Linda Duncan

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

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not receiving their mail because Canada Post has locked up the post office. I do not understand why there are these repeated claims. The honest reply to all of our constituents should be that Canada Post made the decision to lock the doors to the post office. Indeed, we would like to have this addressed. We have called for the removal of those locks.

As I have mentioned previously in debate here, where was the government when my constituents and many constituents were calling for the return of their mailboxes that had been removed and the reopening of the post offices that were closed? Where was the government in protecting the interests of seniors, who now have to go much further simply to mail a letter to their grandchildren?

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. We of course can select the information we put before the House. Some members chose to put forward those kinds of remarks and I think they are regrettable.

Also, I think the title of the bill now before us for debate is a bit of a misnomer. It is called “An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services”. One would have thought that what the bill was provided for was to unlock the doors of the postal service. Instead, the choice is to continue to point fingers at the postal workers. Of course, we are on a weekend so we do not have postal delivery, but on Monday, the reason why there may or may not be continuation of service is that Canada Post has locked out the workers. I find the naming of the statute rather peculiar.

It also appears to pervert the very role of arbitration, which is to bring together the parties and have a determination made in a fair way and in fairness to both sides. As many colleagues have pointed out, including the colleague who spoke before me, what the government has done is step outside of what has already been negotiated and agreed to in imposing lesser benefits to the workers.

A lot of my colleagues have also raised concerns with the effect of the bill before us, in that it creates a double standard and hypocrisy. In the wake of the $40-billion deficit created by this government, in the wake of the gift of raises to senior staff, and in wake of deeper tax cuts for major corporations, therefore leaving less revenue available to care for seniors and to provide advanced education, affordable housing, and affordable child care, many of these postal worker families are already hard-pressed. What this legislation will do is make sure that the next rung of postal workers will be even more hard-pressed and will join that class of citizens who are in debt.

In many ways, it is a manufactured crisis. We have been following a number of situations throughout North America and across the western world where we in fact have a manufactured crisis. A lot of Canadians are concerned about the manufactured crisis in health care when in fact, if our governments would intervene, we could solve access to health care, access to child care, and equitable access to advanced education.

I just want to share with the members some of the feedback I have received from my constituents. As there is limited time, I will provide one of the most heartwarming stories that was passed on to me.

One of my constituents phoned my constituency office and decried the action taken against the postal workers. She talked about last winter. We had a record snowfall and cold temperatures, and then a huge melt, with ice and major water to walk through, and still those postal workers continued to deliver the mail. She was particularly heartened and almost in tears at the fact that her postal worker kept in touch with a senior neighbour who was not picking up her mail and then managed to get neighbours to intervene. The woman was really ill and they were able to intervene.

We are talking about human beings here. They are not just numbers. They are real people who deliver an incredible service to fellow Canadians. I think that should be kept front and centre in this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague did, I too wish to thank you, and all of the speakers, deputy speakers and staff, including the staff on the Hill, for their patience and perseverance in continuing to make sure this democratic process continues and functions. My sincere thanks to you.

Similar to my colleague the member for Trinity—Spadina, who just spoke, I suppose it is my propensity as a lawyer to start with the legislation. I looked up the legislation that gives a mandate to Canada Post. It may be of interest to the House to learn what the statute provides for Canada Post in the way it is charged to deliver the service of providing mail service to Canadians.

How do we view this bill that the government has put forward in light of the legislative mandate to that institution? Under the object section of that legislation, it states in section 5(2):

While maintaining basic customary postal service, the Corporation, in carrying out its objective, shall have regard to...the need to conduct its operations in such manner as will best provide for the security of mail;

In other words, it is to give priority to the continuing functioning of the postal service and ensuring all families, small businesses, large businesses, the House of Commons receive their mail in a timely manner.

Secondly, they must give regard to “the desirability of utilizing the human resources of the Corporation...”, in other words the postal workers, “in a manner that will both attain the objects of the Corporation”, which is to ensure that we all receive timely, effective mail service, “and ensure the commitment and dedication of its employees to the attainment of those objects.”

A reasonable person would interpret that to mean that in establishing the delivery system and its salary bases, and in establishing the rules of operation for the workers, they need to make sure they have well-paid, healthy workers who will continue to deliver the function of Canada Post.

Regrettably the actions of Canada Post in locking out its workers, and the bill before our House, I would suggest go exactly against the purposes and intents of the legislation that Canada Post is operating under.

Clearly Canada Post has the power to open the doors to its institution. Clearly the government has the power to direct Canada Post to unlock the doors and continue the mail service.

Secondly, what has deeply concerned me and many of the members in this House, the public, and the constituents we are hearing from, is the tone set for this debate.

I am used to being vilified personally by some of the members across the way. In the last Parliament I was used to being vilified every time I stood up. The screaming and harassment actually encouraged me to speak out more.

However, what I do not have patience for is the vilification of my constituents, many of whom include postal workers. What I found particularly offensive in this debate is that I heard very few references from the other side about how we value our postal workers, how important they are to the continuation of the economic recovery of this country, and how every family member and every business in this country values those efforts. Towards the end of my remarks I am going to give some examples of the high regard my community holds their postal workers in.

Many have raised concern with the opening remarks by the Minister of Labour about setting the over 40,000 postal workers against Canadians.

I would really appreciate when the minister returns that she take back that remark, apologize, and commend the postal workers for their work by saying that postal workers are also Canadians and that we value their contribution to our society.

There is of course also the vilification of my fellow members of the official opposition, labelling us as communists, and labelling the senior union officers in the postal union as thugs. Only a few moments ago I had the opportunity of meeting two of those people and I could not meet two individuals further from that. I am advised that in the case of a lockout or a strike, they do not receive pay. That is hardly being a thug. They are not benefiting from speaking on behalf of their members.

I have been very disappointed by that language. Generally speaking, the dialogue has been what I would consider the type of dialogue that should occur in the House of Commons, but I found some of the language extremely distasteful, and regrettable for my constituents who have been listening.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a question I have been wanting to put for quite some time and I would be interested to hear the hon. member's response.

Earlier in the evening, the Associate Minister of National Defence raised a very interesting point which I am not sure really came home to everyone in the chamber. He suggested that the salaries that had been negotiated for the postal workers should be clawed back to the level proposed in the legislation because they would be more comparable to private couriers. Perhaps he showed his hand out of turn from what the PMO would have wanted. It leads me to believe that this is the first step. Maybe the Conservatives are setting the salary range for a sell-off and to privatize Canada Post.

We have been informed in this House that it is a mere $857.50 per postal worker that they are seeking. I have just learned that the government, along with the Government of Alberta, have just gifted almost $1 billion to Shell for one project to try to meet its carbon target.

The government can give $1 billion to Shell, but it cannot give $857.50 to a postal worker? Would the member like to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member speaking clearly from his heart with very commendable comments. I know he and my other colleagues feel clearly in our hearts that we are here to represent all of our constituents.

While I have been here, I have not heard members on the other side debate their reasons. They will stand and ask questions, but I have not heard debate. It is very rich that they criticize the postal workers who are locked out and say that it is their fault.

There has been a record rate of bankruptcy in my province of small businesses. Rural post offices have been shut down. The services in the cities have been limited. Where have the Conservatives been for the small business people for the last three years?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the ongoing dilemma, which is why we are here until the wee hours of the morning. Our responsibility is to oppose the government when we think that it is proposing legislation that goes against the interests of the broader public.

The big issue here is what the public interest is. Is the public interest to protect an employer against the employees? Is it to protect some people who are discouraged at not receiving their mail? Is it the right to a fair wage? What is the public interest? Surely we have a responsibility to think of all people in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat what many before me have said. We have put forward the solution, which is to end the lockout.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. A number of speakers here are worried that the agenda is much larger than the legislation may suggest. In reply, I would have to say that this may well be evidence of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members in the House are tired at this point, but it is our duty to be here to speak on behalf of our constituents regardless of our opinion.

As this is my first moment in the House to be giving a brief speech, I want to thank the constituents of Edmonton--Strathcona for re-electing me and for having the confidence in me to represent their interests in the House.

As have all of my colleagues in the House, I too have received quite a few emails, and some letters too. I do not know if those came by passenger pigeon; I thought those went via the way of the dodo.

As members on both sides of the House have said, our constituents are deeply concerned that they are not receiving their pension cheques, their old age security cheques, their provincial welfare cheques, disability assistance cheques and so forth. We all share that concern.

And we all share the concerns of the various non-governmental organizations that our communities depend on. They depend on government cheques for grants and donations and the campaigns they run in order to gather funding.

I am gratified by some of my constituents who have raised concerns about the impact of the strike on their businesses but nonetheless they have congratulated me on my re-election. They respect my determination and principles, wish me luck and tell me to keep up the great work.

Those are the kinds of constituents I have in Edmonton--Strathcona. They understand that we deal with difficult issues. They understand that there are pushes and pulls between employers, employees and unions. There are those who are not necessarily for unions and would like to strike the unions down.

One of the things that has troubled me in this debate is the suggestion by members on the other side of the House that somehow we are doing something importune by continuing this debate into the wee hours. Let us remember that it is the government that is trying to force this legislation through in a rushed manner. We were forced to resort to mechanisms to represent our constituents and those who are going to be impacted by this repressive legislation.

I too share, with my colleagues from Jonquière—Alma and Scarborough—Rouge River, the concern about the suggestion that we on this side of the House only care about people who work in unions. There is a bit of hypocrisy there. There have been complaints that my fellow caucus members are not speaking to the subject of the legislation. At the same time they accuse us of only representing the interests of union workers. They cannot have it both ways.

As some members have reminded the House, we are talking about legislation that is going to affect the rights and privileges of union members, particularly union members who are postal workers. Therefore it is logical that if members are speaking to the bill then that is what they would address.

In no way does that mean that our members, or any member in the House, do not care about people who work in any place of employment, whether they are sole proprietors, lawyers in a law firm, surgeons or dentists, working in a corner grocery store or a large corporation, or they are miners or farmers. Surely all Canadians have rights and privileges, and we have the responsibility to protect those rights and privileges.

I would remind the House that we are discussing a particular piece of legislation that the government has tabled in the House. By the way, it was at the last minute and just before we were about to adjourn.

I am also deeply troubled by the suggestion that we are either for seniors or for private entrepreneurs, or we are for union workers. Surely our responsibility as elected members is to represent every Canadian equally and to make sure their rights and interests are protected.

I heard a lot of discussion in the House about protecting the rights of various members who run businesses themselves, but I have not heard a lot about the people who are working for those businesses and whether provisions are in place to protect the rights and interests of those workers.

As a number of members on my side of the House have mentioned, it is through the organized labour movement that we have the right to practise what some members in this House call family values.

What are family values? Surely it is the right for people to have time off from employment to spend with their children, with elderly parents, to visit them in their retirement homes, to travel across the country and visit cousins.

That is what these workers are fighting for: the right to have extended time off. It is my understanding that what is being proposed is to limit the time off from work. That does not sound like family values to me.

We have heard in the House over the past week about the reports of rising family debt. Yet, the proposal in the government legislation is to reduce the salary levels below even what the employer was offering. The result down the line is that we will have even more family debt. Surely every Canadian should have the right to a livable wage.

If we do not ensure that the employers are providing a livable wage, somewhere down the line the taxpayers will have to supplement that. That is why we fight for a livable wage. People prefer to work hard and earn that livable wage. They do not want to have to turn to one order of government or another to supplement them, or to turn to a food bank.

We have heard the discussions by some hon. members that even some of our veterans, who have served valiantly overseas in defending the freedoms of our country or other countries, are now having to turn to food banks. We need to make sure that all workers, our armed forces, RCMP, police officers, postal workers, nurses, have a livable wage.

It troubles me very deeply. I am getting the sense that some employees should have rights and that some employees do not deserve those rights.

I want to give hon. members a concrete example of where unions have stood up for the kinds of workers that the government has been promoting: temporary foreign workers. In the province I come from there were tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers brought in. Who was looking after their interests? It was the unions that stood up and came to the forefront. They offered free legal assistance to these workers where the governments had dropped the ball.

Both orders of government dropped the ball on that. Who was looking after the interests of workers who were working for private businesses and big corporations? The government was not there for them; it was the unions that stepped up to the plate.

The unions had no interest in protecting foreign workers who could potentially replace their own members' employment, but they fought for proper inspections to ensure the rights of the temporary foreign workers were being respected. That is the value of the unions.

I have never been a member of a union. I have not done union work or labour work in my practice. That does not mean that I do not respect the work of my colleagues. I have great respect for my colleagues who have done this work. It is tough, hard, arduous work to be at those negotiation tables. It is a very valuable role to play, whether one is on the management side or the employee side. I think we should respect the advances that have been made in this country.

I have had the honour and privilege of working overseas in countries where we trade, and these rights and privileges do not exist. These are the kinds of countries where we are exporting products like asbestos. Daily I would go to my work and I would see the workers in bare feet going to construction sites. They were not provided with boots. They had no helmets, no proper clothing, no proper way to wash and no union protections. In fact in most cases, if they tried to unionize, they would be beaten.

We are very fortunate in this country. We are very fortunate that a lot of those who work in the unions have freely been offering their assistance to other nations to make sure they have the same rights and opportunities.

Why is that important? It is very important to an operation, whether it is a mine, a petrochemical industry or an agricultural operation, to have proper working conditions and health and safety. An organization has to maintain a healthy workforce in order to deliver its product.

We should be honouring these workers who are willing to stand up against a major employer. It is not easy to stand up to against a major employer.

I have to say that I find--

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

Madam Speaker, I turn to the question that was put earlier to the hon. member, and to the tone of my colleague across the floor to our party generally, about the kind of approach we would take in making decision if we were in government. What troubles me is the government does not seem to be taking into consideration the people who are hurt by this legislation and by previous government decisions.

I sat in the House in the last Parliament and heard colleague after colleague say that their rural post offices were being shut down. In my constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona, Canada Post is threatening to reduce the hours of the post office, closing it at 5:00 p.m. Workers cannot get to the post office by then. The government talks about seniors being able to mail a letter or seniors who have to go back to work. How will they get to the post office to mail their letters and buy their stamps? Could the member speak to the bigger issue of public interest?

I come from a province where this is an ongoing debate, and the debate is becoming quite serious. When the government makes decisions in the public interest, of whom is it really thinking?

One has to think about the ramifications of a decision like locking out the postal workers in a situation when some of the complaints by the postal workers are hours of work being reduced and post offices being shut down so there will be less work. It is not just a case of wages and pensions, they are seriously concerned about the continued delivery of this public service.