Libby Davies

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say right off that I think this has actually been a very good debate overall. I guess now we are into about our sixteenth hour. I have been looking at this beautiful calendar on the table in front of us that is still showing Thursday, June 23. I f feel like we are in that movie Groundhog Day, where the day just keeps going around. I guess we might be in Thursday for a while.

Overall I think it has been a good debate. So much of what we do in Parliament seems to be pro forma. There is a bill, we debate it, it goes to committee, and we know what each side is going to say. I do feel that on this occasion, with this debate on a matter that is so serious, we actually do not know what the outcome is going to be. We do not know how long the debate is going to go on. I think that is an open question.

We do not know what the outcome will be although there is certainly pressure building. For all of the New Democrats who have spoken, I can say that, contrary to what the Conservatives say, we do want to see the postal service resume, absolutely. We support those small businesses. We support and understand the need for that service to resume.

But the reality is that we are faced with a lockout and with dreadful legislation in this House that we are determined to oppose. I think that is the only honourable and principled thing we can do, while at the same time seeking changes in amendments that will help resolve this situation. I do think it presents a very interesting scenario in the House and it makes the discussion and the debate all the more meaningful.

I have heard some of the pretty amazing speeches that have taken place and the stories that people have told, whether they are about labour history, women's rights, or the impact of the labour movement. Again, the Conservative members really cannot bear to hear that, but it is a side of society that is really coming out and is rarely debated or aired thoroughly in this House.

I am appreciative that we at least are able to have that kind of discussion and get underneath this legislation to examine the principles and issues of why we in this party feel so strongly that we are opposed to this back to work legislation.

Yesterday, in his incredible speech, the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, talked about the relationship that he and his family have with their letter carrier. I have the same experience. I think we all do.

I know my letter carrier, who usually comes every day at about 9:15 in east Vancouver. A couple of years ago, he noticed that my front door was open. I was not there. I was in Ottawa. He left, thinking that maybe someone was in the garden or in another room. He went on his way. He came back the next day and the door was still open.

Someone who was staying there had inadvertently left the door unlocked, so the letter carrier, my postal worker, took the time to phone the police and report it. The police came down and contacted my office and I was able to then get someone to lock the door. To me, that was a great example of how letter carriers and postal workers are so much a part of our community.

I have been down to the main depot on West Georgia Street year after year to talk to letter carriers, and also in my own community. We see them there at 6 o'clock in the morning sorting the mail, and then out in the community no matter what the weather, be it icy or snowing or raining, or whether one's stairs are broken down. No matter what, they are out there delivering the mail, so we do have a very special relationship with these folks in our community, and that is mirrored right across this country.

To me, it adds insult to injury that we are facing this legislation in the House that is forcing these folks back to work when they have been locked out, when all they want is to get to the bargaining table to negotiate a fair settlement and a fair deal. Come on, this is reasonable, and this is what labour relations are meant to be about in this country.

I am so sick and tired of hearing the Conservatives say over and over that they do not intervene in the marketplace, as that is not the role of government. So what do they do? As soon as they are faced with their buddies at Canada Post who do not like what they are facing at the bargaining table, they rush out and bring in legislation that makes it even worse. What incentive is there for Canada Post to do anything, to bargain anything, when they know that their friends here are producing legislation they could only have dreamed of and that now is a reality?

Yes, we are pretty opposed to all of that, on the grounds of it not just affecting postal workers but also, and I want to stress this, because of its implications for all workers in this country.

We can see the writing on the wall. This is about a race to the bottom. This is about establishing two tiers of wages: If an employee is new, he or she will get a different wage from some who is already there, and maybe a different pension and maybe different work and safety provisions at some point.

We understand that the government is setting a direction with this legislation by siding with the employer in a completely unilateral way that has enormous implications for labour relations in this country for all workers. We just have to look at pensions. Many of us have spoken through the night and through the day of our concerns about the pension system. It does not matter whether one is unionized or not, because everyone wants to have a sense of security for their retirement. Heaven knows, we have been raising this issue year in and year out in this House, before and after the election.

The issue of what happens to people's pensions, whether they are based on defined benefit plans or defined contribution plans, with the latter really having no security, is of critical importance not only for postal workers but for all workers in this country.

Yes, we are onto that. We recognize that the legislation is setting the direction and tone for what is going to take place in this country in terms of labour relations.

I heard one of the Conservative members say earlier that the NDP is opposed to Canada Post because it makes a profit. In fact, we are very happy that Canada Post generates profits; it shows that it is a very viable crown corporation. It is providing an essential Canadian service to all parts of this country. We just want to make sure that those profits are shared in a way that the employees get a fair deal. Again, to us that seems a very reasonable proposition. The fact that Canada Post makes a profit is not a bad thing; we just want to make sure that the workers do not get the short end of the stick.

We have all been quoting the emails we have received. To hear the Conservatives, one would think that they are only hearing from people who support their back to work legislation. However, I want to add to the record that I have heard from a number of people in my community.

I have an email I received from a small business owner, who states that:

Canada Post is running a profit. It is a Crown corporation why not share the profit. Yes I would like the mail to resume but why not focus on Canada Post listening to our postal workers and give them their due rights.

I have another letter from a constituent, who is a postal worker, who wrote to the minister, I guess a couple of days ago. This constituent says:

I know that if we are legislated back with a poor contract that does not address the many issues, especially Health and Safety, this act will do immeasurable damage to the working environment which already is a highly stressful environment. High injury rates, burn-out from extremely long routes and, believe it or not, high mail volumes coupled with extreme levels of under-staffing have made this job unmanageable.

This postal worker went on to say that we should maybe invite representatives of the parties to go on a mail route to actually see what it was like.

I am very proud of the New Democrats in this House and the fact that we understand what this legislation is about and that we are determined to expose the implications and consequences of this legislation, not only for postal workers but for all Canadians. We want to see the postal service resume and we call again, in this House, on the government to take the locks off the door, allow that service to resume and allow collective bargaining to happen. That is the way things should be.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her wonderful comments this morning. It has been so amazing to hear the very passionate speeches taking place about the principles that are at stake here and how people tackle these different principles. I notice that she spoke about the two tiers of salaries that were tabled by the employer and she also spoke about the next generation.

I wonder if the member could comment more about what a living wage or a decent wage is for a family. It seems unfair that the employer could tell employees because they are new and younger, they would therefore get less money. As someone who represents the younger generation, how does she feel about the fact that because a person is a new employee or is younger, he or she would get a lower wage?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member provided very thoughtful comments. One of the very positive parts of this debate is the enormous amount of labour history we are learning about, what it is that affects working people in this country and the role unions have played in flighting for better working conditions, hours of work, health and safety and better wages that lifts everybody up in this country. That has been a very interesting part of this debate.

I know the member has many decades of service in the labour movement and has been part of negotiations. One thing that is very interesting for us to hear, which the member for Hull—Aylmer also talked about, is the impact of women and the changes that have taken place, whether it is on pay equity, parental leave or equal pay for work of equal value. These are very important wins by unions and the labour movement.

I wonder if the member could relate that to the situation we are now facing, of these workers being locked out. All they want is to go back to the table and get a fair deal for their members and for the rights of all workers in this country. How does that relate to equality for women in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member had beautiful speech in the House, especially when he says that it is his first speech. He was very thoughtful. The sense of history he brings to the debate today is very important.

He mentioned that postal workers had no voice. That is a very pertinent comment because they have been locked out. They want to do nothing more than get back to the bargaining table.

It was very surprising to us last night to hear the minister talk about the strike. She did not seem to know the difference. Could the member comment on what a lockout is and what took place?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was only responding to what I heard from Liberal members both on Tuesday and today in debate. I heard the Liberal House leader say earlier today that he believes the bill makes a mockery of arbitration, and I would certainly agree.

I was just pointing out that in 1997 very similar legislation also restrained the arbitrator in terms of what he or she was able to do. I find it ironic and surprising that the Liberals thought it was okay then but they do not think it is okay now.

When we started debating this motion on Tuesday, I heard the interim leader of the Liberal Party express his concerns about the wages and the fact that the wages in the legislation are lower than what was on the table. I agree with that too. Again in 1997 the same situation existed and apparently the Liberals were not concerned about it.

I am only responding to what the Liberals said and pointing out their inconsistencies.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is possible that the member has not been in the House all day, but I have been because I have been on duty today. I have listened to the debate and I have heard NDP member after NDP member get up and actually talk about the viability of Canada Post and the fact that last year it made $281 million in profits. This corporation has made profits year after year. That money has gone back into general revenue. Surely at least some of that money should be reinvested in the corporation to allow it to improve the working conditions and the environment for its workers.

We believe very much in the viability of Canada Post. In fact, we have been saying just the opposite of what the member is saying. It is a viable operation. Why is the government trying to knock it into the ground? Why is it trying to knock into the ground the workers who go out day after day delivering our mail, sometimes in incredibly difficult environmental circumstances?

In terms of the rates, again NDP member after NDP member has pointed out today that our postal rates are among the most affordable in the world. There are many countries where the rates are much higher.

I do not think the member has his facts correct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow our member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to speak today to this motion.

I want to say right at the outset that I feel shameful that we are here having to debate this motion regarding back to work legislation and that the first order of business that has come from the Conservative government is to force workers back to work and not give them a fair shot and a fair chance at collective bargaining.

I was first elected in 1997 and in December of that year we faced a similar situation of back-to-work legislation for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. What is ironic though is that at that time it was a Liberal government. The legislation that we are dealing with today is very similar to the legislation that we dealt with in 1997. The same incredible, outrageous fines, $50,000 for union leaders and $100,000 for the union as a whole, were in the Liberal legislation, and the same kind of restraints on the arbitrator that we see in the legislation today. Back then it was also a lower wage that was legislated, a wage restraint, than what had actually been at the bargaining table. It has been ironic to hear some of the Liberal members rise to say how they feel about this legislation when they forget their own history of what they did in 1997. I just wanted to remember that because I was a new member at that time and I remember that debate also went through the night.

I want to begin by thanking postal workers. I think they have had a really rough ride from the Conservative members in the House. They have been vilified, demonized and have been set up as the bad guys when, in reality, what the union and the members of the union want is a fair collective agreement. They do not want to see back to work legislation. They are willing to go back to the table.

Look at the circumstances that are now unfolding. We have a Conservative government that is using a sledgehammer and putting forward legislation, Motion No. 3, that we are now debating, that would actually put workers in such a constraint in terms of any collective bargaining that we might as well say goodbye to collective bargaining.

I want to reference that because some of the Conservative members have said that this is only about this situation, that it is only about the postal workers, that it does not affect anybody else other than, of course, the various people whose messages they are reading. But the fact is that the back to work legislation affects all workers in this country.

It may surprise members to know that even today Canada is not a signatory to one of the very important International Labour Organization conventions, ILO Convention No. 98, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention and so, that right is not even enshrined in terms of Canadian practice. Is it any wonder that we see this assault on Canadians workers? What happens to these workers is a signal of what is yet to come. For that reason we should be deeply disturbed and concerned about the legislation and how it would affect other workers, whether they are under a collective agreement or not.

The other issue that we have to be very concerned about is the implication and impact on pensions. Every Canadian is concerned about what is going to happen to their pension system. One of the issues in this particular round of bargaining is the employer trying to change the pension system so that workers would no longer have an assurance of what it is they can expect from their pension when they retire

This is a very basic value to all Canadian workers, again, whether they are unionized or not. For the employer, which happens to be a crown corporation controlled by the government, to run the gauntlet, lay this down and say it is going to change the pension system is really a warning sign of what is to come.

As New Democrats, we know that we have to fight this tooth and nail with the labour movement, with progressive people in this country, because we can see the signal and we see the direction that the government is taking.

In addition, one of the proposals that the union has had to deal with is facing a two-tiered wage system. Again, this is about an employer now supported by a government that is trying to put in a wage restraint through legislation.

It is pretty outrageous when the government itself tables a proposal in the legislation that would actually decrease the wages that were put on the table by the employer, which in itself would start workers 20% lower than existing postal workers. We can see where this is going.

I find it very ironic that the government says it is interested in economic recovery and stability on the one hand, but on the other hand everything it is doing is driving wages and working conditions down and making things less secure and more difficult for workers whether they are unionized or not.

These are all elements of this back to work legislation. The idea is that this is a one-off piece of legislation and we do not have to worry about it. In the debate unfolding today, which will go on for several days, it will become very clear that there are much broader implications for all workers in this country and it is something we should be concerned about.

Today in the House I tabled two private members' bills relating to what we call social condition, which is a recognition that people who are poor and have low incomes face discrimination based on their economic circumstances. I see a relationship between the tabling of those bills and what we are trying to do by removing discrimination from people who are economically disadvantaged or living below the poverty line and what the government is trying to do in this back to work legislation.

The fact is that when public policy goes in a direction that takes away people's rights, drives down wages and says collective bargaining will not be tolerated, that affects everybody. When unions do well and minimum wages go up, it benefits all workers in this country, including people who are living below the poverty line and struggling on minimum wages, whether it is $8, $9 or $10 an hour depending on where they live.

These issues are related. We can see that the legislation that will be coming forward after we vote tonight, presuming this motion passes, will have a huge impact not only on CUPW members but on workers as a whole. Those in the labour movement are watching this with very keen interest. They are very concerned about what is taking place.

I noticed that one such union member, Fred Wilson who works at the CEP, noted in a blog on rabble.ca:

—the Conservatives have rigged this game completely. The outcome is now determined; there is nothing left for free collective bargaining to accomplish.

I would certainly echo those comments. I feel the sense of shame and distress about the road we are going down.

The government did not have to intervene. We often hear that the Conservatives do not like to intervene in the marketplace. Why is it in this case they decided to intervene on the side of Canada Post? Why is it that they have not said anything about the lockout of the workers that is taking place?

We have heard Conservative member after Conservative member attack the union and those who are trying to get a fair deal with their employer, and yet I have not heard one word from any of those members about what the employer has done. The reality is the government is backing the employer. The government is saying it is onside with Canada Post 100%. Where is the balance? Where is the idea that fairness should exist?

We are very opposed to this motion. We are opposed to the process of bringing in closure on the bill that will be before us tonight.

We believe in collective bargaining. We stand for the rights of workers to get a fair deal as outlined by the International Labour Organization. We support convention 98 as all people in this country should do. We demand that the government respect those rights, that it think about the position it is taking and what it is imposing in such an unfair and discriminatory manner.

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

Madam Speaker, we in the NDP are deeply disturbed that the government has gone to such extraordinary lengths to, in effect, cut out collective bargaining.

I have heard various ministers, but certainly the Minister of Labour, say in the House that workers can go back to the table and bargain while we are debating this legislation. The reality is, and she said it herself in speaking about the legislation and referring to what happened in 1997, that because the back to work legislation includes wages that were lower than what was offered by the employer, what incentive is there at all for Canada Post to go back to the table?

This has been done deliberately to preclude any collective bargaining taking place. Anybody can see that. How can the minister stand here and say that she hopes they go back and bargain?

[Criminal Code, June 23rd, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-264, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (social condition).

Mr. Speaker, this is a companion bill to the bill that I just introduced that would amend the Human Rights Act. This bill would amend the Criminal Code on the basis that we need to stop discrimination against people who are poor, disadvantaged or face homelessness.

This bill would create an amendment to the Criminal Code to establish an increased sentence where there is evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the social condition of the victim.

Unfortunately, we do have these kinds of cases in our society, and they are all too common. Therefore, it is important that there be recognition in the Criminal Code that it is a heinous crime and that a sentence be added to address when poor people are bashed, assaulted or discriminated against simply on the basis of their social condition.

I hope that if this bill is enacted and supported by the House, it will prevent that from happening. We need to have equality in this country so that people who have low incomes or who are poor will not face this kind of discrimination.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canadian Human Rights Act, June 23rd, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-263, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (social condition).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, for seconding this bill.

This bill is important because it would prohibit discrimination on the grounds of social condition. It would prohibit discrimination against people who are experiencing social or economic disadvantage on the basis of their source of income, occupation, level of education, poverty, lack of adequate housing, homelessness, or any other similar circumstance.

There are people in our society who have been economically and socially discriminated against based on those various grounds. They face terrible discrimination, whether it is with respect to housing or employment, or accessing public services or community services. It is important that the Criminal Code be clear, that it would be against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of poverty.

I am pleased to introduce this bill today. I hope that all members of the House will support the bill, because we recognize discrimination as a serious issue in our society that needs to be addressed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)