Linda Duncan

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. There is so much noise across the way I cannot hear my colleague who is immediately adjacent to me speak.

[Business of Supply, June 22nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, as it is the first time I am speaking in the House, I would like to thank the voters of Edmonton—Strathcona for electing me. I am raising attention to that because there are many small businesses in my riding who have been fighting to get the federal government to support them in building their energy efficiency small businesses.

I would like to clarify for the record that the hon. member has long been a spokesperson for small business in this House. It is not a new interest that he is raising, and he is the appropriate person to raise the matter.

As the member has also spoken about that area of enterprise, I wonder if he thinks it is appropriate for us to also get the government to support the continuity of the energy efficiency sector, including reducing its taxes.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, today, on National Aboriginal Day, we reflect on the struggles and achievements of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

As parliamentarians we must deliver on the commitments under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit have issued calls for investment in education. As National Chief Shawn Atleo has said, “Now is the time to realize Shannen's dream”.

Will the government, today, commit to equitable access to quality education for all children?

[National Aboriginal Day, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is National Aboriginal Day. Under the umbrella of KAIROS, more than 200 representatives of Canadian church congregations today join aboriginal representatives in dramatically demonstrating their nationwide support for our action on the rights and interests of all of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Both church representatives and aboriginal leaders have reminded us that the outstanding international commitments to the rights of indigenous peoples needs action now.

The Auditor General has reported that not only has the government failed to act on the majority of the recommendations made over the last decade, conditions have worsened for first nations housing, education and basic necessities of life, a disparity he found unacceptable in a country as rich as Canada.

However, I am confident that together with the New Democrat aboriginal commission, we will bring heightened energy and attention to the significant challenges facing Canadian first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

I encourage all members of the House to join us in tomorrow's celebrations.

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has basically summed up any remarks I would have made.

I wanted to extend particular appreciation from the Edmonton Libyan community, which has held a series of rallies in Edmonton in which I participated. All along it has called for and asked for the support of Canada in exactly the way the amended motion calls for.

This request is coming from the fathers, husbands, women and children who are very concerned about their families in the communities in Libya. I know we will be very grateful for the continued support and intervention so long as that intervention is limited to and extended to providing humanitarian support and being there for the purpose of protecting the families of Libya.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP rationalizes spy operations due to mounting frustrations with unresolved land claims and conflicts over treaty, hunting and fishing rights, environmental impacts, sovereignty issues, and economic and social concerns.

Surely Canadians would agree it is reasonable to be frustrated when their children lack clean drinking water, access to safe schools and decent housing.

When will the government get its priorities straight and focus its efforts on ensuring the well-being of aboriginal peoples?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Auditor General's report that the government has turned a blind eye to first nations, we discover it has an eye on them after all, a covert surveillance operation.

A document entitled “Aboriginal Hot Spots and Public Safety” reveals that INAC, RCMP and CSIS have spied on so-called aboriginal hot spots. It is not about guns and drugs. It is about aboriginal disputes over lands, resources, fisheries and budget shortfalls.

Will this covert surveillance continue despite the newly announced first nations joint action plan?

[The Budget, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on her election and her fabulous first speech in the House of Commons. I have to share with the House that after meeting the member, her enthusiasm cannot help but brush off on one.

I welcome all of the young members to this House, particularly for their great verve and enthusiasm.

During the period when I was elected in 2008 and during my involvement in the election, I have heard a lot of concerns from youth in my riding, where I have three university campuses. The youth have expressed great concern about the record rate of youth and student unemployment in the last summer; the imbalance in federal investment and support for one side of the economy and not for the other, that being the massive subsidies to the oil and gas sector, benefiting the economy to a certain extent in my province but raising concerns about the long-term costs and liabilities; and they expressed a lot of interest in getting into the renewable energy and energy efficiency sector.

I wonder if the member could share some of the input and thoughts she received from her constituents about youth and future employment, and about the economies of the future in terms of renewable energy and energy conservation.