Nycole Turmel

[Hon. Jack Layton, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House beside an empty chair. In it sat a great Canadian, a great leader and a great parliamentarian.

In this chair sat a friend, and I know that many hon. members on both sides of this esteemed House called him the same.

This House of Commons and this country have suffered an incredible loss, and it is with great sadness that we begin this new parliamentary session by paying tribute to the very hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, Jack Layton.

I know that all members join me in offering our sincere condolences to the family of our late colleague: to his wife and soulmate, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina; to his mother Doris; to his brothers and sisters, Bob, David and Nancy; to his son Michael, his daughter Sarah and his granddaughter Beatrice, a mere mention of whom would bring a sparkle to the eyes of the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. I want to let each of them know that they will always have our love and endless support.

I believe that the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Jack Layton's own member of Parliament, deserves particular recognition by the House today for her courage, grace and composure in these most difficult times. She has my utmost admiration and love.

Last week, Jack Layton's family presented me with two eagle feathers. These were feathers that he kept in his office and that were sacred to him. He often held these feathers when he had to make important decisions. They reminded him to think of the people and nature around him and to think about the impact our decisions will have on future generations.

These feathers were given to me as leader of the New Democratic Party so that Jack Layton's spirit and the wisdom that guided him may also guide our party. When I accepted these feathers, I made a commitment to his family, as I am now making a commitment to all Canadians, to always follow the path that he set out for us.

Rarely, if ever, has the House seen as passionate, tireless and committed an advocate for the less fortunate as Jack Layton. Day after day he fought for the little guy. He strove to give a voice to those without power and wealth and to ensure that as this country moved forward no one was left behind or found himself or herself homeless. In his memory, we will carry on this work.

All who knew him knew the strength of his belief that young people held the key to the gates of a better Canada and a better world. He worked tirelessly to reach out to young people, to engage them in politics and to ensure their perspectives and their best hopes for our country were reflected in our national dialogue. In Jack Layton's memory, we will carry on this work.

He was also just as determined to ensure that all new Canadians receive a warm welcome in our country and to build better relationships with our first nations communities, relationships based on respect. In Jack Layton's memory, we will carry on this work.

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth was motivated by an unwavering belief that, by respecting the hopes and dreams of the residents of his province of birth and by focusing the debate on what unites the people of this country and what we can accomplish when we all work together, we could build a stronger and more united country with the help of Quebeckers.

His faith in this principle remained unshaken, despite the cynicism that has crept into federal politics over the past 20 years. In Jack's memory, we will carry on this work.

Jack was motivated by the goal of leaving our children and grandchildren a greener world; a world free from climate change; a world with clean land, clean rivers and fresh air; a world where people interact with nature in a sustainable manner. In Jack's memory, we will carry on this work.

Jack Layton believed so much in the power of democracy and of this Parliament. I invite all hon. members of this House to join with me in picking up his torch and making this an institution of which Canadians can be proud.

Jack Layton improved the tone of the debate in Parliament. He firmly believed we could have passionate disagreements without being disrespectful or disgraceful to each other. Let us all honour his memory by conducting the next session of Parliament in this spirit. Let us always put the interests of Canadians before our own partisan interests, as Jack Layton would want us to do.

Never was Jack more proud than when he was able to work with others across the aisle to serve Canadian families. He considered his work with his Liberal colleagues to pass a better balanced budget one of his greatest legislative legacies. He was equally proud of his work with the members opposite in securing help for more than 90,000 out-of-work families in their time of need and in making the apology for residential schools a reality. By his own words, Jack Layton was always more interested in proposition than opposition.

Let this spirit live within each of us as we get down to work for Canadians in these very tough times.

Canadians' response to Jack Layton's death demonstrated the great love they had for him. In Montreal, where he was born, in Toronto, where he lived, here in Ottawa and all across the country, Canadians gathered to celebrate his life.

The stories they shared and the messages they wrote in chalk on the pavement all had a common theme, and that theme was hope. Hope that it is possible to build a better Canada. Hope that, by working together, we can face the challenges before us. Hope that it is possible to build a stronger and more united country. Hope that, although none of us is perfect, together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

I hope that this will be Jack Layton's greatest legacy and that we will all commit to making his vision a reality.

There is a code which has been inscribed into the hearts of many Canadians. I would like to have it inscribed into our official records today. Let it be a motto for this country and for this esteemed House now and forevermore.

My friends, love is better than anger, hope is better than fear, optimism is better than despair; so let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic and we will change the world.

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

Madam Chair, I rise today in this House to speak in favour of the proposed amendment. This amendment aims to correct one of the worst elements of this defective bill. If this bill is not corrected, it will impose an employment contract that includes a salary lower than the employer’s final offer. This section of the bill is an attack on the principles of collective bargaining, one of the most fundamental aspects of our rights as entrenched in the Charter. This is a clear signal to all employers in the country that they are no longer obliged to bargain in good faith. Thus, if it is not possible to arrive at a negotiated agreement, do not worry, because this government is going to use a bill to negotiate even lower salaries on behalf of the employer. What the employer is unable to negotiate, Ottawa will impose on you.

This is a dangerous precedent. At this moment, all over Canada, nurses, firefighters and police officers are asking themselves whether they will be next on the list. If they do this to the postal workers, after Canada Post has made millions of dollars in profits, and the managers accept those offers, who is going to be their next target?

Targeting workers is nothing short of contempt on the part of this government. It is not the proper thing to do, and we will oppose every such attempt by the Conservatives. This amendment would restore the salary increases that were proposed in the employer's last offer. It does not reflect what workers want, but what management proposed, nothing more and nothing less. This amendment would eliminate the most unfair and unacceptable provision in this bill, and I urge all hon. members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have half a day to explain the difference between the two. Personally, I think I am a socialist. I represent and advocate for the rights of workers, unionized or not, and of the general public, like disadvantaged people or the unemployed. This is my goal, and those are the principles and values I was taught by my parents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for her question.

As a matter of fact, I raised this in my remarks. The board of directors of the Canada Post Corporation was certainly not present when cuts in rural and remote areas were discussed, at a time when the corporation was profitable. Canada Post has brought a universal benefit to Canada. At the same time, the board of directors does not answer to the general public. And unlike union leaders, directors are not elected. I used to be a union leader. I was elected every three years by all members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and I am very proud of that.

Where was the board of directors? Maybe the Conservatives should ask this question and hold the board to account for the future mail delivery, both in rural and in urban settings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that the New Democratic Party, its members and its workers have a great deal of respect for small businesses. Incidentally, we had an opposition day to discuss the future of these businesses.

We are asking for the resumption of talks between the parties. We agree that the collective agreement of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers should apply so that mail can be delivered. But Canada Post, with the support of this government, locked the doors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. member later as to the salary of the president of CUPW.

According to the House, today is still June 23 and we are respecting our commitment to Canadians to defend the rights of the public and CUPW workers.

In my riding of Hull—Aylmer, this is a big weekend full of festivities to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste day. I would once again like to take this opportunity to wish my constituents a very happy holiday. Enjoy it. Have fun with your family and friends. It is very important.

I would really like to join them this weekend, but the government has made decisions that go against a fundamental principle of natural justice: the right to free expression, the right to organize, the right to a fair and decent pension, the right of young workers to the same rights and not to a two-tiered society.

These young people will have different conditions within the same work environment. Is that fair? No. That is why we are here today and will be tomorrow and in the coming days if necessary.

The decisions made by this government and Canada Post management affect one specific group of workers. That is true, but if we accept these decisions, who will be next? That is the question. It will be you, me and everyone else, unionized or not.

Let us recap. We have an obligation to advocate for the rights of the public, to represent the public in cases that affect them—that is our obligation.

The management of Canada Post simply cannot argue that it does not have the money to pay its employees. Would the chairman of the board of Canada Post Corporation agree to the same increases, rather than receiving compensation commensurate with that of the best CEO of a crown corporation? Contrary to what has been suggested, the chairman of CUPW currently earns less than $100,000. I can guarantee you that.

Will the chairman of Canada Post Corporation turn down his 30% bonus to help the public and the corporation, and lead by example? No, he will not. If you ask the public whether they support the bonuses given to the heads of banks and big corporations, they will tell you that they do not, that much is certain.

What is the government doing? Is it not time for it to take action against the bonuses paid out in banks and big corporations? No, instead it launches an attack on public service and crown corporation employees. Do they take pleasure in going after workers?

Canada Post made $1.2 billion in profit over the past 15 years. At the same time, Canada has the lowest tariff structure of any industrialized country in the world.

In Germany, it costs 78¢ to send a letter. In Sweden 95¢, and in Canada, only 59¢.

This government and the management of Canada Post is sending a clear message to workers: we do not appreciate these negotiations and do not wish to waste our time respecting you and your right to bargain; we do not agree with the decisions made by the 55,000 workers, nor do we accept their right to strike. I should point out that it was a rotating strike, which meant Canadians continued to receive their mail.

This government quite obviously took sides, allowed Canada Post to put a lock on its door thereby denying Canadians an important service: delivery of their mail.

This government is denying small businesses the same service. The government tries to justify its actions. It tells us that the economy is at stake and that the service is essential.

Yes, we agree: mail carriers should be able to work and that is what they want to do. They also want their collective agreement to be upheld. The fact is that this very same employer—who is depriving employees of their rights, who locked the door, and is depriving Canadians of an important service, namely delivery of their mail—is telling us that this service is important.

I would like to ask a question. Where was this government when services were cut over the past 10 years?

I have a quote on this subject:

In recent years, we have seen dramatic cuts to service as senior managers have focused on commercial rather than public interest objectives. Post offices have been closed, red mailboxes have been removed from our streets and rural mailbox delivery has been taken away; all with very little in the way of notice or consultation.

Additional attacks on our public postal service will occur if management continues in this current direction. Canada Post is investing $2 billion in a modernization program that further threatens services and jobs. The corporation also plans on privatizing the National Philatelic and customer contact centres. These actions all run counter to our collective role in providing a quality public postal service.

I would also like to add that at the last strategic review meeting, the advisory committee noted that Canadian public opinion was unambiguous on the following point: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It was remarked that the privatization and deregulation of postal services in other countries was not successful and that Canada should not experiment with other options or solutions when the current approach works. Somebody even remarked that he liked reliable, recognized, affordable and universal postal services.

It is my opinion that the federal government is trying to fix something that already works well. One of the main reasons Canadians support Canada Post and the current postal system is that they know it is reliable and it guarantees the security and confidentiality of their correspondence, a point that was made in several briefs.

Today, we are asking for the locks to be taken off, for a return to the bargaining table, and for respect for the current collective agreements and for workers across Canada. Let us be proud of our public services and of what the workers, unionized or not, have achieved over the years.

I would also like to mention another item that was raised: the vote. The Minister of Labour can, at any time, call for a vote. Why has she not done so? That answers one of the questions asked this morning.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that this government has acted shamelessly. What does the government want to privatize? Canada Post—and while they are at it, every other public service—thereby depriving the public of well-run and essential services? At the same time, the government allows the CEOs of big companies, as I said before, to receive exorbitant bonuses on top of their salaries. Is that what we want to leave our children, our grandchildren and society in general? That is not part of my value system. That is not what I want to leave my children and grandchildren. I am convinced that the general public does not want our youth to inherit that either.

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

Madam Speaker, we talk a lot about the services of Canada Post. The opposition talks a lot about the lack of services or the economic impact of this strike or this lockout.

I want to know from my colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North what happened in the past with the lack of service and the reduction of services by Canada Post? I want to know the impact on rural communities and his constituency of Canada Post's decisions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Yes, the right of women to stay in the labour market, the right to work, had a significant impact. As I mentioned, women in my generation had to leave the workforce when they were pregnant. Today, women finally have the fundamental right to work, to have children and to raise a family. As a result, they receive salaries and benefits, and thereby can also contribute to the economy of their regions and of their communities, which is very important for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments and questions about solutions. We have said it many times and I repeat it: Go back to the table. Let the process of collective bargaining go on. That is what we are asking for.

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

Mr. Speaker, like a number of hon. members, I have been hearing that, since 1991, the Conservative government and the Liberal government in office at the time have denied the rights of workers and have overused back-to-work legislation to prevent workers from having the right to fair and equitable collective bargaining.