Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's question first and then comment on some of his comments second.

A three year agreement should not be found in this legislation. We should not be voting on that aspect because the two parties have already agreed to a two year agreement. The wage rates of 1.5%, 1.75% and 1.9% should not be dealt with in the House.

As I outlined, we do not have the background information. All our information is anecdotal, driven by a motion. Now that we are into a strike there is no real comparable workplace we can use as a touchstone or to draw a comparison because Canada Post is unique.

We should take into account profitability or the employer's ability to pay. We have to keep in mind that Canada Post made $112 million last year. Granted in recent years it has had poor years but it has tried to correct that by increasing its market share. Granted it lost some in some areas and gained in others.

Canada Post contemplates market growth of between $500 million and $800 million in coming years. It is actively marketing and trying to make up for the share of the market it has lost through the advent of technological change and various other things.

It does not change my argument that the House is not qualified to make this type of ruling in any kind of a fair way. We can do it. We are really looking for a lasting resolve and a lasting resolve will not come from a legislative settlement because all the hostility, the pent up hostility and bad relations will still be there. None of it will have been worked through in any kind of mature or sensible way at the bargaining table as we hoped would be possible.

Other interests are disadvantaged by the strike such as the Canadian public, charities and small business people. We are sensitive and sympathetic to that but the fix was there. There was an easy solution early on in the strike. There was an easy solution before the strike even started. Those were the policies of the Liberal government which were trying—and I used the words in my speech; maybe they are a bit strong—to milk the cash cow of Canada Post by demanding revenues above and beyond the revenues necessary for operating costs.

The government could have solved it or nipped it in the bud even before we had a strike by backing off on at least some of the demands for profit, and we would not be in the crisis we are in now. As I said it is manufactured crisis.

I hope that answers some of the member's questions.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, this government owns 50,000 buildings, many of which are outdated, expensive to operate and waste energy. Yet today, unbelievably, the government postponed an energy retrofit program that would create thousands of jobs, save a fortune in operating costs and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

On the eve of Kyoto can the Minister of the Environment please explain why in the world she would postpone an idea as good as job creation through energy conservation.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were in opposition they wrote a report that said Canada Post should not pay income tax and should only generate enough profits to pay for its operating costs and to improve services to Canadians.

Today the Liberal government is demanding that Canada Post pay dividends of $294 million over five years and $131 million in income tax. This strike could be settled today if the government withdrew its unreasonable demand for profits.

Will the minister of government services direct Canada Post to return to the table without the demand for dividends that is the root cause of this strike?

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is not supposed to be a cash cow to be milked by the federal government. The government's demand for profits and dividends from Canada Post has all the earmarks of getting the corporation ready for the auction block. It is like fattening up a calf before bringing it to market.

Will the minister of public works withdraw the demand for dividends from Canada Post and assure the House today that the government will never sell off and privatize this valuable asset?

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works angrily condemned the Canadian Union of Postal Workers for refusing to allow Canada Post to eliminate 4,000 jobs. His comments indicated a clear bias in favour of the corporation and an open hostility toward the working Canadians who are fighting for their jobs.

Will the minister withdraw his damaging statements of yesterday and let the parties conclude a new agreement free of interference and free of the kind of threats that we heard yesterday?