Jeff Watson

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, many times in the debate tonight New Democrats have talked about the possibility of making amendments to the bill. They have taken issue with, particularly, the wage increases that are legislated in the bill. They clearly do not like what the government has chosen. They do not like what Canada Post has put on the table.

However, two NDP members have mused openly tonight about what they think should be the wage increases. The member for York South—Weston thought that 11.5% over four years was probably a fair deal. The member for Trinity—Spadina mused that 3.3% a year for four years would be a fair deal.

Would the member confirm that the NDP members will be amending to increase the wage aspects either somewhere between 11.5% and 13.2% over four years?

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

Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can actually talk about the bill in the next couple of minutes.

There has been a lot of discussion today, and members opposite on several occasions have raised the prospect of making amendments to Bill C-6. There has been a lot of talk about one of them being about wages. The member's colleague, the member for York South—Weston, suggested that 11.5% over four years, which is what he said the Toronto police received in a settlement, would be considered a fair wage. The member for Trinity—Spadina suggested 3.3% per year, which would be 13.2% over four years.

Can the member tell us whether the New Democrats will be moving an amendment to stipulate wage increases that are somewhere between 11.5% and 13.3%?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring to a collective agreement with postal workers that includes two-tier wages. Could he table that in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I feel like I am on the floor of the convention in Vancouver for the NDP, a socialist party. I keep hearing over and over how profits are bad at Canada Post. I remind the member that the chief shareholder is in fact Canadian taxpayers, at the end of the day, as funds get reinvested in, for example, roads, public infrastructure, health care, and education.

Apart from that, I wonder if the member does not feel confident that the union can win final offer selection arbitration. I do not know if the member has read the bill, all seven pages of it, but the workers will be going back under the recently expired agreement. All settled matters will continue to be settled. They will not be reopened or up for grabs again.

There is a guiding principle about an improved pension solvency trajectory. That is a good thing. That has to improve, not get worse. There are guaranteed pay raises for four years. Who else is getting guaranteed pay raises for four years? The final offer selection is for only the outstanding items that have yet to be agreed upon.

Does the member not believe that the union can put together a competitive package that can win final offer selection?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member, who worked so long with her former union boss, Ken Lewenza, has no faith in the union's ability to win final offer selection.

This is actually a fair situation if we look at it from the workers' perspective. They get a guaranteed pay increase for four years when others do not. They get to go back under the current agreement, which is exactly what they have been asking for anyway. They get an improved pension trajectory, which is mandatory in terms of the final offer. They are going to have to get an improved pension solvency.

All matters that have previously been settled are not going to be reopened. They are settled. In terms of the outstanding issues, what remains is that the union gets to put forward its offer and the company gets to put forward its offer.

Is the member saying that she has no confidence in the union's ability to put forward a competitive bid that will be in the interest of workers and actually win the final offer selection?

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You may want to check on this and rule on it, but I am not sure that “SOB” is appropriate parliamentary language, whether it is being said directly or being attributed indirectly.

Second, I hardly think it is fair to attribute something to people who may not be here to defend themselves. The member should observe some decorum in the House.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently and I have been following the filibuster by New Democrats quite closely.

Earlier the member of Parliament for Vaudreuil-Soulanges tipped the NDP's hand that it will be moving amendments with respect to the wage settlement. The NDP member for Trinity—Spadina, in her intervention just now, is suggesting that 2.5% a year is a fair settlement.

Because the union strikes provoked a lockout rather than a favourable settlement, can the member confirm, one, that the NDP will turn the committee of the whole into a bargaining session with its amendments; two, did the NDP consult with CUPW on the nature of its demands; and three, will the NDP seek a wage settlement of 2.5% a year for four years?

[Canada Post, June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians across the country are calling for an immediate restoration of mail services.

I have heard from many of my constituents who are strongly supportive of the government's clear and decisive action to proceed with back to work legislation and bring an end to this unfortunate work stoppage.

Could the Minister of Labour please update the House on the status of this important bill?

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we just came through an election campaign where the NDP opponents were taking full credit in their literature for having secured 100% of the funding. What is funny is that one cannot secure the funding if one actually votes against the funding. That is a bit of a curious oddity.

It is a huge project, not just for the immediate jobs but, ultimately, end to end, from the 401 to the I-75 in Michigan. A multi-billion dollar project. Even if a fraction of that goes into the economy as additional stimulus over the next five to seven years of construction, it will be a huge boom to Windsor Essex county. Of course, by having a redundant crossing, it secures our bilateral trade relationship with the United States and, on our side of the border, puts us in a position to secure long-term business investments worth millions and millions of dollars. New companies will start up because they have predictability at the corridor.