Linda Duncan

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca were very cogent and thoughtful. I enjoy having him as part of my caucus.

The member spoke of the issue, as a number of my colleagues have, about concerns on how the proposed legislation strays from already binding commitments by this nation to international law.

First, there seems to be a pattern under the current government to move away from international obligations commitments. There was a comment earlier today from the other side about why the UN did not do the job. Part of the actions with the UN is stepping up to the plate and signing and ratifying international conventions. When we sign and ratify, we are committing that we will abide by those. Could the member speak to that?

The second issue is that this is the second step taken in substantially altering our immigration and refugee system long policy in Canada. The first measure was to massively open the doors to serve certain sectors and bring in tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers and then say that if they came in as a temporary foreign worker, they should not bother applying for their permanent citizenship or bring their families to contribute to society in the long term.

Could the member speak to those issues and the implications of this proposed law?

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

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the issue of where the credibility is, I could share a letter from one of my constituents, written to the Prime Minister and copied to me. It says:

This is to express my disgust at the way that the postal strike has been handled. Forcing postal employees back to work at a cut in salary and a salary less than that agreed to by Canada Post can hardly be considered just and fair. Our postal employees deserve better than this. The astronomical fines they are threatened with if they don't return to work also does nothing to help the situation. Why were they locked out? They made sure that important cheques to seniors, etc., were delivered during their rotating strikes. I think this exhibited good faith, much better than that shown by the government.

[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.