Hélène Laverdière

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[Afghanistan, June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on the surface, the documents revealed by the Afghan detainee committee yesterday contain little new information.

After all this time and money, we are right back where we started. Torture and extrajudicial executions are not unusual in Afghan prisons, and Canada has handed prisoners over to these torturers.

Why does the government not do what is right and demand a public inquiry?

[Asbestos, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, public health experts and occupational health experts the world over agree that there is no safe way to use asbestos.

Not a single reliable study in the world shows that asbestos can be used safely, as the Minister of Natural Resources contends.

Asbestos should be added to the Rotterdam Convention.

How can the minister continue to defend the indefensible?

[Foreign Affairs, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this government proclaims loud and clear that it wants to focus on our relations with Latin America, but in the meantime, it is not providing adequate funding to an agency like FOCAL to ensure its viability, even though that agency helps us better understand the issues in the Americas. Effective the end of September, FOCAL will be no more.

How can Canada have an effective strategy for the Americas if it does not support such an important source of expertise?

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the motion on Libya deplores the ongoing human rights violations being committed by the Gadhafi regime. Reports show that sexual violence is being used as a weapon of war. Deploring the situation is not enough. We must take action to protect the rights of Libyans.

Will Canada make a tangible commitment to the international community to support the investigation of these crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice?

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments and encouragement. I will give a very brief response.

The Libyan national transitional council truly should be recognized as a legitimate entity with which we can enter into discussions and establish a dialogue. I am talking about a legitimate entity with which we can establish a dialogue, and that dialogue is absolutely essential. If we want to provide humanitarian aid and work on the ground, we must be able to have discussions with this organization.

As for the reconstruction, I believe that at this stage, in June 2011, we probably have to wait in order to be able to identify reconstruction needs and determine which organizations would be best suited to directing and supporting the Libyans in the reconstruction. After all, it will be up to the Libyans themselves.

I think there is a key element to the final question, concerning the impossibility of being involved everywhere.The key element in the responsibility to protect doctrine is the UN Security Council. Once the UN Security Council approves taking action, I believe that Canada, ideally, should be part of that action. It is our authorization to take action. Without the Security Council's approval, it is much more difficult and cannot be considered part of the responsibility to protect.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

It is an extremely worrisome situation. Most of them are migrant workers. They are often ignored and forgotten, and now happen to be at the border. These workers generally come from countries that do not have the resources to repatriate them. They find themselves in an unstable situation, as though they were practically stateless. We know that much has been done for them, in Tunisia in particular. We must applaud the efforts of the Tunisian government to accept and shelter these people.

There is beginning to be a strain even on the Tunisian government. That is why it is more of a global issue. We should also be talking with the Tunisian government to see what kind of help and support it needs to help the people. It has been doing its share and we should be doing our share, too.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question.

I believe that it is an extremely important question. All humanitarian aid must be coordinated. Let us be frank, we have seen the waste that can occur when aid is not closely coordinated. It is not a question of each country doing its own thing, doing what it believes is right. We must have good assessments on the ground, and the group must be coordinated, primarily through certain UN agencies and the various stages of coordination that already exist. We know that all our international co-operation organizations have coordination offices. Within the United Nations, I am thinking mainly of the International Organization on Migration, which is already active on the ground, is very familiar with the issues and the needs, and to date has been a leader within the World Food Programme and other similar organizations. However, we must bring everyone to the table for a discussion.