done over the last eight months by the Canadian Government in order to resolve this dispute. 
On October 4, 2010, notice was served by the union on the employer to commence collective bargaining, and they held negotiations from October to November. In January of 2011, the union filed a notice of dispute and asked Labour Canada for help in conciliation, and a conciliation officer was appointed at the end of January. 
Through February and March, the conciliation officers met with the parties. On April 1, the conciliation period was extended further to May 3 in order to allow the parties to continue. During that time, the conciliation officer met with the parties.
On May 3 they were released from conciliation and on May 5 a mediator was appointed. Throughout the month of May and into June a mediator from the labour program's Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service met very frequently with the parties. Unfortunately, despite all of these efforts, the parties were unable to come to an agreement. Even as recently as eight o'clock this morning attempts were made to help the parties reach a deal and they bore no fruit. Something needs to be done and that is why we are now acting with this extraordinary measure.
The act itself provides for the resumption and continuation of the mail service by Canada Post. It brings an end to this growing uncertainty that has characterized much of the dispute itself for many months. The act also imposes a four-year contract and new pay rate increases. That will mean a 1.75% increase as of February 1, 2011; 1.5% as of February 2012; 2% as of February 2013; and 2% as of February 2014. It also provides for final offer selection, which is a binding mechanism on all outstanding matters. 
Furthermore, and most important, in making the selection of a final offer, the arbitrator is to be guided for specific principles, the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable postal industries that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility for both short-term and long-term viability, and competitiveness of the corporation itself. They will maintain the health and safety of its workers and to ensure the sustainability of the pension plan.
The terms and conditions of the employment must also taken into account a solvency ratio in the pension plan that does not decline as a direct result of a new collective agreement and that Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates, operate efficiently, improve productivity and meet acceptable standards of service.
In other words, it is a decisive approach and it is aimed at resolving this labour dispute.
Some may argue that collective bargaining is a process that has to be left to run its course, no matter how long it takes. However, the facts tell us that the parties in this dispute have tried again and again, month after month and no agreement has been reached and, indeed, there is no agreement in sight.
So what is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a solution before we act? Well, we cannot wait until our economy is damaged, until jobs are lost, until businesses and families are actually hurt. Not only is that unreasonable, it is actually unfair to Canadians. They did not ask for the labour dispute and they should not have to pay the price for this and for having it dragged on as long as it has.
 Canadians are counting on their government to provide mediation, conciliation assistance, and we did that when the parties were unable to reach a solution. Now it is up to the Government of Canada to act in the best interests of all Canadians and of our country's economy.
As I said before, this is not the Government of Canada's first choice in how we would like to see this labour dispute resolved, but this choice is the necessary one. All members of the House should join me in giving the proposed legislation the support that it deserves.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: The exception to the rule of relevance that I cited in the case of the minister's speech applies as we discuss clause 2.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Outremont.
Thomas Mulcair: Madam Chair, you will not be surprised to learn that, on our side, we do not share the minister's analysis, but out of respect for your function, we will still try to briefly talk about clause 2, which is the one we are supposed to be studying. At the same time, we would like to review what has happened over the past 72 hours because there is something fundamental about that.
The fundamental principle of acting in good faith underlies all work in matters of the relations between employers and employees.
Let me start with clause 2, which deals with the interpretation of the bill, and I will go in order. It says:
 2. (1) The following definitions apply in this Act. 
 “arbitrator” means the arbitrator appointed under section 8. 
We will have the opportunity to go back to this with our colleagues because we have some amendments to make.
Arbitrator means the arbitrator appointed under clause 8. That is a good place to start on our analysis of clause 2 for one good and simple reason. An arbitrator by definition is someone who will use his or her experience and ability to look at what is before him or her and come to a decision that is the fairest under the circumstances, based on all the information that is placed before the arbitrator. Interests of both sides will be taken into account and the fairest decision rendered.
The government across from us will allow no such thing. As we will see when we get to the clause, it is stacking the deck.
The conservative government has absolutely no intention of allowing an arbitrator to work freely and fairly under the rules. I know what I am talking about because twice in the past 72 hours we thought we were on the verge of a negotiated agreement. The minister must be extremely tired, because we heard her say in the past few hours that she never talked to us. The fact is we did talk to each other. I talked to her and my colleagues also talked to her. We did so through her staff and we tried to ensure that what is provided under clause 2(1) concerning the arbitrator would respect the tradition, the rules and the right to collective bargaining between employers and employees.
In recent weeks, similar strategies have been decried, condemned and blocked by the courts. Again this week, a binding ruling was made against the same Conservatives. In that case, the judge went through every section and paragraph and condemned the Conservatives' blatant lack of good faith in a situation very similar to the one with which we are dealing.
Good faith is the basis of all work that gets done in matters of labour relations. This week we had a devastating decision against the Conservative government from the Federal Court, in a fact situation quite similar to the one that presents itself here today. In paragraphs 86 to 92, we realized rather quickly that the government was again repeating the behaviour that was denounced by the Federal Court. This is the basis for labour law. This is the basis for collective negotiations.
 As we will see, the bill contains what we call an orphan clause. It would reduce, by 18%, the entry salary and we would wind up discriminating against younger people, because they would be the majority of the new hires. We are told that this is just the way it will be in the world run by the Conservative majority.
 In the same way, back in the 1960s, we would have been told, regarding a collective agreement that had one wage scale for men and a lower one for women, that this was just the way it was. One wage scale for older workers and a lower one for younger workers is just the way it is in the Conservative universe. A clause in a collective agreement that said once a woman was expecting a child she would lose her job, 50 years ago, that was just the way it was. Today, the Conservatives are trying to turn back the clock in matters of rights, and that is what we are standing up against.
Staying with our analysis of clause 2, the next definition is of “collective agreement”. It means the collective agreement between the employer and the union. In this case, we give the expiry date of the previous one.
I will state this in French. A collective agreement is supposed to be a convention agreed to by the employer and the union. One can see why they need to be reminded of that, because the bill does not allow any convention or agreement whatsoever. The conditions are being dictated by the government which, as we know, imposed a lockout. The government is preventing employees from returning to work. The Conservative government and Canada Post are working hand in hand to undermine labour relations. We also had proof of that over the past 72 hours. They blame the employees and they attack them after kicking them out. They point the finger at them and tell them there is a problem in that they are refusing to work, therefore making special legislation necessary to force back to work employees who want nothing more than to work. But it is the employer that padlocked the doors.
Let us read the next definition in clause 2:
 “employee” means a person employed by the employer and bound by the collective agreement. 
That is an interesting notion, being bound by an agreement collectively arrived at between employer and employee. When we respect every clause of the legislation, we withdraw conforming ourselves to the Charter of Rights and the Labour Code. We withdraw part of our work because we are trying to negotiate. The service was not interrupted, except when the employer locked the workers out. That is where the problem started.
The employer is the Canada Post Corporation. I can assure you—and my colleagues and I experienced this during the past few hours—that when we and the union were supposed to be told about the result of negotiations and discussions with Canada Post, there was interference on the part of the government.
There is no distance whatsoever on the part of the government, that is trying to send a message to all public sector unionized workers, if not to all employees in Canada, by telling employers not to worry, that the usual rules don't concern it. They can be suspended as it pleases, it will come forward to adopt new laws to repress the rights of their employees; it will stand up whenever there is an issue, and always in favour of management.
That is the Conservative reality.
“Minister” means the Minister of Labour.
We are talking about the Minister of Labour. The very title is supposed to suggest equality among the parties. Instead, we have a new minister of management.
We have a minister of management.
Everything is in favour of management. Even when her closest associates, who are supposed to be able to represent her, caused things to move forward a little, on behalf of the government, she disavowed the work they had done. Her associates were thrown under the bus. The small steps that we thought had been made have been completely forgotten, set aside by the minister and her government because it was out of the question for the employees to gain anything at all at the end of this exercise. The Conservatives are going to use their majority to try to crush people, but there is a little surprise waiting for them. The message they are putting out has indeed been understood by the workers' movement everywhere in Canada. The government should hear the clock ticking. It is congratulating itself today. Let it rejoice, but I can guarantee that the men and women who work throughout Canada, and those who have been fighting for their rights for generations, have understood what is going on very well. Like us, they are going to stand up to the government every time it tries to use such tactics in the future.
Finally, clause 2 states that the union concerned is the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Union means the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to use the time at my disposal to express our appreciation and congratulations for the honesty, integrity and good faith demonstrated by the entire union team. In recent days, they made every possible effort to come to a negotiated settlement. Their efforts were thwarted by the Conservative government's clear intention to attempt to crush them.
That comment remains relevant in the discussion of clause 2 because the clause and its definitions lay out the approach to labour relations that we can expect in the next four years. In those four years, people all over the country will know that they now have a clear choice. Some people will suppress their rights, even rights recognized in subsection 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as freedom of association, guaranteed by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions that culminated with BC Health Services, Fraser and the decision we had this week. But one political party will stand up for the rights of Canadians and of workers, and that is the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Madam Chair, as you indicated from the outset, clause 2 certainly gives one a fairly wide range of topics to touch on. 
Over the course of the last number of hours and day this debate has gone on, we have been able to put our concerns with the bill out in the public eye and have articulated the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. 
We believe, and have stated from the outset, that the legislation was heavy-handed. We thought the legislation was restrictive and would handcuff an arbitrator to come forward with a more fair and reasonable deal for workers, and we identified that throughout the course of the debate. 
After listening intently to what has gone on over the last number of days in the debate, I do not know if there was much more said at 4:15 this morning than was said at 1:10 Friday morning. That is why we had called for amendments early and why we had asked to present amendments early. We articulated our amendments early on in the debate. I felt at that time that, as opposed to this bill as we might be, we all have a basic understanding of mathematics in this caucus and we have a pretty good idea as to what the outcome will be. We would have preferred to have the amendments tabled but we have presented our amendments and we look forward to the chamber ruling on them. 
Denis Coderre: Madam Chair, I wish to say a few words after the night we just had. First, I want to acknowledge and thank all the House and security staff. I think they should be applauded for spending all this time with us. This whole filibuster has wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.
The problem with clause 2 is that we have a bad bill before us and there is also this ideology of the official opposition, which wants to drag things out, even though it knows full well that, given the government's majority, this legislation will inevitably pass.
As for us, we said from the outset that, in accordance with our role, we wanted to propose amendments in a constructive fashion, so as to show that we are able to respect the right of workers, while also respecting the citizens who want to receive their mail. We did not want to drag things on, and our action was not influenced by ideology, whether from the left or the right. 
The problem with this whole issue is that I heard the minister say she would rather protect 33 million Canadians than 45,000 workers. However, these workers also happen to be Canadians. It is somewhat strange to try to divide people when we are supposed to find solutions. We could have saved a lot of time if, in the definition of “arbitrator”, the minister had allowed this arbitrator to have full control. Indeed, given his or her experience and expertise, an arbitrator is capable of finding a common ground for both sides.
We could also save a lot of time, knowing full well that the employer made salary proposals but that the bill includes lower salaries. That is totally ridiculous. Our television viewers, who now number more than four or five, will finally see how this whole thing will turn out. I find it rather sad that this House was used to wage a small war between the Conservatives' right-wing ideology and the NDP's left-wing ideology.
 If we want to resolve the situation and abide by the Constitution of Canada, we have to be pragmatic. In 1997, I was on the other side of the House, and back-to-work legislation was introduced, but it was after a general strike, not a lockout. And here their slip is showing, since just before that we had Air Canada, and so we have the government's pattern right in front of us: it denies workers their rights, and very certainly, every time we have a little problem, its definition is going to mean that we will have back-to-work legislation.
This is a very sad day today. I hope that on Monday people will remember on both the official opposition side and the government side that a lot of people are going to be ill-served. We could have avoided this entire debate if things had been done properly.
André Bellavance: Madam Chair, to begin with, I will say that the Bloc Québécois has also presented amendments. However, we knew from the outset of this debate that it was tainted for the simple good reason that the government is acting prematurely by introducing this special bill, which is obviously intended to muzzle the union and tie its hands.
The employees had in fact started to use pressure tactics. It must be understood that the pressure tactics were rotating strikes. Never, but never, was the public as a whole penalized, whether in Quebec or in Canada, for the short time the pressure tactics lasted before the lockout.
That is why, in my opinion and the opinion of everyone we have talked to, whether or not they support unions is of no importance. The customers as well, the people who, it seems, were sending a steady stream of email to the Conservatives, told us they had not been affected by the rotating strikes, except when the strike was at their location. But it was no worse than when there is a holiday. We had one recently, and unfortunately we were not able to participate in the festivities for the national holiday. But it is a holiday, which means there is no mail or postal services. The same thing happens when there are rotating strikes. So they could have continued the pressure tactics and, most importantly, the negotiations, without the apprehended disaster happening, the one the Conservatives have told us about throughout this long debate, involving another economic crisis. These were one-day, narrowly targeted strikes, in very different areas, from one day to the next, that lasted only 24 hours
The public as a whole, and the people I have spoken with specifically about this, never blamed the workers for what happened. Obviously it is never pleasant not to receive the cheque you are waiting for, and everyone is aware of that. That is why the government should immediately have taken a mediation approach, not picked up a bazooka to kill a fly. That is the big difference between the Conservatives' approach and the approach adopted by the various opposition parties who have spoken in this House.
From the outset, we knew the outcome that is unfortunately going to come about in a few minutes, after everything that has happened. As was the case for Air Canada, the government is once again acting prematurely. I do not think this was unplanned. It was entirely out of self-interest. What the government wanted is the outcome it is going to have: to come down squarely on the side of Canada Post. The shot has been fired across the bow of virtually everyone who works in the public service: watch out; unfortunately, the Conservatives have a majority.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I note that clause 2 is a little more vague and open to interpretation, and allows for broader issues to be discussed than other clauses, and so I rise to say a few words.
 To begin with, as the official opposition critic for labour and workers, I too would like to thank those employees who have worked so hard over the last few days to ensure the smooth running of the democratic process, and for making it possible to debate these issues in the House of Commons. I am referring to the security and restaurant staff, the pages and everyone who has helped us. Singling people out often means forgetting others, which is certainly not my intention. We would sincerely like to thank every employee. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  No thanks to you.
Yvon Godin:  That shows the arrogance of the Conservatives, “no thanks to you”.
I would like to stress the importance of this debate in the House of Comments and thank our new members. I wanted to thank the government for providing us with this forum. It has been a good training ground for new members. They have had an opportunity to deliver speeches and ask questions.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Yvon Godin:  There is nothing wrong with commenting on people who are learning how to do their job. There is nothing improper about that. I am simply drawing members’ attention to one of the positive aspects of this debate. The government claimed that it did not interfere in the bargaining process. For better or for worse—and it was recorded—the postal union and Canada Post held discussions until almost midday. The postal union therefore had an opportunity to return to the bargaining table with the employer. One thing we did was to give the parties an opportunity to try and settle this labour dispute. That is what the Minister of Labour has always wanted. These people have to engage in a dialogue; we are not like the Liberals, who just wanted to stay home and allow this negotiation not to take place. That is what matters. 
What have we accomplished? I will soon leave here proud to say that we saw things through until the end and did not simply stop because we wanted to go home because July is around the corner. We have worked hard and I want to thank all members on both sides of this House. That is democracy at work, and that is what we have just seen here. The representatives of the people have had an opportunity to express their views on a very important subject.
I want the record to show that taxpayers’ money was not spent needlessly. While chambers of commerce and all manner of organizations are there to protect employers, Canadians need to hear how important it is that workers have a fundamental right to be part of a union that represents them. The government referred to the unions as big bosses.
We shall talk about wages later, in the bill for the collective agreement. This is one of the government’s demands or proposals. How many members would like two different salaries the day they are elected to the House of Commons--one for newcomers and one for those with the most seniority? That is what the government wants now. It wants two wage classes, as if there were two classes of citizens. Are we prepared as members to pass a bill that would give newly elected members a lower salary than members who have been here for 15 years? We would never want to pass such a bill.
So let us respect the workers. The government has this opportunity. Let it at least give an arbitrator the opportunity to make a decision that is not dictated by the Government of Canada, by the Conservatives. Let the workers negotiate their collective agreement with the conciliators or the arbitrator.
Furthermore, the Minister of Labour should remember what her title is. She is the Minister of Labour, not the Minister of Industry. The labour minister is here to represent workers, not to table bills that offer less than the employer offers. The government says it does not interfere in employer-employee negotiations, yet it tables a bill which reduces wages and management's offer. If that is not interference, I wonder what is.
The Conservatives may believe this, but the citizens and workers of our country know that it does not work that way. Certainly they do not believe what the government is telling them, namely that lowering the employer’s offer is in the workers’ best interest and that it is not taking the employer’s side. 
With the little changes we are asking, it is to be hoped that the government will have a heart, if only a little heart, for the worker’s lot. In their speeches through all the hours that have passed here since Thursday, not a single time have the Conservatives talked about the workers. They have talked only about other people, not the 45,000 postal workers who deliver our mail. They have never congratulated them. They prefer to say that 33 million Canadians need their mail. If they need their mail, then Canada Post should take the padlocks off the doors.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall clause 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  All those in favour of clause 2 will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
Denise Savoie:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
Denise Savoie:  In my opinion the nays have it.
Order, please. As this is a different kind of vote, I should like to read the procedure. I should like to remind the hon. members that the voting will begin with the Chair asking those members who are in favour of the clause to all rise, row by row. As the Clerk counts the members on my right, they will sit down, row by row, followed by those members in the rows to my left.
The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote from the previous recorded vote to this clause, and we will follow that procedure through the rest of the clauses.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Does the Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  I declare clause 2 carried.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
[See list under Division No: 27]
(Yeas 158; Nays 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On clause 3) 
Shall clause 3 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  The Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order. 
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Chair, I believe if you seek it you would find agreement to apply the recorded division of the previous vote to this vote, with Conservatives voting yes. 
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Madam Speaker, the NDP will vote no.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Chair, the Liberal Party will oppose.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Chair, the members of the Bloc Québécois vote no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: I declare clause 3 carried.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On clause 4)
Shall clause 4 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you will find agreement to apply the previous recorded vote to this clause, with the Conservatives voting yes.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Chair, the Liberals will be voting no. I ask that we add the vote of the member for Cardigan please.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: We do not record names of voting members but we will record the number.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie:  I declare clause 4 carried.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On clause 5)
Shall clause 5 carry?
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you will find agreement to apply the previous recorded vote to this clause with the Conservatives voting yes.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Chair, Liberal members will be voting no.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: The Green Party will be voting no, Madam Chair.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: I declare clause 5 carried.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas 158; Nays, 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On clause 6)
Shall clause 6 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  The hon. Chief Government Whip.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you will find agreement to apply the previous recorded vote to this clause, with the Conservatives voting yes.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Chair, the Liberals will be voting no.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Clause 6 is carried.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27.]
(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On clause 7)
Shall clause 7 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  The hon. Chief Government Whip.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Chair, I believe if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the previous recorded vote to the current clause, with the Conservatives voting yes.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Does the Chief Government Whip have unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Madam Chair, NDP members will be voting no.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Chair, the Liberals will vote no.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: I declare clause 7 carried.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27.]
(Yeas: 158; Nays: 112)
(Clause 8)
 There is an amendment to clause 8 that I am going to read:
 That Bill C-6 in clause 8 be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 3 with the following: 
 The minister must appoint as arbitrator a person that the minister 

[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: Madam Chair, the proposal regarding clause 8 seeks to recognize and respect the responsibility of an arbitrator. If a collective agreement of any industry, whether in the public sector or elsewhere, is violated, the parties can choose an arbitrator who, at the end of the process, will issue a ruling on the interpretation of the collective agreement.
I have never seen an arbitrator become involved in an arbitration process while knowing in advance what his decision would be. If that were the case, an arbitrator would not be needed.
The clause in the bill reads as follows: “The Minister must appoint as arbitrator for final offer selection a person that the Minister considers appropriate.” 
 If at that time the final offer is made automatically, the arbitrator is being told what to do. The arbitrator's job is to make that decision. The arbitrator is a qualified individual. He or she is an individual who the two parties decide on together, or the minister makes a decision as to who the arbitrator will be. The person that the minister or the two parties decide to accept has to be a qualified person who understands the subject and is able to make the decision.
That is why we said that the government should not participate in the negotiations by telling the arbitrator in advance what to do or not do. The arbitrator should make the decision.
Whenever the legislation provides that the arbitrator must make a decision on a final offer, the employer wins. One only has to look at the precedents to see that. Whenever such a situation occurs, the employer always wins. This is why we are saying that the clause must be changed.
The bill and even our amendment provide that “the Minister must appoint as arbitrator ... a person that the Minister considers appropriate”. If the person is appropriate, why tell him to select the final offer? 
In the past, because of the final offer clause, the arbitrator has always sided with the employer. Once the employer has made its offer, the arbitrator examines the situation and finds that there is too much difference between that offer and the offer made by the union and the employees. The arbitrator must then select between the two offers, and he has no choice but to select a final offer, instead of using his judgment.
Whose judgment are we talking about? It is that of the arbitrator appointed by the minister. The minister has selected a qualified arbitrator. To tell that arbitrator in advance that he is not qualified is to insult him. The fact is that he is qualified to do the job. He must be able to be fair to both parties and to society. He must take everything into consideration.
This is why we are saying there is no possible negotiation between the two parties if the government gets involved in the negotiation process by introducing in the House of Commons a bill which says in advance that the arbitrator must select the final offer. The employer does nothing and does not have to negotiate, because the government is doing all the work for him.
Even this morning, the government advised the employer to go and negotiate in good faith. The employer replied that it no longer wanted to negotiate, because it was over. In fact, the employer went so far as to say that if it were to negotiate, it would offer less than what it offered in its last offer, earlier this month. It is obvious that any new offer would be less, because the government has already introduced a bill that also provides less.
That is why the Conservatives have got it wrong. Or they have not got it wrong and they intend to hit the workers. I have said this to them several times and they did not like it. What have the postal workers done to the government for it to hate them so much? Why do the Conservatives hate the workers so much that they are asking the arbitrator to select the final offer, which is lower than what the employer had offered? 
That is why I asked, and I said it publicly. I will say it again: when a crown corporation makes a proposal of 1.9% and the government comes in and says no, it is not 1.9%, it is 1.7%, what have those workers done to the government that the government hates them that much?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Yvon Godin:  What did they do to you?
 What did they do? That is why the government is going to have to think about it. Is the government going to hit on the men and women, on all those workers, and all those who are coming up? People will remember that. Men and women who work hard see that their government, the one that has this big majority, this solid majority in the House of Commons, the members of the Conservative Party, will never speak for them in the House of Commons because they do not count. In all we have done since Thursday, they have never spoken for men and women, never. 
What have they done for the workers? We have a bill that is less than we had—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Order, please. The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Madam Chair, what is the definition of "relevant"? Are we going to keep going on and on and talk about everything or are we going to talk about clause 8 and the arbitrator? If they do not like themselves, let them sort that out in therapy, but we would like to know what clause 8 is.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Yes, clause 8 concerns the arbitrator. I would therefore ask the hon. member to alter his presentation accordingly and address his comments to the chair.
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: Madam Chair, I know it is also tiring for the member from Bourassa when we talk about workers. That is his problem. I understand that, but we have rules to follow, and I am prepared to follow them. I know he finds it tiring for us to be here, and I accept that. I accept the fact that in 1997, the Liberals also forced workers back to work with lower wages than the employer had offered. I accept that, and that is also tiring for them today.
I am asking the government to show respect for the arbitrator's authority in this clause. The arbitrator is a qualified person who will be appointed by the Minister, so let the arbitrator do his or her job.
Lisa Raitt: Very briefly, Madam Chair, this clause speaks to the ability of the minister to be able to appoint for the purposes of final offer selection. Final offer selection is indeed a legitimate means of arbitration. In fact, it is one that ensures the public that each party puts the best offer on the table. It actually encourages a rapid decision-making process, and indeed, when there are issues that are very much apart between the parties, it is the most appropriate method to use.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Madam Chair, that statement from the Minister of Labour really shows a lack of understanding of how the system works, not just in Canada and not just at the federal level, but in every province and territory in this country.
The reality is that the final offer selection process was developed in professional sports in the United States. That is where it came from, so it is no surprise that the government is particularly interested in it. It worked there. One would have one employee, or maybe two to three, and a very narrow range of issues that had to be dealt with. Final offer selection worked quite well and still works quite well in those circumstances. 
It is an absolute failure in a situation where we have a large workforce, as we do here, with 50,000-plus employees, members of the union, and then as well, because there are so many people, a large number of complex issues. 
I will ask members to pretend that they are the arbitrator. One gets a list of 10 issues from the employer and a list of 10 issues from the union. One has to choose all 10 from one and reject all 10 from the other. There may be a great proposal from the employer on the pension issue, a lousy one on the wage issue and a lousy one on pay equity, but it is all or nothing. That is what the arbitrator has to do because of this clause and a number of the others, clauses 9, 10 and 11 that are forthcoming. That is why we made a series of amendments to give the arbitrator discretion.
Again, we have seen the way the government has attacked our judiciary to try to take away judicial discretion. It is doing exactly the same thing here. The bottom line on this is that the government is taking away that discretion and narrowing the ability of the arbitrator to do his or her job. The end result, and this is what all of the academic studies have shown where final offer selection is used, is that it benefits the employer to the detriment of the employee.
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Chair, without having the background in labour relations that my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh has, I know that we have voiced our concern with regard to final offer selection.
 His background in regard to the process coming from the sports arena is absolutely right, but aspects of that have bled into public service contracts, where we have seen final offer selection on an issue-by-issue basis. There may be 10 issues listed, and the arbitrator can pick and choose the best offer from management or from the union people on an issue-by-issue basis. Even that would be less egregious than this particular approach to solving this problem. Certainly we have a great deal of concern with final offer arbitration.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall the amendment to clause 8 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Chair, I believe if you seek it you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous recorded vote to this motion, with the Conservatives voting no.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Madam Chair, NDP members will vote yes.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Chair, Liberal members will be voting yes.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes yes.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Madam Chair, the Green Party will be voting yes.
Denise Savoie: The amendment is defeated.
(Amendment negatived)
 Shall clause 8 carry? 
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Chair, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous recorded vote to this motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Is there agreement to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Chris Charlton: Madam Chair, NDP members are voting no.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Chair, Liberal members are voting no.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Madam Chair, the Green Party votes no.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Clause 8 is adopted.
(Clause 8 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On Clause 9)
I will read the amendment proposed by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
 That Bill  C-6 in clause 9 be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 3 with the following: 
 “and duties of an arbitrator under sections 60 and 61 of”. 

Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, just briefly, sections 60 and 61 of the Canada Labour Code provide authority to the duties and powers of the arbitrator. The attempt by the government, as drafted now in clause 9, is to limit the discretion and authority of the arbitrator.
 I'll just mention one item. More specifically, because of the way clause 9 is drafted now, it does not allow the arbitrator in any way to conduct mediation. Anybody who has been involved in labour relations for 50 years knows the value of that tool to arbitrators. It oftentimes speeds up the process, makes it less costly, and most often achieves the result that we always want in labour management relations, which is that the parties reach a settlement themselves as opposed to, as in this case, having it thrust upon them because of the way it is drafted.
The only other point I would make is that it also allows the arbitrator to look at various methodologies in terms of when he or she is conducting the arbitration process. This provision as it is now, and the rest of clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11, will restrict the arbitrator to only using the final offer selection process, again severely limiting the arbitrator's ability to do the job properly.
Lisa Raitt:  Madam Speaker, this clause is there to ensure that certain powers in the code that would be contrary to the intent of this legislation are removed from the arbitrator's abilities.
Elizabeth May:  Madam Chair, I would urge members of this committee to think about even one small change in the way Bill C-6 is now drafted. This is reasonable. It is the Canada Labour Code, and greater flexibility in the hands of the arbitrator makes so much sense. I would hope that committee members might rethink this and that we would not just vote as a bloc again.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall we apply the results of the previous amendment to this amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Amendment negatived)
 We will apply the results of the previous clause to clause 9.
(Clause 9 agreed to)
[See list under Division 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
(On Clause 10)
 On clause 10, an amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh: 
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 10, be amended (a) by replacing line 35 on page 3 with the following: "matters; and" (b) by replacing lines 38 to 40 on page 3 with the following: 
 of the new collective agreement. 

Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, I am going to defer.
Chris Charlton: Madam Chair, I thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
 I am pleased to rise and speak in favour of this amendment. Our preference remains stopping the lockout and allowing the sides to return to free collective bargaining in accordance not only with the laws of our country, but also international conventions, UN resolutions and the long and proud tradition in most jurisdictions in the western world.
The union has offered, well before this legislation came forward, to return to work and bargain under the old contract. Instead, the government moved forward with this draconian and backward bill that would tie the hands of the arbitrator and damage labour relations both within Canada Post and across Canada.
The government has seen fit to impose a contract that is bad for our postal service and bad for the people who work so hard there to make it one of the best postal services in the world. The government tried to sneak in these objectionable terms quietly, hoping that the opposition would go quietly into the summer. It is basic to our democratic system that workers are allowed to engage in free collective bargaining.
We in the NDP are serving notice that we will not let the Conservative government quietly take away the rights of Canadians. We will not let it quietly launch an assault on the rights of working people to collective bargaining.
This amendment introduced by my friend and colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh helps untie the hands of the arbitrator so he or she can do the job he or she has been tasked with doing.
I am pleased to lend my support to this amendment and urge all hon. members to respect the working people and their constituents by supporting the amendment.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall we apply the results of the previous amendment to this one?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Amendment negatived)
 It seems that a second amendment to clause 10 has been proposed by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
 That Bill C-6, in clause 10, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 3 with the following: 
 "(2) The submissions referred to in subsection (1) must include" 
Debate, the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh.
Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, I only want to make one point. In one of those series of meetings that we did not have with the minister or her staff, it came out very clearly that the government has decided that any back to work legislation is going to contain final offer selection process. The Conservatives are so ideologically driven in so much of what they do and it shows up here. This amendment would clear the final offer selection process off the desk of the arbitrator allowing the arbitrator to do his or her job properly by allowing whatever is the proper methodology that would be instituted to get settlements as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
I want to make this final point. The amendments we have been trying to get through, and this one in particular, do not preclude the arbitrator on a specific issue from going to final offer selection process. If we narrow the issue down enough it can work, as we have seen in the professional sports situation. But here a methodology is being used in a broad sweep that does not work across the whole sector. It is a sledgehammer approach and it simply will not work. We will see abuses constantly coming forward.
 I want to repeat that the government has now decided that all back to work legislation is going to contain this clause. We are going to have a regime of really bad collective agreements as a result of it.
Lisa Raitt: Madam Chair, it is important to point out that the concept of final offer selection is the most rapid and efficient one possible. That is why we have used it. Indeed that is why it was used in 1994 with respect to the west coast ports and in 2007 with respect to CN and the resumption of its service. This is not something new. Although I may not have the length and breadth of understanding of many years of the law, I certainly understand the most recent years of the law.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall the amendment carry? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we apply the results of the previous amendment to this one?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  I declare this amendment defeated.
(Amendment negatived)
 Shall clause 10 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Denise Savoie: Can we apply the results on clause 9 to this one?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Clause 10 agreed to)
[See list under Division No: 27]
(Yays: 158; Nays: 112)
(On Clause 11)
 On Clause 11, there are several amendments. We will proceed with the amendment by the Liberals. For the sake of clarity, the reference is 5114336:
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 19 to 36 on page 4. 
The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso on the amendment.
Rodger Cuzner: Yes, Madam Chair, that is lines 19 to 36 on page 4.
Our amendment addresses what has been talked about in several past amendments, the fact that final offer selection is of great concern. It is not a preferred way to go. Certainly the arbitrator will be handcuffed if the guiding principles in this legislation are held to. 
When we see the reference to the arbitrator having to identify benefits that are consistent with those incomparable postal industries, that raises a flag, because there are no other comparable postal industries to Canada Post. It is unique in itself. There are private companies that provide very similar services, but they are not a national service provider. Certainly, if we are to apply that type of business model, then rural and remote areas that are not profitable will see no service. People in those areas will not be able to pay for the cost of those types of services. We are concerned that this compromise the unique nature of Canada Post.
As well, with respect to the short- and long-term viability of Canada Post, Canada Post has been a profitable corporation in recent years and we are not comfortable with that approach. We think it further handcuffs the arbitrator. 
Finally, the taking the pension plan into account, as has been mentioned prior, we think what is at play is an obvious attack on defined benefits pensions in this country. This causes us great concern. That is the intent of our amendments and we would hope to seek support for those amendments.
Lisa Raitt: Madam Chair, we looked at the amendments that were presented by the then Liberal government in 1997, the guiding principles that were embedded in its back to work legislation for postal services. We actually improved on the language in order to ensure we had a decision in a short period of time that made sense to the parties. We also adjusted it to reflect the issues specifically in dispute with the parties today in recognizing how far apart they are, the viability and importance of Canada Post, as well as the importance and viability of the pension plan. The fact is it is the Canadian taxpayer who has the responsibility for any unfunded liabilities of the Canada Post pension plan.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall the amendment carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Shall the same results apply as the previous amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  I declare the amendment defeated.
(Amendment negatived)
 The next amendment reads as follows:
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 13 on page 4 with the following: “pute on that date; and”. 
Debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, the reference is to lines 10 to 14, and not 13.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: It is my understanding that the numbering is different in English and French.
Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, I will propose that all four of these NDP amendments to clause 11 be dealt with at once.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  Therefore, may I dispense with reading these amendments? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  Moved by the member for Windsor--Tecumseh:
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following: 
 “(2) In making the decision referred to in subsection (1),” 
 That Bill C-6 in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 37 to 41 on page 4. 
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 5 with the following: 
 “paragraph 10(1)(a).” 
 Debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh on these amendments.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, we have heard the argument from our Liberal colleague from Cape Breton—Canso as to why we should be making these changes to clause 11. It very much restricts the arbitrator. As I have said before, Clause 11 is a continuation of that restriction on the arbitrator. It takes away the arbitrator's discretion, making it impossible for him or her to do an adequate job.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall we apply the same result as on the previous amendments?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Amendments negatived)
 The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska reads as follows:
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 4 the following: 
 “ (1.1) Despite paragraph (1)(c), in order to settle any matter remaining in dispute, the arbitrator may make a decision that reconciles the final offers if the arbitrator is of the view that proceeding in this manner would be more equitable.” 

[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Chair, my comments are in support of the amendments proposed by my NDP and Liberal Party colleagues. I hope that this will help the Conservative government understand that there is a serious problem with this bill.
The new clause that you just read, Clause (1.1), will ensure that the arbitrator has some leeway in his role. It is as if the Conservative government wanted to hire referees, like those from the National Hockey League, for example, who would always lean a particular way, depending on whether, for example, the hockey managers want to see more violence or not, based on what the spectators want.
 The problem is that when the arbitrator is appointed, he will have to follow criteria that are so specific that the scales will inevitably always be tipped in the favour of Canada Post.
Under the bill—and this is the issue that needs to be addressed—the arbitrator will be forced to choose between the employer’s final offer and the offer made by the employees. It will not be possible for the arbitrator to engage in any mediation, or to single out specific terms, which would have obviously result in a superior agreement.
As I remarked in my speech, all of this will undoubtedly create a very toxic work environment when the employees return to work; that is, if the arbitrator is forced, based on the terms of the bill, to chose the employer’s offer.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the arbitrator is not obligated to choose one offer over the other, but rather to reconcile them. It is a question of compromise. I hope that the amendment is adopted.
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Madam Chair, as I indicated earlier, this precedent was used in the 1997 legislation, which was the last time we endeavoured to order back to work legislation for postal service. In that case it was mediation arbitration and, indeed, it took two years for any kind of collective agreement to be reached. We have learned from that lesson. That is exactly why we have included this method of arbitration to be the final offer of selection.
Denis Coderre: Madam Chair, I would like theMinister of Labour to clarify one point.
I was a member of the House of Commons in 1997 and I am now holding Bill C-24. According to clause 11 of this bill, contrary to what the minister has said, the arbitrator did not have his hands tied. I quote from this clause:
 [It is necessary to establish an] agreement resolving the matters in dispute between the employer and the union arrived at before, or pursuant to, mediation; 
They did not say it had to be the employer or the union. The arbitrator’s role was truly an arbitrator’s role. The arbitrator did his work and found grounds for agreement between the two; it was not one or the other.
I would like the Minister to explain to me how and where this was done, and so clear this up. For the Conservatives are working on just one side, instead of working to find an agreement between the two parties. I want this to be clear. Not only are we going to support the amendment, as we supported our amendment and the NDP's amendment, but at no time in 1997 were the arbitrator’s hands to be tied, except on the wage issue, of which we will be able to speak again later.
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Madam Chair, as I indicated, we used a precedent, but we improved upon the precedent. The improvement was that we would have final offer binding selection. 
The ironic thing is that it seems to be the same old same old when it comes to improving on the bad decisions and the bad law-making of the former Liberal government.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Is there agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  I declare this amendment defeated.
Denise Savoie: (Amendment negatived) 
 There is one final amendment to this clause, moved by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 5 with the following: 
 “selected by the arbitrator or the decision made by the arbitrator under subsection (1.1).” 

[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, we have moved this amendment, which refers to amendment BQ-1 and gives the arbitrator full freedom to act, simply as a matter of consistency.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: As this amendment is consequential to the previous amendments, we will simply apply the results of the previous amendment vote. 
(Amendment negatived)
Shall clause 11 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Denise Savoie: (Clause 11 agreed to)
[ See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On clause 12)
I assume we can apply the results of the last clause to this one.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Clause 12 agreed to)
[ See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (Clause 13)
There is an amendment to Clause 13. I will read it.
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 13, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 11 on page 5 with the following: 
 “13.(1) Subject to subsection (2),” 
 (b) by deleting lines 24 to 30 on page 5. 

[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, we put forward this amendment because we think it precludes both the company and the union from bargaining. They will not be able to bargain for wages that are better than what is listed in clause 15. We think the amendment would speak to clause 15.
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Madam Chair, as we have indicated many times in the past 47 hours, the purpose of this clause is to recognize that the government has negotiated a set of wage increases with PSAC that are very fair and that have been bargained at the table. We think it is appropriate to include them in this act so there is no uncertainty for the worker and there is no uncertainty for Canada Post as to what the wage increases are. As I said, we believe these are fair. 
Quite frankly it is not unprecedented that this clause be included in back to work legislation, for the purposes I just gave.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall the amendment on clause 13 carry? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we apply the results of the previous amendments to this one?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  I declare this amendment defeated.
(Amendment negatived)
 Shall clause 13 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Shall we apply the result of the vote on clause 12 to clause 13?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  I declare clause 13 carried.
(Clause 13 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On clause 14)
I will read the amendment to clause 14:
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing 31 on page 5 with the following: 
 14.(1) Despite 

Rodger Cuzner:  Madam Chair, Liberals believe that the amendment is a housekeeping amendment, but it deals with the deletion of clause 15 in its entirety, which imposes wages.
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall the amendment to clause 14 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we apply the results of the votes on the previous amendments to this one?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  I declare the amendment to clause 14 defeated.
(Amendment negatived)
 Shall clause 14 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we apply the results of clause 13 to clause 14?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  I declare clause 14 carried.
(Clause 14 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (Clause 15) 
I shall therefore read the amendment to Clause 15:
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 15, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 6 on page 6 with the following: 
 “1.9%;” 
 (b) by replacing line 9 on page 6 with the following: 
 “1.9%;” 
 (c) by replacing line 12 on page 6 with the following: 
 “1.9%; and” 

Nycole Turmel: Madam Speaker, I rise today in this House to speak in favour of the proposed amendment. This amendment aims to correct one of the worst elements of this defective bill. If this bill is not corrected, it will impose an employment contract that includes a salary lower than the employer’s final offer. This section of the bill is an attack on the principles of collective bargaining, one of the most fundamental aspects of our rights as entrenched in the Charter. This is a clear signal to all employers in the country that they are no longer obliged to bargain in good faith. Thus, if it is not possible to arrive at a negotiated agreement, do not worry, because this government is going to use a bill to negotiate even lower salaries on behalf of the employer. What the employer is unable to negotiate, Ottawa will impose on you. 
This is a dangerous precedent. At this moment, all over Canada, nurses, firefighters and police officers are asking themselves whether they will be next on the list. If they do this to the postal workers, after Canada Post has made millions of dollars in profits, and the managers accept those offers, who is going to be their next target?
Targeting workers is nothing short of contempt on the part of this government. It is not the proper thing to do, and we will oppose every such attempt by the Conservatives. This amendment would restore the salary increases that were proposed in the employer's last offer. It does not reflect what workers want, but what management proposed, nothing more and nothing less. This amendment would eliminate the most unfair and unacceptable provision in this bill, and I urge all hon. members to support it.
Lisa Raitt: Madam Chair, as I indicated, these wages are fair. They have been negotiated already between the federal government and its largest public sector union and, quite frankly, with respect to the constitutionality or fairness of the matter, it has already been well decided that the bill meets the requirements of the charter, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Jack Harris: Madam Chair, there is an awful lot wrong with the bill. In fact, everything from the title, which is  An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, to the coming into force, the last clause, is wrong. 
The title is wrong because this is not an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. That could be done with a phone call. 
The worst clause in the bill, however, is clause 15, which imposes on the postal workers a wage rate less than the employer had put on the table in the course of collective bargaining. 
 I have not heard members opposite join the chorus for the remarks of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, and nobody cares. Nobody cares about workers. Nobody cares about workers' rights. 
Let me say who does care. The principle of free collective bargaining is something that divides societies that are free from those societies that are authoritarian and controlled. If we consider authoritarian societies, dictators, societies that do not have free elections, they do not have free trade unions either. Workers do not have the right to bargain collectively.
In Canada the right to bargain collectively is a constitutionally protected right. It is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is part of the International Labour Organization, the treaty into which this country has entered. It is something that we take very seriously. 
There is no greater principle within the right to bargain collectively than the duty to bargain in good faith. In good faith the employer of the postal workers, Canada Post Corporation, put on the table a wage offer that it was prepared to pay to workers from the $281 million worth of profit that Canada Post made last year. To bargain with its employees, it put forth what it thought was a reasonable proposal to increase the wages of the workers, but what have we here? We have a clause in which the government imposes itself inside this good faith bargaining, this foundation of a free society, and says, “No, the government is going to force the workers to take less. We are going to decide what we think you should be paid. Never mind what was put on the table by a process of free collective bargaining”.
The minister just repeated what the Prime Minister said, so I will not blame her as she is just doing what her boss has said. She said this is a wage that was bargained freely by the largest public sector unions. Let us go back to that discussion in 2008 when this wage we are talking about was on the table, as it was called. It was not on the table. What was on the table was legislation proposed by the government to take away the right to strike for all public sector workers. Remember that? It was in the fall of 2008.
Those wage rates were offered for one day and if workers did not accept the wages within one day they would be reduced. Yes, they were accepted. There were not bargained freely and fairly over the course of negotiations. They were accepted with a gun to the head of the public sector workers in this country. 
The Minister of Finance knows that members of one group said no. What did they get? That group received less. That is the kind of bargaining that the government entered into with the public sector workers in 2008 that produced the rates that are in this particular clause. 
I am not surprised that the previous speaker talked about who is next because that is what everyone is asking. If this is what is going to happen to free collective bargaining in Canada under this regime, who is next? The government has contempt for the process of collective bargaining. It has contempt for the process of this constitutionally protected right that the Canadians are supposed to enjoy. 
If members opposite think that nobody cares, they are wrong, and the people of Canada will be telling them that they are wrong.
 I ask all hon. members, even those over there who think no one cares, to recognize that people do care and they do want to have these rights and do believe in free collective bargaining. I see the doubtful faces over there and I hear a few remarks that something is wrong with the idea that one can sit down and negotiate a wage, that an employer and employees can actually sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate wages and put an offer on the table and have it respected. That is something Canadians have come to enjoy and expect.
 The government has no respect for that and it wants to insert its own version of a wage rate into a collective agreement regardless of what the employer in this particular case offered through free and fair collective bargaining.
This is a fundamental right that is being taken away, a fundamental change in the relationship between employers and employees. The question remains of who is next if the government is not prepared to accept the notion of free collective bargaining and takes away from employees what the employer has in fact offered. It demonstrates how much contempt it has for the collective bargaining process and for the rights of workers. 
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Madam Chair, the minister will have several opportunities to respond to this question. I will ask the question, though I know she will not answer me right away because it is not in the definition of the debate, but we will move our own amendment and she will have another opportunity to respond.
This debate has been very long and difficult, but I still do not think she gave a clear answer why she does not want the salaries freely negotiated. It is the main reason that some in this House, but certainly not me, question her good faith and commitment to workers. I will never go there because I do not like to impugn the motives of other colleagues, but if she were able to give a clear and convincing answer, it would help everyone to know where we are. 
I heard the arguments that she put forward and I want to review each and every one of them.
First, she told us that we had to give postal employees the same treatment as other federal public servants. However, there is no reason to do this, since Canada Post has the right to negotiate. Therefore, if Canada Post has the right to negotiate, there is no guarantee that its employees will end up getting the same kind of salaries as other federal public servants. And no one said anything about depriving Canada Post of its right to negotiate. That is why it is a Crown corporation. So, this argument is a very weak one.
I do not know if the minister is still interested in listening to me, but I hope so. This debate has been a long one, but we still have not received any answer.
The second problem is what happened in 1997. The minister referred to the 1997 precedent but, at the same time, she was very critical of the government of the day. She has to make up her mind. She cannot have her cake and eat it too. She must choose. If she does not like what happened in 1997, she should not invoke that precedent. In any case, an argument based on a precedent is always a very weak argument.
 She is saying that she wants to avoid uncertainty about wages, but such uncertainty is part of life when one negotiates wages. I do not think the Canadian society denies this kind of uncertainty. We have much worse uncertainties in life than the results of wage bargaining, where the gap between an employer and the employee may become narrower through negotiation.
Up to now, her reasoning is very weak, but before the end of this debate and the final vote, she has an opportunity to come forward with something that I hope will be much more convincing, because Canadians deserve an answer and workers deserve an answer and this House deserves an answer. 
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Madam Chair, I will just reiterate what I have been indicating with respect to the purpose of having the wages embedded in this act. Quite frankly, it is because it is a fair wage that has been negotiated. If members had been at the table and had understood the differences between these two parties in the past eight months, and had even understood the wide gap in differences in the number of disputes, and the quantum within the disputes, they would have understood why the government felt that it was very necessary to give certainty and include wage increases in the act.
 The choice of those wage increases was based on what had been negotiated freely and fairly at the table with PSAC, the largest union we negotiate with. The increases are more than appropriate.
Finally, as well as being the caretakers of the Canadian interest with respect to crown corporations, the government has to make sure that the crown corporation itself, Canada Post, is held whole and has the ability to be economically viable in the future, in both the short and the long term. These are things that matter to Canadians, and that is why the government has acted in the best interests of all Canadians and the economy in general. 
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall the amendment on clause 15 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we apply the results of the previous vote to this one?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Amendment negatived)
 Shall clause 15 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we apply the result of the previous vote to clause 15?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  I declare clause 15 carried.
(Clause 15 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27 ]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On clause 16)
I will read the Liberal amendment:
 That Bill C-6, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 6 with the following: 
 “provided for in subsection 14(1), and to give” 

Rodger Cuzner: Madam Chair, certainly in light of the last amendment being defeated, it is appropriate that we proceed with this amendment to strike the clause in its entirety. 
As the Liberal Party has put on the record from the outset, probably the two most concerning aspects of the legislation are the final offer selection, and, with respect to salaries, the identification of salaries at a lower rate than had been previously bargained for and agreed to by Canada Post. 
This section underlines just how the government has missed the mark. Of all the clauses in the legislation, this certainly speaks volumes about how the government has missed the mark. 
To quote Einstein: “A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it”. Certainly we have seen, through this legislation, that the government has not avoided the problem, and through the defeat of these amendments tonight, is doing nothing to solve it. 
Stéphane Dion: Madam Chair, I thank the hon. minister for her answer, but I want to explain to her why I do not think it is satisfactory.
The main point proposed by the minister seems fair to her, but she did not explain in which way the last offer of the employer is unfair. The last offer of the employer was more satisfactory to the employees. Perhaps it is because the employer, in exchange, received from the employees some compromises that the employer wanted. 
The employer is being put in a situation in which it will perhaps not be able to ask for these compromises, or it will ask for these compromises but with a lower wage. This is definitely interference in the negotiations, which is not in the interest of the employer, not in the interest of the employees, and not in the interest of Canadians. 
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: Shall the amendment to clause 16 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Shall we apply the results of the vote taken on the previous amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Amendment negatived)
 Shall clause 16 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Shall we apply the results of the vote taken on the previous clause?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie:  The amendment is defeated and clause 16 is carried.
(Clause 16 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27.
(Yeas: 158; nays: 112)
[Interjection]
Denise Savoie: (On Clause 17)
Shall clause 17 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Will we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 17?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Clause 17 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays 112)
 Shall clause 18 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Shall we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 18?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Clause 18 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
 Shall clause 19 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Will we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 19?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Clause 19 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27 ]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
 Shall clause 20 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Will we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 20?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Clause 20 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
 Shall clause 21 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Will we apply the results of the previous vote to clause 21?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Denise Savoie: (Clause 21 agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112 )
(On Clause 22)
 Shall clause 22 carry?
Thomas Mulcair: Madam Chair, clause 22 deals with the coming into force of the bill and provides an opportunity to mention one last time what has taken place here, over the past few days. The public has learned a number of things, and that is good.
First, the public has been able to find out what the agenda of the government is as it looks at a statute that would impose lower wages than those that the employer was willing to give. This constitutes an attack on pensions and imposes two-tier wages. The public has been able to take advantage of this debate as we tried to create the time necessary to allow for a negotiated settlement.
That leads to the second revelation of this debate, and the two are connected. The second revelation is with regard to the notion of good faith. During the meeting that my colleagues and I had with the media just before we entered here this evening, we said that it was a question of good faith and that we were presuming good faith.
In French we say that good faith is presumed.
One of the things members on the government side have been telling us non-stop for the past three days is that they wanted to see the amendments. At the same time, we were meeting with the minister, with her representatives and with the parties trying to use the opportunity being afforded by the detailed analysis of the bill that we were carrying out to give them the time necessary to come to a negotiated settlement.
What did we get instead? We have just had the results tonight. They went very close to what was discussed Thursday night, and again last night, but not one of the amendments to improve the arbitration process, to be more fair and respectful of the Charter of Rights on wages and to be respectful of section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights with regard to freedom of association were accepted.
We have to come to the conclusion, as we study clause 22 on the coming into force of the bill, that there is one thing that links these two elements. The government, for example, tells us that it is at arm's-length from a société de la Couronne like Canada Post and that it is a crown agency and it will not get involved. People will now be able to read the exact words of the minister just a few minutes ago in the House. The minister said that all of this was about the government imposing on crown agency wage settlements. A total contradiction in terms.
The result of the two is that the government cannot be trusted.
Lisa Raitt: Madam Chair, the act will come into force 24 hours after it receives royal assent.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Madam Chair, I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleague, the House leader for the official opposition. His summary was only partly accurate. Canadians who have been watching for the last 40 or 45-odd hours have a right to be a little bit in despair. They have been watching carefully to see how this transpires, how this process evolves.
Canadians now know that the government had an opportunity to bring time allocation to bear in the bill when it was drafted. They know that the government could have solved this problem as of last Thursday. Canadians know this. Canadians are telling us this. Canadians also know that the government had no intention whatsoever of accepting any amendments presented by any party, and presumably from their own members who quietly, in their own despair, were trying to improve the bill.
We have heard from the NDP labour critic that this was an opportunity for his caucus to have a learning experience. Some learning experience. How to filibuster a bill 101. How to posture for the media 101. How to rack up expenditures for the Canadian taxpayers 101. If NDP members want to team build, they can leave by the back door of this building and climb the Gatineau Hills.
Many times throughout this debate, Canadians could have been forgiven for thinking they were hearing speeches in a union hall and not in the House of Commons. The government's behaviour has been no better. The government made a deliberate attempt to reform labour law by bringing the hammer down, by using a statutory instrument in an unprecedented fashion to bring in through the back door what the Prime Minister knows he could never get through the front door of Canadian citizenry.
 Both leaders have fed the conflict machine called the media. In this, Canadians believe the leaders have been successful. However, the biggest loser here is the Canadian citizenry and here is why. Unionized or not, unemployed or employed, healthy or sick, retired or working, the Canadian citizenry has been stuck with the bill. Small businesses, seniors, waiters, drivers, teachers, bricklayers, are all being asked to pick up the costs for an unfortunate, unnecessary and irresponsible process.
I ask the leaders of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to go out to the cameras and tell the Canadian people exactly how much this experiment has cost them.
Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Madam Chair, unfortunately, a new day is dawning today. We are sad to see how the government is going to be doing things for the next four years. Workers' rights will be thrown out. The message is clear: this government has no respect for the legitimate right of a legally certified association to bargain in good faith for a collective agreement. This interference sets the tone for the next four years and the message is clear: workers will have no right to be heard from now on. 
Thank you, Madam Chair, for your handling of the debate, but unfortunately this is a dark day for Quebec and for Canada.
Shelly Glover: Madam Chair, I am going to make a brief comment. Businesses and Canadians continue to be affected by this stoppage, this labour dispute. That is why our government has introduced a bill to restore the postal service. 
As has been said before, the opposition has an opportunity to join with us and pass the bill today, as quickly as possible, in the interests of all Canadians, so we can do what is important for taxpayers. 
 I call on all of the opposition to support us and pass this bill immediately.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Shall clause 22 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we proceed by applying the vote on the previous clause?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  (Clause 22 agreed to.) 
 [See list under Division No. 27]
 (Yeas, 158; Nays, 112) 
Denise Savoie:  Shall clause 1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we apply the results of the previous division?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  (Clause 1 agreed to.) 
 [See list under Division No. 27]
 (Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
Denise Savoie:  Shall the title carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we apply the results of the previous vote to this one?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Title agreed to)
[See list under Division No. 27]
(Yeas, 158; Nays, 112)
Denise Savoie:  Shall the bill carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Denise Savoie:  Can we proceed in the same way as with the previous vote?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Bill agreed to)
 [See list under Division No. 27]
 (Yeas, 158; Nays, 112) 
Denise Savoie:  Shall I rise and report the bill?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  (Bill reported)
Lisa Raitt:  moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) 
Vote #28
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Lisa Raitt:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. After all it has been approximately 57 and a half hours since we commenced the introduction of this legislation.
The position of the government has always been very clear that the best agreement is the one that the parties reach by themselves. However, in the case of this union, CUPW, and this organization, Canada Post, that was not a possibility.
Over the past 57 hours, our government has explained the history of the dispute and the efforts we have taken to both conciliate and mediate it. We have also provided services continuously to the parties throughout this debate. As a final resort, we have had to introduce legislation that does two things.
First, it provides for a resumption of postal services so that those Canadians who have been affected, as well as small businesses and charities, can get on with their work, which will also protect the economy.
Second, we introduced this legislation to provide a fair and balanced process for the parties to reach the conclusion of this collective agreement.
The government was given a very strong mandate by Canadians to continue our efforts in this economic recovery. That is exactly why we have introduced this legislation at this time, to ensure the mail service continues now and into the future.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the minister says the best possible collective agreement is one that results from negotiation and agreement between the two parties. Even if we do not agree with the government's bill, it proposes a final offer. On the question of wages, why has the government included a lower wage offer in the bill than the employer was prepared to pay?
I know what the minister's answer will be. She will say that this is consistent with the terms for the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Why did she say in her testimony that the best collective agreements are the result of agreement between the two parties? Does she realize that the message she is sending to the employer is that if it is unable to negotiate, it can come and ask for the government's support to get something better?
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that taking eight months to reach an agreement is a long period of time, especially when a work stoppage is involved either through rolling strikes or indeed through a lockout.
It is unacceptable to the Canadian public and we will introduce legislation that returns workers to work and preserves the economy.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin, once again, by thanking the employees of the House of Commons. I thank them for the work that they do for Parliament, the seat of democracy, and the place in which democratic debates take place. I would also like to thank our security guards, who worked very hard. I thank our employees, from every political party, who have spent many hours and days here, in Parliament. I thank our pages, who have worked here day and night in the service of members of Parliament. Thank you all so much. 
I just thanked our employees. The bill that was debated and adopted a moment ago has to do with the postal workers who deliver our mail day in and day out.
It is not pleasant for anyone when things grind to a halt at Canada Post. The Canada Post Corporation is a crown corporation that is required to provide services to all Canadians. It is unfortunate that a debate had to be held on the future of workers, their pension funds, their salaries, and their working conditions. The government tried to suggest that we were somehow against small and medium-sized businesses, but that is not true. 
 There are, of course, small and medium-sized businesses in my riding. If these small and medium-sized businesses were not there—I am referring to the shops, restaurants and small factories that provide a multitude of services—in what kind of world would we be living? It would be crazy to think that anyone could be against our small and medium-sized businesses. I can assure the hon. members that whatever the Conservatives would have Canadians believe is simply not true. Small and medium-sized businesses apparently account for 75% of jobs in Canada. This includes our own family members. Some of us have brothers and sisters who own small businesses. How could anyone object to that? 
 I myself worked for several years for a big company called Noranda Inc. The Conservatives would have hon. members believe that I had no respect for Noranda Inc. My only comment was that if the company made a profit, it should share it with the workers that made it possible. That is all we asked.
 The mail carriers participated in the bargaining process, however the minister remarked in her speech that negotiations had dragged on for eight months without an agreement being reached. If negotiations went on for eight months with no agreement, then clearly the employer, Canada Post, was partly to blame. Under Canadian law, workers have the right to unionize. 
 I will mention the case of certain women in my riding, Red Cross auxiliaries who worked for that organization under a contract from the government of New Brunswick. The government’s money had been disbursed to the Red Cross to permit it to do what the government did not want to do. The employees, the Red Cross auxiliaries who went to people's homes every morning to help seniors, were paid $4.25 an hour. After 2,080 hours of work, they received an increase that brought their wage to $5.35 an hour. 
 You can check the records. If these women working for the Red Cross were sick for more than 10 days, the Red Cross lowered their wage to $4.85 an hour. It’s shameful. 
 These women who went to work were not even entitled to statutory holidays. Did they not have the right to form a union to bargain and increase their wage to $7 an hour in an initial collective agreement which would grant them their rightful statutory holidays? 
 This is what the Conservatives are saying. They are giving the unions a bad image. It’s unfair. As for the women working in the fish processing plants at minimum wage, they are now up to $12 an hour. That was not thanks to the employer.
 No one can stop me from standing up for the workers, the men and women, our fathers and mothers who have worked. No one can stop me from speaking up in House of Commons on their behalf. No one. 
 What the government is doing is no mistake. It has done this because it wanted to, rather than having faith in bargaining and the collective agreement. Why table a bill that offers less than the employer was prepared to give the employees after they tried to exert pressure by organizing rotating strikes?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Keep talking.
Yvon Godin:  That is not very polite. I do not think it is very polite to tell me to keep talking. I think I was doing well until I was interrupted. 
 The employees have the right to go on rotating strikes: the Minister herself said that she received only a few calls and emails. That is what she said in the House of Commons and to the media. One might almost think she was not satisfied and that things were not sufficiently stirred up, as if they had to be stirred up in order to pass a bill. The public was not complaining. I received no calls from people unhappy about the rotating strikes. But as soon as the lockout was in place, down came the hammer and the bill was tabled. We have worked hard all weekend, and I raise my hat to the members who remained in the House of Commons and fought all weekend to give the union and the employer the chance for further meetings. That is democracy.
I hope all Canadians are proud of us. The day we cease to have a Parliament, our country will become like those to which we send our soldiers to bring democracy. The House of Commons belongs to Canadians, and this is where the debate must occur. It has occurred, and we are proud of that fact. We gave the union and the employer the opportunity to meet. However, it is impossible to reach an agreement when the government gives the employer a better offer in a bill, which is completely undemocratic, in my opinion.
Perhaps the Conservatives consider today a funny day in history. They can continue to attack the workers. This government has just sent employers the message to not bother negotiating, because the government will solve their problems. It is inviting employers to turn to the government for help; it will pass bills that will never be in the workers' favour.
That is why I am asking what the workers ever did to this government. Why does it not like them? Why does it not like the people who have provided services to us for the past three or four days, the security guards, and everyone? The next time, it will be CBC/Radio-Canada, and then it will be CN. All of them will be paying at the checkout in the next four years under this Conservative government. Is that the kind of society we want? Do we really want to attack workers?
Even if it bothers the Conservatives, I want to thank the unions who work day after day and who have the mandate, under Canadian legislation, to represent workers. Political parties need leaders, but so do the unions. So let us respect our laws and our leaders, the people with the mandate to do things for the society. If the government did not want this lockout, all it needed to do was call Canada Post to get the locks taken off the doors. It would have been easy.
The public will see that the Conservatives are wearing big smiles on their faces today. On the one hand, 33 million people were affected by the lockout, but so were the 45,000 postal workers because of this government. Who will it be next time? Perhaps it will be citizens, seniors, the disabled or the workers. And it will be because of the Conservative government.
We even asked the Prime Minister to suspend the House of Commons for one day, for the Quebec holiday, Saint-Jean-Baptiste day. Once again, he said no. Just for that, he should be ashamed. He has no respect for Quebeckers. Does he not like Quebeckers, as one of my colleagues just said? He does not like the workers, but he likes big business.
The Speaker:  Order. The hon. member still has six minutes left to conclude his remarks, so I would ask all members to come to order. The more disorder there is, the more time the member will have.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, they have no respect for Quebeckers, and from what I can see, they have no respect for you either.
The Speaker: Order, order. Let us let the hon. member finish his remarks.
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, they were beginning to fail to show respect for you. It is time to make them stop.
Once again, we hope the hemorrhaging will stop and the government will think about what it is doing. Is this what the next four years are going to be like? Is the government planning to target working men and women? It is on the wrong track. Perhaps it is deliberately taking that direction, but it should think twice. People will not stand for it. 
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, I stand to comment on the bill at third reading. I am quite confident, as we enter hour 58 of the debate, that there is not a whole lot of juice left in this orange. At the risk of saying something that may have been said earlier in the House, a risk which did not concern a whole lot of people over the course of the last 58 hours, I, too, on behalf of the Liberal Party want to thank the officials, our professional table officers and all the Hill staff for being around. 
I really want to single out the pages who do a great service in the House. That just was not a politician being shameless and playing to the hometown crowd, I do it for a reason. They were supposed to finish on Thursday. As we know, the pages are salaried employees, so they have been here as volunteers for the last 58 hours. Therefore, I really want to thank them for that. 
My comments will be brief. Again, as we had said, we put our points on the record. Early on we were very concerned, as a party, with the way the legislation was put forward. We felt it tipped the scales far too much in Canada Post's favour. For all those paying attention to the debate, we tried to reinforce the fact that this was a lockout. Knowing that this legislation was coming, gave Canada Post the upper hand. That was why we ended up in the situation in which we were. We felt the final offer selection did nothing to help the union in this situation. 
We felt that amendments could have been put forward far sooner. We thought it would have been a much more efficient process to table those amendments and bring them forward sooner. Maybe if we would have put that time on the amendments, then maybe we might have had some of the changes for which we tried to advocate.
 Therefore, we have a great deal of concern with the legislation and we will vote against it in the final round. 
Again, I thank my caucus for the effort put forward. Our whip's office and leadership—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I am not cutting the hon. member off. I am trying to get a little order for him to conclude his remarks.
The hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, in fact, we laid out and put forward our amendments in good faith and hoped that we could make an impact on this legislation. Obviously the government entertained none of them and so we are this situation. It is unfortunate, but at the end of the day I am happy not only to see that mail service will resume eventually, but that the workers are back on the job.
These workers have suffered over the last number of weeks and we have brought those stories to the House. I know a number of stories were shared about the inconvenience to Canadians, but think about the hardship the workers have gone through, those who have had medical benefits cancelled, have missed paycheques and have had to provide for their families and have been unable to work the last number of weeks. Therefore, understand that part of the lockout. 
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
André Bellavance:  I can hear cries of joy and enthusiasm because the Bloc Québécois is rising. One of our first battles, when the session started, was to be recognized, not as a recognized party—we are fewer than 12 MPs—but at least enough to take our place. I find the reaction of disappointment from the other side of House at my rising to speak to be quite deplorable. We have been legitimately and democratically elected, like everyone else in this House, including you, Mr. Speaker. On May 2, 24% of Quebeckers voted for the Bloc Québécois. I find this reaction quite sad, all the more so because I was going to start my speech by saying that this is one time when people will listen more intently to what I have to say.
The end of the session is nigh, and I want to wish a wonderful summer to all my colleagues on all sides of the House, as well as to all those who have worked over the past few days and have put in a lot of overtime. I will not repeat everything my colleagues have said about all those who support us here and who work extremely hard to help us do our jobs.
That is basically what I wanted to say, but I might to add, as my Bloc Québécois colleague did in his speech, that we have been witness to a dark day. Unfortunately, it likely will not be the last, with this majority Conservative government. One might say that, with this special legislation, the government played into the hands of the Canada Post Corporation, but I think Canada Post played into the hands of the government. It is as if the government had planned the whole thing. We saw what happened with Air Canada and then, right afterwards, with Canada Post. There was some job action, and then the government immediately took out the sledgehammer, went on the attack, broke a butterfly upon the wheel to ensure that the employees would be put in their place and not be able to negotiate fairly and equitably.
The dice were loaded from the start of these phoney negotiations. That is what is so terrible. As soon as the government came out with its threat of special legislation, it was clear that the employer had it made. It declared a lockout, then government members told us, throughout the debate, that it was really unfortunate but there was a strike going on. That is what they said, even though it was actually a lockout. We know that the public is not stupid and clearly understands the difference— 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
André Bellavance:  They want me to stop talking, but the more that side harasses me, the longer I will continue. I am not at school, here. I have been a member for seven years. I know that I have the right to speak, and I will continue to do so.
The Canada Post Corporation imposed a lockout, which allowed the government to target the employees, claiming that there was an economic disaster because of a work stoppage and the public was not getting its mail or cheques anymore. Yet, we know full well that the postal workers were prepared to deliver cheques to the most vulnerable members of our society for free, most of the time. They were entitled to collect $50 per day, but they had decided to give that money to charity.
The lockout triggered the introduction of special legislation. The bill essentially gagged the arbitrator and the employees. The arbitrator has to—and it will—give the big end of the stick to the employer, and that is how the conditions will be managed over the next few years, until 2015.
I do not want a difficult social climate to develop in our society, but it will not be easy for Canada Post employees or the employer. Eventually, it will not be easy for this government either. That is my warning. For the next four years, the people just need to hang on tight. The agenda is now controlled by the Prime Minister and his gang, and they will feel like masters of their domain. We will do everything in our power to continue to express our opposition. We will need the public's support.
In closing, I want to wish everyone a good summer, if we ever get out of here.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Cape Breton—Canso. Everything has been said. I simply want to thank all the teams from the bottom of my heart: the translation team, the security team, the team of cooks, and everyone who works for us here, in the House of Commons.
I would also like to close with something, Mr. Speaker, to every member of this House of Commons.
This has been a physically gruelling number of days, and I would like to thank all members of Parliament for the many acts of personal kindness, small and large. I think we need to hang onto those after what has been a fractious couple of days. It was particularly difficult for my caucus because I could not find anyone to trade off.
I would like to say have a good summer, and I personally thank each and every member. 
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen:  
 Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #29
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week, I paid tribute, on behalf of our government, to the pages who had served us so well. Earlier today I paid tribute to all the staff on Parliament Hill who serve us so well. That was in answer to the Thursday question earlier today. As the calendar shows it is still Thursday, I am about to change that. I move:
 That this House do now adjourn. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
 The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 19 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 8:10 p.m.)