Fin Donnelly

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act. I support the sections of the bill that aim to protect children from dangerous sexual predators.

In fact, I have introduced legislation myself, Bill C-213, that makes it an offence for an adult to communicate with a minor by any electronic means. This bill would close a loophole in the Criminal Code that allows sexual predators to communicate with children by any electronic devices such as cellular phones or even the social media. This legislation would give more tools to the courts to address the issues of child luring and abuse.

These changes to the Criminal Code are long overdue. This legislation was first introduced in 2008 by my predecessor Dawn Black. I brought forward this legislation when I was first elected and I recently reintroduced it in this session. The government has not addressed this loophole in the Criminal Code for years now. The Conservatives want to use it as window dressing for building mega prisons.

The world has changed in three and a half years, with cellphone and Internet use exploding. During these years, the government has left children unprotected. The government should have taken swift action and moved on this bill but has instead included it in a highly controversial omnibus bill which has many problems associated with it.

The people of New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Moody want effective public safety policies from the government. Coquitlam has one of the lowest police-to-population ratios in British Columbia. The police are constantly being asked to do more with less and this crime omnibus bill will only exacerbate the problem.

If the government were serious about protecting neighbourhoods, then it would ensure that communities like Coquitlam have adequate funding for the RCMP. The federal government has yet to deliver on its 2006 commitment to fund 2,500 new RCMP officers and to sit down with municipalities to review their community policing needs.

I believe we need to focus on crime prevention. My riding has experienced gang violence, a prevalent issue in the lower mainland. We need to increase funding for youth gang prevention programs as well as the number of police officers on the street. We need to prevent kids from getting involved with gangs to begin with.

In my riding we have a very successful youth restorative justice program. One organization, Communities Embracing Restorative Action, has been working in my riding since 1999. It aims to provide a just and meaningful response to crime, rehabilitate people who commit crime and to engage the community. The organization also offers preventive programs, running an empowering youth program in local schools. The program is aimed at crime prevention to give young people tools and information before crime emerges, and to build strong and inclusive relationships at an early age. The program has grown to be successful and is an excellent alternative for working with our youth.

We also need to increase support to those suffering from drug addiction and mental health problems. This legislation would increase the overrepresentation of offenders with mental health and addiction problems in our prison system. Our prison system is already strained for resources and resource programs. Currently, only one in five inmates has access to programs for anger management and substance abuse. How will the prison system cope with an influx of inmates needing this treatment?

This is one of the key problems with this crime omnibus bill. It downloads an extra cost and burden to provincial and territorial governments. To date, there has been no analysis nor consultation related to the increased costs for enforcement and prosecution which will be downloaded onto the provinces and territories.

Paula Mallea from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives states:

The cost of the [government's] crime agenda will be colossal, and a large part of it (some say most) will be borne by the provinces, who are responsible for implementing whatever the feds pass. So provinces and territories (many of them in elections as we speak) will be expected to pay for additional courts, clerks, prisons, Crown Attorneys, judges, sheriffs, court reporters and so on.

In British Columbia, our court system is already strained. Our prisons are already overcrowded. According to the B.C. government employees' union that represents prison guards in British Columbia, says jails in the province are at 150% to 200% in overcrowded conditions. Also, understaffing and overcrowding is responsible for an increase in attacks on prison guards. The province of British Columbia closed nine prisons in 2003 and made cutbacks to the corrections system.

How are the provinces and territories to deal with an influx of prisoners who are sent to jail on mandatory minimums?

Growing even six marijuana plants would trigger an automatic six month sentence with an extra three months if it is done in a rental unit, or is deemed a public safety hazard. According to Neil Boyd, a criminologist at the Simon Fraser University, this legislation could increase the proportion of marijuana criminals in B.C. jails from less than 5% to around 30%.

Has the government taken this into account? Is this the best use of our resources? Has this been fully costed? Unfortunately, I think the answer is no.

One of the key concerns with this bill is the cost. When the Conservative government came to power in 2006, the federal corrections system cost nearly $1.6 billion a year. By 2013-14, according to the department's own projections, the cost of our federal penitentiary system will have increased to $3.147 billion. In 2010-11, more than $517 million will be spent on prison construction. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the total annual cost per prison cell is about $260,000, while a new high security cell amounts to about $600,000.

Aside from the cost associated with actually building prisons, the cost to incarcerate inmates is high. The average cost for a female inmate is about $343,000 per year. For a male inmate in maximum security the cost is $223,000 while medium security is $141,000 year. Even while out on parole the average cost per inmate is $39,084 per year.

The crime rate continues to decline. The crime severity index, which measures the seriousness of crime, also dropped to its lowest point since the measure became available in 1998. So why is the government putting forward such costly legislation when crime rates continue to drop? Why is the government pursuing tough on crime policies that have failed so miserably in other jurisdictions such as the United States?

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Much of this is the result of mandatory minimums and the so-called war on drugs. It has not made the United States a safer place. In fact, most evidence indicates that it has not deterred crime and could even lead to less safe conditions in prisons and in communities.

Just as the costs are expected to be a large burden on our provinces and territories, the costs have proven to be crippling for the states. For example, Texas has recently moved away from using mandatory minimums because the costs to the state were too high.

The bill is not based on evidence. The government has failed to produce information that its legislation to impose mandatory minimums and lengthen sentences would have any deterrence on crime. The Minister of Justice the other day is quoted as saying, “We're not governing on the basis of the latest statistics”.

It has been shown time and again that the government fails to understand the importance of statistics, facts and science. To put forward such costly legislation without having statistics to back it up is inappropriate. To put forward legislation based on failed U.S. policies is shortsighted. We need to be moving forward not backward.

Mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion and this is highly problematic. In some cases, it could lead to judges giving lesser sentences then they otherwise would because they need to rely solely on legislation for sentencing.

According to the Canadian Bar Association, there are concerns with several aspects of the government's proposed omnibus crime bill, including mandatory minimum sentences, an overreliance on incarceration, constraints on judicial discretion to ensure a fair result in each case, and the bill's impact on specific already disadvantaged groups.

While the bill has some parts that I am in favour of, it is only on a case-by-case basis.

My concern is that the government has mixed good legislation in with bad and plans to ram it through all at once. It is ineffective and expensive. I cannot support the bill as it stands.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, this deal is worse than what they would even get at the table from Canada Post. The government is offering wage rates lower than what Canada Post offered.

It tramples on collective bargaining rights in our country.

As well, it supports a tax on the postal workers' defined pension benefits plan.

Also, it promotes a two-tier wage and benefits system.

This legislation is an attack not just on postal workers but also on wages, benefits and pensions of all Canadian workers. That is why we are making a stand. That is why I will continue to be in the House every day, as long as it takes, to get a fair negotiated settlement not only for our postal workers but for all our Canadian workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was quite the question. It seemed like a fairly long statement.

I can certainly empathize. I have heard a number of comments. I have had a number of emails and letters from constituents, from carriers, from postal workers. They have also expressed their frustration. They simply want to have a negotiated settlement that is fair. They do not want the government to impose a deal. They do not want the government involved in this, but want to let the two parties have a negotiated settlement.

I received an email from Barry, who visited my constituency office just the other day to express his frustration with this legislation. He is a 36-year employee of Canada Post in Coquitlam. He said he had tried to contact the Prime Minister's Office to discuss this bill, but when he phoned the office hung up on him. That is how a 36-year veteran of the postal service is treated. When tries to get through, they hang up on him when he mentions that he is a postal worker. Barry is extremely frustrated, just as I have heard from some of these others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with the thousands of postal workers who have been locked out by Canada Post. There are three postal depots in my riding, one in New Westminster, one in Coquitlam and another in Port Moody. I would like to thank all of the workers in those depots. I have talked to many of them and know their good work. I know how hard they have been working and how much this affects them and what it means to them.

Now we have proposed legislation by the government that, if adopted, will force those workers back to work. The legislation put forward by the Conservative government basically makes a mockery of the fair collective bargaining processes that thousands of Canadian men and women have fought so hard for.

I have had the honour and privilege to rise in the House many times to speak on critical issues facing our country, but few issues have motivated me more than the issue of pension protection. I believe everyone has the right to retire with dignity. As a society, we not only accept this but have also worked hard to ensure it by legislating public pension plans.

Working families are not looking for a free ride. They have bargained their pensions in good faith with their employers, diverting their wages into pension plans to have some measure of security upon retirement. This legislation denies those workers the fruits of their labour.

We should be bringing employment and the standard of living up, not tearing them down. We should be supporting family-sustaining jobs, not promoting a race to the bottom. We should be building a better world for our parents and our children, not pulling the rug out from underneath them. This legislation is the first volley of what, no doubt, will be a long and sustained attack on public pensions across our country.

However, do not take it from me. My office has heard from many in my riding who would be affected by this legislation. Here is what they say.

Kerisma, a full-time letter carrier in Coquitlam, notes that since the last contract had expired, she, along with her colleagues, has worked to help Canada Post meet and exceed target goals for performance and revenue. She believes that Canada Post has not negotiated in good faith and that this legislation rewards the corporation, one, for refusing to address health and safety concerns; two, for refusing to negotiate; and, three, for locking out its workers and creating this unnecessary halt to the mail.

Kerry is a 17-year employee at Canada Post, who says that his pension is his only hope of living above the poverty line when he retires. He says that they have been subject to large cutbacks in every agreement since he joined the postal service and that if they lose any more, we will have one of the world's worst in the public service. All they are asking for is fair treatment.

Another postal worker in my riding expressed her frustration with the time value system through which workers' current pay is established. Parcels on mobile routes and withheld mail are not included in the calculation, giving postal workers more mail to carry and forcing them to work through lunch to complete their routes on time and to avoid discipline for working overtime. She wants to know why the government is attacking postal workers. Government jobs should be good, respectable jobs that we can be proud of.

Michelle has been a letter carrier for 20 years in New Westminster. She loves her job. She is a single mom with two children who struggles to make ends meet. Her route has 1,233 points of call. After starting at 6:30 a.m. every morning, she is often not finished her route until 5 p.m. when her children arrive home from school. She delivers more mail now than she did 10 years ago, and that does not include the pounds of flyers. She worries about the next generation of postal workers and whether her job will even be viable employment for future workers. She has generously invited the Minister of Labour to accompany her on her route some time, and I would be happy to facilitate such a visit.

Shannon, a nine-year employee, is concerned about her sick benefits and pension plan. She says that the physical impact of doing her job takes its toll on her body. She knows many co-workers who require surgery from work-related injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and knee and hip degeneration.

William, a letter carrier in New West, has worked for Canada Post for several years. He supports a wife and two children. He would like to retire with Canada Post but fears that a forced collective agreement would make that difficult.

Mirko is a 16-year postal worker veteran. He has two kids and a mortgage. He has seen many changes since he began as a letter carrier. He says his route would take an average mortal 10 hours to complete, for which he receives 8 hours of pay. Three years ago, ten and a half routes were eliminated from the area and everyone's route was lengthened. Injuries went up. Sixteen years ago he delivered two trays of about 1,000 letters on his route. Today, he delivers an average of three or four trays.

Leanne is a letter carrier in New Westminster. She has been employed by Canada Post for 19 years. She is 39 years old. She was just re-elected as the secretary-treasurer of the Royal City Local for a third term. This means that she works in the union office at least 10 days a month, doing the financials and the many other office duties specified in her local bylaws. She fully believes that the only reason she is not severely injured from her duties as a letter carrier is the simple fact she gets a break from the physical aspect of delivering mail when she works for the union.

New Westminster, B.C., part of my riding, is a quickly growing community. Indeed, she mentioned that she was looking out the window on East Columbia Street and watching the high-rises go up at the old brewery site as she was typing her email to me. She says that even though they are delivering to many more points of call in the city and to all others in her local, Canada Post has restructured their routes and cut the number of routes in every office for the last several years.

In September 2009, the New West depot was restructured. The end result was that 86 routes became 75, with a wave of management's magic wand. They lost 11 full-time employees, plus one relief carrier, in their depot. Every route suddenly had hundreds more points of call. This meant they were spending hours more every day on the street. They were carrying more pounds of mail every day. They were working 10, 12, even 14 hours a day. They were delivering in the dark, in the snow and on steep hills.

How did Canada Post react? It gave them ice cleats and headlamps.

Through the winter season, approximately one-third of the letter carriers were injured on the job and were either completely off or unable to do their full duties. Canada Post responded by forcing those who still happened to be able-bodied to do compulsory overtime on other routes after they had finished their own.

Canada Post challenged every WCB and WorkSafe claim put in by the members. Many were denied. Many members stopped reporting the injuries; they simply gave up.

Leanne reports that she has been left with plantar fasciitis and wakes up with foot pain every day. She says she can handle all of this, but what she cannot tolerate is the fact that she did not see her five-year-old son during the first week of their new routes.

She goes on to talk about her son and the impacts on him, the fact that she does not see him, that her parents and grandparents are involved in raising her son because she has to work overtime. She talks about being sick and getting hurt on the job. She talks about how Manulife, the third-party disability management provider, is involved in every case and questions every single claim workers put in.

The point here is that the physical and mental health effects of their jobs are affecting them and their families.

The biggest issue she faces now is being legislated back to work. Having that crammed down her throat is something she is appalled by.

These are moments that will define a generation. How will we look workers in the eye when we leave this chamber? This draconian legislation tears down decades of collective bargaining legislation that people in this country have worked so hard to put in place. We have an obligation to honour the agreements we make with workers.

We have an obligation to honour the agreements that we make with workers. We have an obligation to protect pensions. It is the right thing to do. Along with our concerns about protecting pensions, we must act to protect good wages for all workers.

[The Environment, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a shocking report came out yesterday warning our oceans are on the brink of unprecedented mass extinctions.

Climate change, pollution, over-fishing and habitat destruction have brought this on.

However, instead of protecting our oceans, the Conservatives are cutting over $56 million from the department's budget.

Will the minister reverse these cuts, immediately act on the report's recommendations and start protecting our oceans?

[The Environment, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot continue to hide behind the joint review panel while spending millions to push the project.

From the beginning, the people of British Columbia have said that the risks far outweigh the benefits, not only from the pipeline but from the hundreds of oil tankers that would be operating off our coast.

Why will the government not just say no to Enbridge and ban oil tankers off our B.C. coast?