Bill C-33 (Historical)

Protecting Air Service Act

An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations

This enactment provides for the continuation and resumption of air service operations and imposes a final arbitration selection process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties.

Protecting Air Service Act

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

moved that Bill C-33, An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker, the labour disputes between Air Canada and the two unions, the Air Canada Pilots Association and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, IAMAW, have continued for the past year. They have moved through the many stages of collective bargaining, from direct negotiations to requesting and receiving support from both myself and the labour program. This includes the appointment of conciliators and mediators at various stages.

Just last month, I was very happy to hear that Air Canada had successfully ratified collective agreements with three of its unions, which represented flight dispatchers, in-flight service and flight operations crew scheduling personnel.

Air Canada and the IAMAW bargaining unit had also reached a tentative agreement, and it seemed to be one that was strong.

At the time the union's negotiators said that the deal provided “wage and premium increases, improved benefits and secures a defined benefit pension fund for the members”.

The conciliator commissioner whom I appointed said, “The tentative agreement is reasonable and fair”, and, “Under the full circumstances, I consider that a reasonable agreement had been reached”.

However, the union membership did not agree, and on February 22, the union announced that the deal was rejected by 65.6% of its members, and they also voted 78% in favour of strike action. Talks between the IAMAW and Air Canada broke down on March 5. On March 6, the union gave notice that on March 12, it intended to exercise its legal right to strike.

For the pilots, things had seemed promising for Air Canada and the Air Canada Pilots Association. In fact, in April 2011, through direct negotiations, not utilizing the services of Labour Canada, a tentative agreement was reached. While it was rejected, negotiations did not recommence until November 2011.

As they moved through the process, I met with the parties twice in February and found that they were committed to working together to reach an agreement that was in the best interests of the airline, the employees and Canadians.

At those meetings, specifically on February 6, it was suggested, having noted how far apart the parties were and how little time was left, that the parties agree to interest-based arbitration to bring the matter to a close.

While Air Canada accepted the process, the pilots rejected the solution outright. As a result, to further facilitate their efforts, I offered them a special six-month extended mediation process with two co-mediators appointed to the file. This time they both accepted my offer and began meetings with their mediators. However, things did not progress--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will just ask all hon. colleagues who need to carry on conversations to do so outside the chamber. The Minister of Labour has the floor and some members have indicated they are having trouble hearing the minister. Could members keep the noise down. Members are free to use either of the two lobbies conveniently located on either side of the chamber in order that the Minister of Labour can be heard.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for requesting order in the House while I was speaking. I appreciate that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I wanted to hear you talk.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you.

As I was indicating, however, things have not progressed toward a negotiated agreement between the pilots and Air Canada. Indeed, after the first meeting with the mediators, I received a notice, unfortunately, from the external mediator assigned to the file to indicate that she was resigning. She wrote this:

I should also mention to you that I am very surprised that the first session of mediation has been made public by ACPA in its entirety. It is a well known ground rule that mediation is a confidential process. Failure to observe confidentiality will not help the resolution of the dispute and will make it impossible for a mediator to function effectively as a neutral.

Air Canada tabled a final offer to the pilots union on March 8, 2012. The ACPA issued a press release stating that while Air Canada pilots would vote on this final offer from their employer, the association recommended that the pilots reject the offer and send the message to their employer to get serious about negotiations. On that same date, Air Canada advised that it intended to lock out the pilots as of March 12 as well.

I would like to be clear on this: Resorting to a work stoppage is not the norm for labour disputes in Canada. There are over 300 collective agreements negotiated in the federal jurisdiction each year and over 94% of these are settled without a work stoppage ever taking place. These agreements would not have been reached without the good faith efforts of the parties involved. It is also important that employers and the unions carefully consider maintaining the strength, viability and competitiveness of their company while continuing to work closely together to negotiate a deal, because work stoppages and labour instability can only lead to long-term impacts on the future of their company, on job prospects, on Canadians and the economy as a whole.

I have personally seen cases where this commitment at the table has provided results. As an example, the ILWU decided early in its negotiations with the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association that it did not want a work stoppage to occur. It understood that it could result in a loss of jobs for its members, and it also understood the importance of the Pacific gateway to the economic prosperity of the country. Both sides remembered throughout their negotiations that the economic health of their companies was of vital importance, and this helped the parties work together to reach two historic eight-year agreements.

When parties commit to working together co-operatively and keep the shared interests of both workers and the business as their foundation for all decisions, strong labour–management relations and lasting collective agreements are the result. The bottom line is that negotiated agreements do work.

The best and longest-lasting solution to any labour dispute occurs when the parties resolve their differences together without a strike or a lockout. However, there are cases where the parties are just too far apart to reach this compromise. These are cases where concessions on either side will be deemed just not enough because of the longstanding history of disputes, because of economic factors or for a variety of reasons that we hear today. In situations where there is no resolution in sight, where work stoppages are being proposed and the lives of Canadians and the health of the economy will be directly affected, the government must act and that is why we are proposing legislation to prevent these work stoppages.

I truly believe in the right to free collective bargaining and I would prefer in every case to see labour disputes resolved by the parties involved and not by government intervention. The federal government only intervenes in situations where the public interest is seriously threatened. This is true, for example, when the national economy could be adversely affected by the threat of a work stoppage. Unfortunately, that means we need to pass this bill to avert a work stoppage at Air Canada. Therefore, I am asking for this House to support Bill C-33, An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations.

Last June, there was a three-day strike by Air Canada's customer sales and service agents and I am glad to say that it was quickly resolved by the parties and that the harm caused to Canadians was limited.

Also in 2011, our government introduced and passed the Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act because of the crucial economic importance of reliable mail delivery. I should mention that this legislation was supported by hon. members on the other side of the House, who also saw the potential danger to our economy of the threatened work stoppage. Again, Canadian workers and businesses, as well as citizens in general, were spared the continued hardships that an interruption in the mail could cause.

Today we are facing the prospect of work stoppages at Air Canada that would damage our economy. Once again, we have to take extraordinary measures. Just as it did last year, the spectre of a strike or a lockout at Air Canada is causing confusion and doubt where we need stability and certainty. I would ask the members in the House to ask their constituents or in fact anyone in Canada right now and they will hear what I have been hearing, that we cannot afford a work stoppage. It is that simple. The risks are too great and we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to act.

Let us talk a bit about the risks of a work stoppage. I have referred the matter of maintenance of activities to the Canada Industrial Relations Board because there is the possibility that health and safety issues could be created by a work stoppage. The CIRB will review each case independently and determine if a work stoppage would pose a threat to the safety or health of the public, and if so, it can issue orders that would compel Air Canada and the unions to continue services to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public during a work stoppage.

While the CIRB is considering the case, the parties are prevented from proceeding with a strike or a lockout, but once a decision is made a work stoppage could still occur. We cannot let this happen. That is why our government is introducing this bill, to prevent a work stoppage and compel the parties to accept binding arbitration. We are not happy about bringing this legislation forward, but this measure is necessary because vital interests are at stake.

As I said before, as parliamentarians we have to take a stand on the issue. We need to take a stand for Canada's economy, Canada's businesses and for Canadian citizens.

Like other industrialized economies around the world, Canada is coming out of a difficult recession. Our government is proud of its record of sheltering Canadians from the worst effects of this downturn. We have laid the foundation for recovery. However, the economy remains fragile and we know that our country is not immune to the problems affecting greater nations. There could always be more turbulence, but our government is committed to taking the necessary actions to protect Canadians, to create jobs and to lay the foundations for long-term growth.

As of March 2012, our unemployment rate stood at 7.4%, a definite improvement over last year and considerably lower than the rate in the United States of 8.5%. More people are working now than before the recession hit. However, to maintain our progress and promote economic growth we need to be careful. We cannot afford to have labour disruptions in this major Canadian industry. A labour stoppage in this key sector of our economy would be a serious impediment to recovery and growth. A prolonged work stoppage at Air Canada could negatively affect our economy. Indeed, estimates of the overall impact of the stoppage on the Canadian economy vary, but some put it as high as $22.4 million for each week of work stopped.

Consider what this could mean to businesses. A work stoppage at Air Canada would mean the loss of sales at home and abroad. Even a short work stoppage could be costly. To give members an example, in 2005 a one-day wildcat strike involving ground crew workers at Air Canada in Toronto led to 60 flights being delayed and 19 being cancelled. That was only a single day. If we let another work stoppage happen, thousands of Canadians will be affected directly or indirectly because there is more at stake here than the issues on the bargaining table.

The employees represented by the ACPA and IAMAW want to be treated fairly. They demand respect for their rights under the Canada Labour Code, and I understand that. The code does give the parties in a dispute the right to strike or to lock out, but Canadians have rights too. Therefore, I ask my fellow members to stand up for the rights of Canadians and pass this bill.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling Canadians that she does not want this. She is saying to Canadians that 94% of the collective agreement is getting negotiated. That leaves 6%, and for that 6% the government will legislate the workers back to work. That is really what the minister is saying.

The minister is saying that she would like the other party to work with government and so forth. Instead of last-offer bargaining, why not give the power to the arbitrator to make the decision? Let the arbitrator do their job and take the responsibility. I think that is the least the government can do.

At the same time, if the government does not like this, then why does it say in the bill that “No order is to be made, no process is to be entered into and no proceeding is to be taken to court”?

That takes rights away from Canadians. If they do not like the law or feel there has been a misinterpretation of something, Canadians have the fundamental right to go to court. They have the right to seek justice, as the postal workers did and won their case.

Is this in the bill because the postal workers went to court and the arbitrator was thrown out of the negotiations?

The Minister of Labour is now saying that she does not like it but that she has to do it. Why is she going that far? Why do the Conservatives hate workers so much?

I will say it again—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Labour.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to aid the hon. member in the facts, the number of collective agreement negotiations in 2010-11 was 302 and the number of times the federal government was asked for help was 215 times. The number of back to work bills introduced before today was zero. I believe that in and of itself speaks volumes.

With respect to the method of arbitration, a final offer selection is the appropriate measure when negotiations have been going on for this length of time with respect to both the IAMAW and the pilots, which in the case of the pilots was 18 months. In both cases, the parties had a tentative agreement on which they shook hands and agreed. We believe this is the appropriate method to bring closure, certainty and security.

On the last part of his question with respect to the clause in the bill that he quoted, the hon. member should know that this was of course challenged by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and that in January 27, 2012 the constitutionality of this clause was upheld by the court.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister would also know is that the appointment of the arbitrator was challenged. We know the judge's ruling in that particular case with regard to the minister's ability to appoint, without any consultation, an arbitrator. I quote:

In the case at hand, the lack of transparency inherent in the appointment process followed by the Minister, the little evidence or rationale provided by the Minister and the laconic nature of her communications raise serious questions and indicate that the Minister appears to have excluded...relevant criteria....

Is the minister not fearful that the same response will be given by the courts in this case?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not because in the same court case it was very clear that the discretion of the minister in appointing an arbitrator was not impeached.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the minister has put together a process that can be followed to bring some sort of conclusion to these pieces between the parties that they cannot resolve.

If there were a lockout or a strike, there would obviously be a disruption to air service that would cause harm to the Canadian economy. Has there been a work stoppage in the past? Did the government intervene? Was there a time period where economic losses were suffered?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there was a strike of Air Canada pilots in 1998. It was a different climate, and it was a 13-day strike. They were not ordered back to work, and as a result, there was an loss to the economy of around $100 million, and an economic loss to Air Canada of about $300 million at a different point in time. It was also a point in time when there were two national carriers, so the ability of one carrier to pick up the passengers for the other was present.

I think it is important to note that when we are talking about Air Canada with its 26,000 employees, we need to remind ourselves that by comparison General Motors Canada has 9,000 employees and Chrysler Canada has 11,000 employees. Air Canada is far greater than putting those two car companies together. It is also three and a half times larger than WestJet with a total of 330 planes.

The sheer capacity situation, if there were to be a work stoppage at Air Canada, is such that there would not be an ability in this country for the passengers to be accommodated. Indeed, it would have a distinctive effect on the economy of Canada as a whole.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have an email from a Dave Laurin, who happens to be an Air Canada pilot. He says that the Air Canada Pilots Association has not freely negotiated a contract in at least 10 years. For 10 years it has not freely negotiated a contract.

He goes on to say that the employer has tried consistently to get them into some kind of industrial action or wildcat strike so that they could push the pilots into arbitration. As they have publicly stated, they are not interested in striking as they feel it would negatively impact passengers and corporations. They only want a fair contract.

Again, they are saying they want a fair contract. He goes on to say that the last offer included a 10% reduction to a retiree's pension, shame; a 25% cut to an active employee's pension, double shame; and a slight wage increase that would not even cover cost-of-living increases and would still leave them with wages that are well below what they were making in 2000, which they gave up as a concession to help the corporation.

Here we are; we have employees who have given up their wages, have made lots of concessions over the years, and the government is unilaterally forcing them to not be able to bargain.

Again, I want to ask a question. The member for Vancouver South talked about the average, ordinary workers. Do you not think these workers have already given enough concessions? Do you not think they are the average, ordinary workers in Canada?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I do not have a comment to make on that. I would encourage the hon. member to address her comments through the Chair and not directly at the minister.

I will give the floor to the Minister of Labour.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the history of bargaining at Air Canada in the last two rounds since 2003 has been quite fraught with difficulties. In 2003, while under bankruptcy protection, Air Canada looked for relief from its unions. In 2009, again, there were difficulties at the table with respect to pensions.

This current round of negotiations started early and started promising. It has been 18 months, however. While I am sensitive and I appreciate the issues at the bargaining table, those are not mine. We do not pick sides at the bargaining table.

What we are doing is looking after the interests of Canadians on the whole. This is about the economy. This is about the public interest. This is about the travelling public. These things matter. It is a very large organization, and we have to ensure that any kind of shock to the economy is prevented, especially in these fragile times.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of Labour, we are redefining the word “joke”, because what she is telling us here today is a joke. If it is so essential, why does the minister not amend the legislation and make Air Canada an essential service, and then this can go to binding arbitration?

However, with the way this works, she is going to talk to the management at Air Canada and ask them how they can reach an agreement. The bad guys here are the union members.

At some point, we must be pragmatic. In 2003-04, employees made sacrifices worth $2 billion. Meanwhile, people like Milton and Brewer were earning $80 million. As for the new president, not only is his salary $2 million a year, but he will get a $5 million bonus at the end of the month.

Is the government not creating its own little game in order to be able to kill the union and to ensure that management will definitely come out ahead?

At some point, there is a constitutional right we must respect. I agree with the NDP on this issue. The right to negotiate is a constitutional right.

Why does the minister oppose negotiations? If she does not want the two sides to negotiate, what is she waiting for to declare this an essential service?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the way the Canada Labour Code is crafted allows for the overriding Canadian public interest to be taken into consideration in exceptional circumstances. This is an exceptional circumstance.

In the Canada Labour Code, there can be a maintenance of activities, as I mentioned in my remarks, with respect to health and safety.

What matters here today is that what is happening at the bargaining table is separate and apart from what would happen to the Canadian public in the event of a work stoppage. That is what we are acting on, and that is the reason we are bringing this legislation forth this evening. It is because of the economic issues with respect to the greater work of Air Canada, how many people it employs, 26,000 employees, and a 250,000 spinoff from that, who service Air Canada. It is a significant portion of our economy, one that we need to ensure does not have a work stoppage, so we are providing a process for the parties to find their way to collective agreements that are stable and that are certain.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does that mean other parties will be able to split their time too?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Traditionally a member only needs unanimous consent during the opening round. After the opening round, members are free to split their time. I see on my list the member for Cape Breton—Canso is next for the Liberal party. If he wishes to split his time, he would need unanimous consent. It would be up to the House at that time. Is there unanimous consent right now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that things have been going so well that they do not want to hear me speak for 20 minutes.

I think this is déjà vu all over again. It is unfortunate that the workers have to pay the price once again. The minister says that she regrets having to do this and that she does not like being in this position.

Let me start by saying that Air Canada workers have made a lot of concessions over the past 10 years. The minister says that Air Canada was subject to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in 2003, that it still had financial problems in 2009 and that it has been asking the workers to make concessions since 2003. This is the same company that, when it had financial problems, paid $80 million to Robert Milton, the company's former president, in order to leave and move to the United States and another $5 million to the new president. The minister is siding with the employer. I am going to tell you why.

The right to unionize, to bargain and to strike is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I received a letter from a law firm that had written to the Prime Minister. I am not going to read the entire letter, but I am going to read an excerpt that says:

The ability of workers to organize and bargain collectively with their employer in a meaningful fashion is one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society. This right must be upheld and fostered as one of the most fundamental human rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and otherwise.

The right to bargain collectively has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as a Charter protected right. Further, the right to strike has recently been recognized by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench as a right guaranteed by the Charter as part of the freedom of association.

This reference appears not to be to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public, as required by the Code, but to interfere with lawful collective bargaining.

When the minister refers to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board and the Canada Labour Code, it is not about the economy. Protection is provided in the event of health and safety issues, not for economic considerations. Nevertheless, the minister referred the matter to the board because the right to strike is suspended while the board examines the case. She made the request in order to buy some time to pass her bill this evening. The minister says that she is not against the workers and is not taking one side or the other.

Usually, when negotiating a collective agreement, and when there is a conflict such as this and the parties must go to arbitration, you do not submit the final offer. When the final offer is submitted, the employer always wins. In the bill, the Conservatives have even indicated that the arbitrator must take into account competitors in the same category as Air Canada. Throughout the week, the minister said that Air Canada was the only one in its category.

Comparisons to the United States are inevitable. Some will compare salaries earned in Canada to those in the United States. As though it were not enough that the minister is leaving the decision to the arbitrator regarding the collective agreement, she included in the bill what she wants to come out of all this. She is tying the arbitrator's hands.

The bill goes even further: “No order is to be made, no process is to be entered into and no proceeding is to be taken in court: (a) to question the appointment of the arbitrator”. This means that if the minister decides to appoint one of her friends whom the union cannot stand, the union has no recourse. That person would likely be biased, since he or she would be on one party's side. Not only is the government taking away workers' rights, but it is taking away the fundamental right of Canadians and Quebeckers to take their case before a court of law to ensure that justice is done.

Consider the example of Canada Post. This is the same government that legislated to force workers back to work. The workers went to court to challenge the fact that the arbitrator was not bilingual. They wanted a bilingual arbitrator at the bargaining table. The judge found in favour of the workers and the arbitrator was dismissed. That is why the minister introduced a bill to take away Canadians' right to go to court.

I hope that everyone watching us here this evening understands that we simply cannot allow the government to attack a particular group, as it did in the case of Canada Post. Yes, people wanted their mail and their parcels to be delivered by Canada Post; that is only natural. But workers have rights too. The 26,000 workers at Air Canada also have rights. The pilots have rights, and so do the mechanics and baggage handlers. They all have rights. The Conservatives did not hesitate to take away a fundamental right that is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Conservative member has some nerve, saying that it pains her to have to do this. The Prime Minister said he was divided on the issue. I will repeat what I said earlier this week: “Give me a break”. He was not divided. The Conservatives side with the large employers. They did the same thing when they gave huge tax breaks to large corporations, before slashing the services offered to Canadians and trying to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. They have no problem attacking everyone.

My message to Canadians is this: if we allow the Conservatives to go after certain groups here and there, in the end, the Conservatives will attack everyone. We need to come together to tell this government that it is absolutely unacceptable that workers are unable to defend their rights. The Conservatives say that what they are taking away from the workers is only fair. Who has been paying the price at Air Canada for the past 10 years? Who has had no salary increases?

A woman was telling me tonight that her brother or brother-in-law has been a pilot for 12 years and has never had a pay raise, while Robert Milton, the president of the company, left with $80 million in his pocket. Come on. Where is the minister? Where is the Conservative government?

If the government is going to get involved in the bargaining, as it is doing, when there has not yet even been a strike vote—in fact, nothing has happened—and say, before the negotiations have even taken place, that the airplanes will continue to fly and there will not be a strike, what effect does it think that has? It tells the company that it can take what it wants from its employees and that the government will be there to legislate them back to work. It is unbelievable. It is unacceptable.

Who is going to pay the price of these salary freezes and cuts to pension funds later? When the government says it is doing this for the economy, that may be true in the short term. However, in the long term, when people no longer have pensions or they only have half their pensions, when people do not have a good salary to spend in the small and medium-sized businesses in their communities, it is hard on the economy.

It is shameful that the government is again interfering in bargaining and taking away from workers a fundamental right guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our country sends soldiers to war to establish democratic rights and now the government is taking those rights away here at home. The government is even imposing a gag order in the House of Commons. We cannot even defend this bill in the House of Commons. It will be dealt with tonight. We will not even be able to talk about it tomorrow. The government is making a fundamental mistake with long-term consequences.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a right to bargain. The parties should bargain, but not hold Canadians or the Canadian economy hostage. I know the member defends his union bosses, but what about defending our fragile economy and ensuring that unnecessary economic losses do not happen?

What about protecting innocent Canadians who get stranded when they are travelling abroad? What about protecting the losses to other parties involved beyond the union and the employer? This sets a process that people can use to bring this situation to a satisfactory conclusion. It is not a question of just bargaining, not settling and not being able to settle. This provides for a process to take place. Why does the member not defend innocent Canadians and those who are affected by the unions and by the employer?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the difference is that I believe that workers are Canadians too. The Conservative government does not believe that the workers are Canadian. They are Canadians with rights.

The member was talking about me defending my bosses in the union. What about the Conservative government giving big tax breaks to large corporations, their friends? The banks in this country have paid $20 billion of profit and paid themselves $11 billion in bonuses, yet the Conservatives would not give the taxpayers a break. The Conservatives borrowed money and put our country in a deficit to give tax breaks to people who paid themselves bonuses, just as the president of Air Canada paid himself $80 million and took off with it. The last one we just saw took $5 million.

You are looking after your big bosses, the big corporations, and that is what the Conservative government--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I can assure the hon. member that I did none of those things and urge him to address his comments through the Chair.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, you did not take the $80 million. It was Robert Milton.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Thank you. Believe me if I had $80 million, I might not be here.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague's time as a union negotiator and his time within organized labour. I know that he has brought many collective agreements to successful conclusions for both management and union.

Through the course of this debate, it has been mentioned by members on the government side time and time again that offers had been brought back to the union and the union voted them down. That would justify coming forward with this back to work legislation. In doing so, Conservatives imply that there is no legitimacy in the vote of the membership. They are not showing any respect for the democratic right of those members to vote down a contract. I would like the member's comments on that position by the government.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I really like this question because the member made reference to how we are always supporting the big bosses of the union. However, the government does not understand what the union is all about. The union belongs to the membership. The union negotiating team has the mandate to negotiate, but the law does not say that the team votes on the contract. It is the membership that votes on the contract. The union belongs to the workers and the team is working on their behalf. The government is pissed off because the membership voted against a proposed contract and wanted the right to vote again. Because the members did not follow the big boss, the government wants to punish them and legislate them back to work. That is what the government is doing. It is totally mixed up about who they are and what the union is all about.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague was speaking in the House, I took a minute to ask my Facebook friends a question. I asked them if they agree with the government that Air Canada is an essential service and that the economy might collapse if the company negotiates with its employees. I told them that it was proving difficult to find common ground and that there could be a strike or a lockout. Well, 95% of them told me that they do not agree. They also said that the government must take Canadians for fools if it thinks that workers should not be allowed to organize, and that the government should not try to take away the basic right to freedom of association and free negotiations.

The charter guarantees freedom of association. If the right for two parties, employers and employees, to negotiate freely with equal power is taken away, what is left? That is what I want to ask my colleague.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, nothing is left, but this is even worse than that. Before the minister even introduced this bill, she stated that there would be no strike. The government is telling the employer that it can do whatever it wants because the government will legislate employees back to work and impose one of the final offers.

In the past, the arbitrator has consistently chosen the employer's final offer. The minister said that everyone who called her was against a strike. I am happy to hear the member for Gatineau say the opposite, and I thank her for sharing the 95% figure.

I am the labour critic, and neither my email nor my fax has been filled with messages from people saying that the government should legislate workers back to work. That never happened.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst. He is a vigorous defender of workers' rights in this country: the right to collective bargaining, employment insurance and many other matters.

I also want to thank the member for bringing up a particularly important issue. We hear from the other side about the NDP taking its marching orders from the labour bosses. The member for Acadie—Bathurst rightly pointed out that the collective bargaining process, the trade union movement, is a democratic process. Workers involved in that process get to choose whether they want a particular settlement or not. They elect their own leaders and participate fully. I would say the House has a lesson to learn about democracy when we see the kinds of processes that are constantly invoked in the House, such as shutting down debate, closure, time allocation and time limits on committees. We could certainly learn a lesson from the trade union movement.

The other interesting thing we keep hearing from members opposite is how this is all about the economy. One day they will stand in the House and talk about their terrific program that allowed a strong economy to emerge. The next day they talk about how fragile the economy is and that we must do everything possible to shut down workers to protect this very fragile economy. Yet when opposition members rise in the House to talk about child and family poverty in this country and the fact that a significant number of working people live well below the poverty line, we do not hear that being talked about in terms of our fragile economy and having a plan in place to deal with those kinds of things.

What we are talking about today is the back to work legislation in the labour dispute between Air Canada and its workers. I will take a step back in history. Back in 2004 an article was written by Judy and Larry Haiven entitled “Back-to-work legislation a threat to democracy”. I am not going to read the whole article, but there is one particular paragraph that is very important in the context of why it is important to have a free, open and transparent collective bargaining process. It states:

Canada and other industrialized countries introduced modern collective bargaining legislation in the mid 20th century because they had learned that, given appropriate conditions, workers would join unions and that they would go on strike whether or not they were allowed to by law. Even when unions themselves were illegal and strikes were met by troops and machine guns, workers would still go on strike. Modern governments figured it better to legalize strikes and institutionalize collective bargaining, tolerating and even encouraging occasional strikes rather than bottle up worker resentment until it burst forth in even greater measure.

There were a number of very good reasons for a collective bargaining process that allowed workers and their employers to work things out without interference from government.

I want to quote from a letter from the Canadian Labour Congress written on March 9, 2012. It raises some very good questions for the minister and the government. The letter states:

I am writing, yet again, to protest the government's ongoing interference in free collective bargaining at Air Canada, coincidentally on the heels of the company's announcement yesterday to lock out its pilots at midnight on Sunday.

Once again, just like we had with Canada Post, we have the employer locking out its workers.

The ongoing interference in collective bargaining at Air Canada, a private company, continues to signal to business that this government is squarely on the side of the employer, and failing to remain neutral, and to respect free collective bargaining.

Minister, one must ask themselves how well managed is a company where the members of every single one of its bargaining units have voted for strike action or gone on strike in the last year? Clearly Air Canada management has so poisoned the bargaining relationship that employees simply were not, and are not, willing to sacrifice anymore. Your government's actions in forcing employees to accept what they cannot freely negotiate and vote on could potentially cause irreparable harm to future labour relations between the workers and their unions with the company. Employees will have no ownership or duty of responsibility to what can only be characterized as collective agreement negotiated between the Government of Canada and Air Canada.

These decisions, while seemingly appealing for the government in the short-term, will have far-reaching long-term implications for a mature federal labour relations system that has withstood the test of time.

The Canadian Labour Congress has raised some very good points around why it is important to allow this process to play itself out instead of having a government-employer type of collective bargaining that simply shuts the workers out.

In an article from last November there is a very good analysis of the Conservative government's labour relations policies. I am sure that if author Jim Stanford were writing it today, he would add another interference by the government. The article is about how the labour minister's three principles for labour relations only run one way. In it, Mr. Stanford writes:

[The Conservative] government has interpreted the rule of law rather flexibly in the arena of labour relations. In just six months in power, the Conservative majority has intervened three times to end or prevent work stoppages.

Of course, it is now four times.

The article continues:

The first instance was in June, when [the labour minister] announced, after less than one day of picketing, that she would forcibly end a strike by Canadian Auto Workers members at Air Canada. The two sides settled, sending one outstanding item, pensions for new hires, to arbitration. She established what we could call [the labour minister's] First Principle: Even at private non-monopoly companies, government can ban strikes.

That is principle number one.

Later that month, [the minister] waded into the Canada Post dispute. It was management (not the union) that locked everyone out and closed the doors. But that was enough pretext for [the minister] to legislate the posties back to work, imposing wages lower than what management had already offered. [The minister's] Second Principle was established: Government can explicitly dictate wage settlements.

In October, she pushed the legal boundaries even further, calling in the labour board to pre-empt a CUPE strike at Air Canada, laughably worrying about the “health and safety” of the travelling public... [The minister's] Third Principle is actually a blank cheque: Government can simply prohibit any work stoppage it wants to.

The article goes on to say:

Each case represented an audacious willingness to intervene in labour-management relations, even at private companies. Each case moved the goalposts a little further. And now [the minister] has speculated about amending the labour code so that the economy itself is defined as an essential service. That would codify [the minister's] Third Principle, giving government the explicit right to ban any work stoppage it deems damaging.

Of course, which work stoppages are or aren’t prevented will remain a matter of judgment. Imagine if all work stoppages were prohibited--lockouts, as well as strikes. All disputes would then be settled by binding arbitration, as currently occurs with true essential services, like police and hospitals.

Mr. Stanford continues:

But employers don’t want that approach, fearing that arbitrators may occasionally side with the union. The arbitrator in the Air Canada-CAW case did exactly that, sparking a bizarre decision by the company to appeal his “final and binding” judgment to the courts (an appeal since abandoned, wisely).

When employers hold the better cards, as they do in today’s unforgiving labour market, they happily go for the jugular--work stoppage or not. Consider another epic dispute that ended last month:—

—again, this article was written a few months ago—

—the 50-week lockout at the United States Steel Corp. factory in Hamilton. The company starved out the union with far-reaching demands to gut pensions and other long-standing provisions. The economic cost of that bitter, lopsided dispute didn’t slow the company, nor did it spur any level of government to action.

I estimate that the direct loss to GDP resulting from the lockout in Hamilton was four times larger than the effects of a one-week full shutdown at Air Canada. Indirect spinoff losses made the steel lockout even more painful. If government were truly concerned with “protecting recovery,” why didn’t it intervene? True, steel falls within provincial (not federal) labour jurisdiction. But Ottawa had plenty of leverage if it wanted to act--not least U.S. Steel’s galling violation of the production and employment commitments it made when it took over the former Stelco Inc.

Of course, NDP members have raised that in this House a number of times.

Mr. Stanford goes on to stay:

In Hamilton, where workers held little power, the government stood idly by. It seems it’s only when workers have some leverage that it acts powerfully to “protect the economy.”

There’s no doubt [the minister's] actions were popular with many. And there’s no doubt work stoppages cause inconvenience and disruption. But because something is unpopular or inconvenient hardly gives government the moral authority to take away rights, making up the law as it goes--even if it does hold a majority of seats in Parliament.

I read that whole article because I think it very ably outlines the current Conservative government's approach to labour relations in this country. All workers in this country should be very concerned about the way workers are being treated at Air Canada and other workplaces.

I can see you are signalling that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. That is unfortunate, because I was just going to talk about the economic recovery, in relation to which Mr. Stanford once again ably takes apart the government's argument that this is all about the economy.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for keeping a level head as she is arguing her case.

It is very interesting that although she lives in Nanaimo--Cowichan and is very active there, she is also very active here, and sometimes we feel that she is present simultaneously in both places. That is easy because the planes are flying. If they were not flying, a lot of anxiety would probably be flying, and the economy would be hurting also.

The last time we had a work stoppage at Air Canada, in 1998, it was for 13 days, and cost the company its life.

On February 22, Madam Justice Louise Otis said:

In the process of writing this report, I have come to learn that the tentative agreement was voted down by the Union membership. This tentative agreement was the result of a fair and productive negotiation process by competent negotiators. Tense and arduous by all means, the negotiation was nonetheless undertaken rationally and professionally by both Parties. Taking into consideration the situation of the Parties, the tentative agreement is reasonable and fair—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I hate to stop the hon. member, but he has had the floor for over a minute and a half. Given that there are only five minutes for questions and comments, I will have to stop him so that the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan can respond and we can accommodate questions.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the member was unable to quite get to his question, but with respect to the fact that I live in one of the most distant ridings and travel Air Canada regularly to get back and forth between Ottawa and my riding, if it went on strike it would be an inconvenience, absolutely.

However, we must defend the rights of workers to collective bargaining no matter what the inconvenience. It is fundamental to how our country operates. It is part of our democratic process. We must support the ability of workers and their employers to work issues out without interference from the government.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to launch into a lengthy diatribe, like my colleague from Ottawa—Orléans. I have a simple question. Either they are in favour of an essential service or they are not. They cannot have it both ways.

If the government absolutely does not believe in open negotiation and free will, then would it not make sense to make this an essential service and have binding arbitration?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the government keeps talking about the economy, but it does not talk about essential services. It simply focuses on the economy as the only reason it is ordering Air Canada back to work.

However, there are many strong arguments out there. I do not have time to go through all of Mr. Stanford's arguments, but he does point out, after the postal back to work legislation, that if the government were truly interested in looking at the fragile economy, it would look at a number of aspects, including interest rates in Canada and the loonie. There are a number of measures it could have taken, but it is not developing any policies around those areas.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was said earlier, and ever since the dispute with Canada Post we have come to realize, that workers no longer have the right to negotiate, plain and simple.

In her speech, the hon. member mentioned that the minister dealt with the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. The CIRB serves no purpose anymore either. I want to have the hon. member's opinion on the following: it looks as though workers will no longer have the right to negotiate or even make a simple claim or use pressure tactics.

What type of government are we dealing with now that it has taken away all the rights of the public and workers who are simply exercising their constitutional rights? We now have a Conservative majority government that is in the process of changing all the rules.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the government referred this matter to the CIRB and then did not even wait to hear what it has to say about whether this impacts on the health of the economy or not. Now we are into back to work legislation. Why did it not just wait for what the CIRB had to say about it?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent for the member for Bourassa to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is consent.

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of such enthusiasm, I know that the hon. members are anxious to hear my colleague, who does extraordinary work. You will have to suffer through my comments for the next 10 minutes.

This is an extremely important debate, but it is hypocritical. At some point, you either believe in rights or you do not. Just as with Canada Post, we have a government that seems to be doing deals under the table. Why? If you want people to have the right to negotiate, you have to let negotiation take its course.

Here is how I see it at the moment. It so happens that there is a lockout. After that, the matter is referred to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, but the government does not wait for the result and, presto, we have back-to-work legislation. That is the hypocritical part.

The hon. members opposite are telling us about the weak economy. They have to stop pitting the workers against the bosses, the bad guys against the good guys. They are all Canadian. Some are Quebeckers too, but they are all full-fledged citizens and they all pay taxes. At a certain point, it becomes a matter of human dignity, and that means respecting constitutional rights first and foremost. We give rights or we do not. There can be no half measures. If that is what we hold to, we have to give the parties to a discussion the time to go through the process to its end.

Sometimes, a lockout or a strike can go too far. If a strike begins to have a real impact on our situation, then the Minister of Labour can decide that things have gone too far and can start to talk about a bill at that point. But she must not be there to take one side or the other.

I too have been on the other side. We experienced situations and took a stand at the time. However, we want people's constitutional rights to be respected. Something about this bill irritates me to no end. The Conservatives made a mistake the last time with the Canada Post workers because the workers won in court on the very definition of arbitrator. Now, the Conservatives are trying to hide something from us and, what is more, they want to remove workers' legal recourse. So not only are these workers being treated like second class citizens but their bargaining rights are going to be taken away and they will not even be able to take the matter to court. This is not the type of society in which I want to live. This is not the Canada that I live in.

Today's debate is also an important societal debate on every person's role and the definition of a right. The government is operating through the use of pure and simple demagoguery by saying that the economy is fragile. As my colleagues have said, the economy is always doing well when the Conservatives have answers but, when they need an excuse, they blame the economy. In reality, we are in a situation where the Conservatives want to take power away from one party.

The workers have done their share; everyone is saying so. In 2003-04, they made significant sacrifices. Given that they saved $2.1 billion, it seems to me that they deserve more respect than this. During that time, obviously some people were leaving with a fortune in their pockets and a golden handshake, such as Milton and Brewer who left with $80 million. Not bad. And then there is the CEO who earns $2 million a year and who is set to receive a bonus of $5 million at the end of the month. The economy is fragile but we have the money to pay for things like this. The government is just not listening.

I find it completely unacceptable to vote in favour of this type of bill. At any given moment, we can say that we are going to give it time, that we are going to make a decision and a take a stand. In the meantime, the labour minister's role is to act as an arbitrator. Working for the public interest does not mean taking the side of one party or the other. It means ruling on the situation if it gets worse.

I asked some questions earlier. Now we must stop being hypocritical and say that Air Canada is an essential service. There are other airlines but we do not talk about them very much. In passing, there is a bit of an issue with respect to competitiveness. If Air Canada is an essential service, then the government must come back with a new bill and, from there, we will make the changes required for an essential service. If that is the case, then this matter should go directly to arbitration and the arbitrator should decide. However, the government cannot then come back and tell us that it is going to impose conditions on the arbitrator, for example. An arbitrator is supposed to look at both sides.

We have labour lawyers here. We have experienced people, such as my colleague from Gatineau, whom I quite like, actually. She was once a Liberal. She is not completely flawed after all.

That is how it should work. They should not take Canadians for fools. Canadians will not be manipulated. They understand. The member for Gatineau mentioned Facebook. I am a Twitter guy, myself. The poll machine is smoking. The Conservatives are going to be pretty disappointed when they find out that people think we should vote against this kind of bill.

This afternoon, the pilots' union also issued a news release about a survey of 1,009 people. The survey indicated that 58% of Canadians do not think the government should pass back-to-work legislation and impose working conditions. When there is an arbitrator, he must be allowed to do his work. That is just common sense.

I do not understand what kind of game the government is trying to play. Respecting rights is not just about respecting workers' rights; it is about respecting people's rights. Pitting people against one another results in the kind of country we have now, and that is why things are not going well.

I want the government to reconsider its position. It may be a little late, but that is okay because the more we repeat the message, the more likely it is to stick. We have to vote for common sense. I do not want to hear about the economy. I do not want to hear about fragility. I want to hear about what is really going on. This is not about the economy; this is about rights.

Did they really do everything in their power to negotiate an agreement? If they did not fulfill all of the conditions, then the minister can go in and say that this is a special situation. In the meantime, we have to let the process unfold. This is about rights. This is about respect. That is the kind of society I want to live in.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the last intervener began his speech, he threatened you, Sir, to make you suffer for the next 10 minutes. I hope you did not suffer too much.

As far as the allusions to Mr. Milton are concerned, I must say that I completely agree with hon. member for Bourassa. I was just as outraged.

I wanted to finish the quote from Justice Louise Otis:

Taking into consideration the situation of the Parties, the tentative agreement is reasonable and fair. The negotiation process, which was carried out diligently and competently, has been exhausted. I do not recommend that negotiations be further resumed or that a mediator be appointed. Under the full circumstances, I consider that a reasonable agreement had been reached.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Bourassa to join us in putting an end to this mess.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, someone once spoke honourably and enthusiastically and things ended poorly.

By the way, my colleague used the English pronunciation for Louise Otis' name. Justice Otis is a good Quebecker who had a prestigious legal career and provided a great deal of help in Haiti.

What I want to say in response is that George Smith, a former labour relations manager at Air Canada, made the following comment. The members opposite should hold their applause because this is not pretty.

This has all the appearances of the federal government doing what is best for the country but really it is a disaster. If you are negotiating a difficult labour contract, the process is being taken out of your hands and the government will do it for you. The showdown element which hurts in the short run but results in a fair settlement is gone. The net result will be labour agreements that are uncompetitive.

Is that clear? I do not think I need to add anything.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I put a question to one of the hon. members opposite. I would like to put the same question again to the hon. member from the Liberal Party, the third party in the House.

Once more, the government is setting up two categories of people in Canada: Air Canada employees and other employees. At the moment, it is as if Air Canada employees do not have all the same rights as other Canadians. With this bill, the government is taking away all those rights and placing them below those enjoyed by other Canadians.

I wonder if he shares my view that, in fact, the government's bill is creating two categories of Canadians who are now being set against each other.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to begin by replying to my young colleague.

Clearly, this bill creates two kinds of citizens. This creates a terrible dichotomy: there are the good guys and the bad guys, and those who are not for are against. Since my colleague is new to politics, I hope he will not fall into this dogmatism, because the second party, his party, has a tendency to get caught up in its left-wing dogmatism. This has to do with right-wing dogmatism. Such dogmatism only hurts the community. If our hearts lean to the left and our wallets to the right, some sort of balance can be achieved. A balanced approach means putting everyone on a level playing field. Furthermore, rights are fundamental and must be respected. That is the kind of society that the member and I want to live in.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask my colleague if the government's repeated intervention, which eliminates the risk to one party to the negotiations, creates a moral hazard in the bargaining process.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard correctly. A moral ally?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

A moral hazard.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

My hearing is to blame. I am getting older and I do not hear very well.

This moralistic approach is creating a situation that makes everyone uncomfortable. This discomfort is something that will lead to very a tragic future, because it has become a norm, the usual way of doing things. We no longer have a labour minister; we have a minister who makes deals with bosses for all kinds of purposes other than respecting workers' basic rights. This is another sad day for Canada.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the member for Bourassa. Every time he speaks in the House, he is motivated by Canadians who find themselves in hardship and by those who find themselves disadvantaged. This time he is standing up for organized labour, which has been put in a situation where its rights have totally been compromised by the government. I appreciate his insight into the issue and his continued fight for Canadians.

I have a couple of points. Let us understand the labour history of Air Canada. There are five unions at Air Canada and over the entire history of that company, there have been six strikes. That is a pretty good success rate in management and union negotiations. I would think they are very capable of finding ways through particular negotiations. One of those strikes lasted all of three hours.

The minister, in her comments, cited the strike of 1998 and the number of days the union had been out and the airline had been tied up. The workers were legislated back to work. She told us of the devastating impact it had on the economy and the way it devastated our country. In 1998 the unemployment rate came down by 1%, interest rates came down, the books were balanced and money was paid on the debt. Perish the thought.

Let us turn to the intervention the Conservative government has made on the economy. There are a million and a half Canadians without work. The unemployment rate has gone south, month after month, since last October. Canadians are screaming, “Please, no more help for the economy”. Goodness gracious, I have never seen the likes of that devastating year of 1998.

I want to talk about two things in particular. One is the appointment of the arbitrator. I talked to some of these guys before, while we were going for the votes. This is the time of year when most small communities that have a junior A or junior B hockey club are getting into the playoffs.

Being an old junior hockey coach, they used to assemble the coaches or the league executive and the executives from the team together. We would have the discussion around the table about all the refs we had access to and who we wanted to be the top referees assigned for the playoffs. We would go through and shortlist the list of referees. We would get down to about three or four different names. We would not assign them, but we would bring it down to a pool and then the league would assign the officials. There was input. Even at the junior B hockey level, there was some kind of input into who would negotiate how those games and those playoffs proceeded.

There is no communication with the government in entering into the undertaking we see before us now, the appointment of the arbitrator. We are not even seeing any kind of consultation with the parties. The minister has freewheel to appoint the arbitrator, and we saw what that yielded through the whole Canada Post strike. We are all reminded of what happened through the Canada Post strike.

I want to talk about that and I want to read into the record the decision rendered by the judge through the Canada Post dispute and the appointment of the arbitrator. The judge wrote that the minister “would like the exercise of ministerial power...to be unobstructed, unguided or not subject to any criteria of qualification or competence for the arbitrator”. That is a bit damning. I would think that would be the equivalent of taking the minister to the woodshed.

The judge went on to say:

This is not what is indicated by common sense, case law, the economy of the Act or the specific labour relations context that govern the parties to the collective agreement.

It was seen that the appointment the minister made was totally inappropriate.

I want to close with this last quote from the judge:

In the case at hand, the lack of transparency inherent in the appointment process followed by the Minister, the little evidence of rationale provided by the Minister and the laconic nature of her communications raise serious questions and indicate that the Minister appears to have excluded, as relevant criteria--

The Conservatives feel that is a success and is appropriate because they are going down the exact same road with this piece of legislation.

We know the minister has been chastised for her actions before. She should not have her nose in it anyway, but why could she not at least come up with an appropriate list of arbitrators?

I am sure Canadians are thinking that they have seen this movie before, that they know what the outcome is, and here we go again.

Let us talk about the direction of the arbitrator. There are three points.

The workers have taken a $2 billion haircut over the last 10 years. I wish the government would take into account that 10 years ago the workers took rollbacks and they are not getting the same wages now that they had 10 years ago. Ask any Canadian if that is fair. I do not think it is.

People may have grievances with Air Canada, maybe a lost suitcase a couple of years ago, or a missed flight because of a snowstorm, but we should not place those grievances on the workers at Air Canada. When MPs fly back and forth between Ottawa and their ridings every weekend, they get on an Air Canada flight. I am sure they have confidence that they will be safe and respected as a passenger. I think we are fairly confident in that. However, the workers have taken $2 billion in concessions over the last 10 years. Why is that not identified in the instructions to the arbitrator?

The company sold off $2 billion of assets, but still it left the employee pension plan underfunded by $3 billion. I would think that would make a current or past Air Canada employee nervous and upset.

I am going through a process now in my own community where the NewPage paper mill has shut down. It has been devastating. There are 800 people out of work because of it. It is the pensioners who have really taken a haircut because the pension fund had been underfunded by $150 million. They are going to see a reduction of approximately 40% in their pensions.

Why is there no provision within the arbitration to address the underfunding? If it is being sent to an arbitrator, let us make sure that the pension underfunding is being addressed.

Robert Milton and Montie Brewer made off like bandits when they left the company. Massive bonuses were paid out to these former CEOs. I do not know if the employees are going to have the same type of benefit when they leave with the pension in the shape it is.

I will make this final point. I guess it is about essential services because we find ourselves back here time and time again. The minister has used the Canada Industrial Relations Board as a puppet. She put the matter before the Canada Industrial Relations Board on this sham about health and safety concerns. I do not know if even the minister would believe that. If she was confident in that, why would the back to work legislation be necessary? The board would deem this an essential service.

Maybe that is the debate we should be having. What in fact is an essential service in this country? We should determine whether or not Air Canada is an essential service and get on with it from there.

By any measure, this is a piece of legislation--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the hon. member there to allow for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about a variety of things that impact the economy. The government is saying it has to do this to protect the economy. However, when we look at what these workers were offered in their last offer, it included a 10% reduction to retirees' pensions, a 25% cut to active employees' pensions, and a slight wage increase that would not even cover the increase in the cost of living. That still leaves the workers' wages well below what they were in 2000.

The worst part about the proposed agreement that had been tabled before was the possibility of the setting up of a low-cost carrier that would be best summarized by the following description. Dave Laurin is an Air Canada pilot who lives in my riding in Kapuskasing. One of his colleagues explained it this way:

When speaking of the need for a “Low Cost Carrier” to achieve financial sustainability, Mr. Rovinescu has stated openly to the employees in a press release and employee forum that his goal was the “Jet Star” business plan. This same business model took Qantas pilots jobs away, just about bankrupted Qantas and saw that same low cost carrier move its operations off shore from Australia to hire foreigners to do the work that previously employed Australian citizens.

This is about saving Canadian jobs, and this is about--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I need to stop the member there. She has had the floor for over a minute and a half.

The hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have read those same comments about the new low-cost flyer that the CEO has talked about. As Canadians we can take a great deal of pride in that our national carrier is setting its sights right at the middle. It aspires to be a mediocre airline.

As I have said before, when Canadians travel they want to feel there is a sense of security. We feel that when we get on a flight with Air Canada, that we are well served and respected by the staff. With all the hiccups and bumps, and MPs fly every week, there is still that sense that we know the workers want to serve those that board the craft on that day. They put up with tough things.

The reality of air travel in northern climates here in Canada, is that bad weather is just a fact of life. If there is a flight that cannot get into Toronto because of the weather, there is a good chance that the flight that is connecting with Halifax is going to be bumped too.

Yes, there is frustration. Is it the fault of the employees? Absolutely not. The employees did their part to make the company successful.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parties in this case have all had a shot at negotiating agreements. In fact, they did negotiate agreements and they submitted them for ratification. Ratification was not available.

The government is simply proposing to send these parties to final offer arbitration. The arbitrator will be guided by terms consistent with those in other airlines: by long-term and short-term economic viability and competitiveness, and by sustainability of the employer's pension plan. I would like to know what the member opposite finds wrong with this? It is really very simple economic competitiveness, viability of the pension plan. What does he disagree with here? What does he find to be so unreasonable?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what I find unreasonable and unacceptable is the lack of respect the Conservative government holds for organized labour in this country. It is absolutely the prerogative of the membership to not support a contract that is brought back by the executive. The power lies in the hands of the membership. It is not the big corporate bosses. It is not big union bosses. They simply negotiate the deal, bring it back to the membership and if the membership rejects it, it is well within their democratic right.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Simcoe—Grey.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House regarding the Air Canada labour dispute. I would also like to take this opportunity to describe in more detail the role of Air Canada and the airline sector in our economy. The air transportation industry and the economy are intertwined because there is a direct relationship between the demand for airline services and economic and socio-economic activity in general.

Consequently, this sector is an excellent gauge of the economic situation. We know that the economy was seriously impacted by the global financial crisis three years ago. Activity slowed down and airlines reacted. Costs were cut as much as possible, but the carriers still had to cover them.

As indicated by the strength of the Canadian dollar, Canada was protected from the worst repercussions of the recession by its relatively solid financial system and fiscal stimulus measures. However, three years after the global recession, the economic recovery remains fragile. The International Air Transport Association, IATA, reported last year that the Canadian and North American airline industries had posted modest profits, primarily because of their efforts to contain costs.

This industry and the economy are intertwined and, to date, their future is somewhat uncertain. This same association stated on September 20, 2011, that the profitability of international carriers, including North American carriers, should diminish, which quite logically could compromise the short-term financial health of these same airlines.

As we have seen in the last several weeks, economic indicators, stock markets and international financial markets remain fragile and continue to falter.

In the short term it is expected that the pricing and revenue environment in the airline industry will remain uncertain due to the fact that airlines have to deal with travellers who have less money to spend and who increasingly expect regular seat sales. This will result for the industry in profit margins that will remain modest at best.

I would like to share with the House some figures that speak volumes, that speak to the importance of the transportation sector and the air sector to our economy. In its 2010 annual report entitled “Transportation in Canada 2010”, Transport Canada indicated that the airline industry employed 91,146 people across the country. The transportation sector employed 912,400 people. Air Canada employed 23,200 people in 2010, providing 25% of the industry's jobs.

In 2010, the airline industry's contribution to GDP was $5,796,000 in 2002 dollars, or 0.5% of Canada's GDP. A work stoppage at Air Canada would be problematic for Canadians because, on average, over 100,000 people travel with Air Canada or one of its regional partners every day.

Air Canada offers connections between 155 city pairs and up to 313 city pairs if one takes into account its regional partner carriers such as Jazz, Air Georgian, Exploits Valley Air Services, Sky Regional and Central Mountain Air. Service interruption at Air Canada would thus have implications across the country.

Air Canada also operates a large number of international flights to 42 countries on five continents, including destinations that are key economic partners for Canada.

According to Air Canada's 2010 annual report, as a major economic player in Canada, Air Canada injects significant sums of money into the economy through its operating expenses. Every year, the company spends close to $1.9 billion on employee wages, salaries and benefits, $961 million on airport and navigation fees, and almost $677 million on aircraft maintenance. Our airline industry, especially our carriers, are defined by the unique characteristics of the Canadian market: multiple hubs, long distances between scattered populations, harsh winters that encourage people to vacation in the south, the importance of an air transportation network in the north, the seasonal nature of travel, climate and proximity to one of the world's largest markets, the United States.

Canada's unique context should be an important consideration. The economic climate of the past three years was a tough ordeal for the industry and for Canada's strategic air services framework. Even though the recession is technically over, we are still feeling its effects. Recently, the Minister of Finance stated that the economy remains fragile, which means that we must remain vigilant and prudent.

During the recession the airlines proceeded with caution and limited or reduced excess capacity in order not to flood the market with air services, which could have initiated price wars and ultimately contributed to a further destabilization of the industry.

It is important to understand when considering the specific variables that the airline industry is subject to seasonal fluctuations. For example, in Canada most of the revenue of air carriers, and by default those of their partners, is realized during the spring and summer. Revenue earned during these seasons largely offsets the high costs that characterize the airline industry. Fuel is a key factor in this industry and it is one of the largest and most volatile operating expenses.

The reality of the airline industry involves high costs and small profit margins, even at the best of times. However, when these services are reduced, interrupted or cut, the partners that work with carriers, communities and consumers feel the impact.

A drawn out labour dispute at Air Canada would be bad news for the company, its business partners, its employees, Canadians who travel with the airline and, by extension, our economy. At a time when consumer confidence in the airline industry is being rebuilt little by little, a prolonged work stoppage at Air Canada could have a significant impact on the company's return to profitability. The same consumers could also find themselves trapped at airports across the country and abroad trying to make alternate travel arrangements in place of their Air Canada flights. Flight cancellations would be expensive for both the company and for passengers who would have to make alternate travel arrangements that could be very costly.

In conclusion, the government is taking a responsible and measured approach by making the necessary arrangements to ensure that the country's largest air carrier continues its operations, while encouraging the parties to continue their negotiations in order to reach an agreement that is fair to both parties as soon as possible. That is why I support any government initiative to block a work stoppage at Air Canada.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, I met an Air Canada employee who said that he was fed up because he is unable to buy a new car or a new house and because he does not make enough money to live comfortably.

The Minister of Labour is saying that the entire community and the whole country will benefit from this bill on the resumption of air service operations. What does the minister have to say to workers who are fed up with not making enough money to live comfortably?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to talk about one isolated case. I do not think that Air Canada employees are the worst paid in the country. That being said, I recognize that all workers deserve the salaries they earn.

I also work in Ottawa and, like a number of the hon. members in the House, I travel by plane every week to go home. It takes two flights because there are no direct flights to my region. Every week, I meet employees of airline companies such as Air Canada, Air Canada Express and Jazz, and all they want is to do their work well and provide services.

When two unions, the pilots union and the machinists and aerospace workers association, have been negotiating a collective agreement for 18 months, but cannot reach an agreement; when both bargaining committees recommend accepting the offers proposed by the bargaining committee but the workers reject their recommendations; then it is clear to our government that the parties are not prepared to reach an agreement and it makes the decisions necessary to protect the Canadian economy.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the minister. Does this government think that air transportation for passengers is an essential service? The way it has handled this file over the past year seems to indicate that it considers it to be an essential service, but it will not go so far as to say so. Is it an essential service or not?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2010-11, there were 302 instances of collective bargaining in federally regulated businesses, and no bills were introduced. No action was taken. We want to always foster the mutual resolution by union and management of any discussion and any dispute. Naturally, air transportation is a very important component of our economy. I would like to remind my Liberal colleague that they used similar laws on several occasions when they were in power.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to ask the minister a question. In his opinion, what effect will an Air Canada work stoppage have on Canada's fragile economy? Can he explain why we should expedite approval of this bill today?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour previously referred to Air Canada's 26,000 employees and many others who are indirectly dependent upon it. Air Canada needs food and other services as well as aircraft maintenance. Thousands of workers would not be able to work. There is a very significant direct economic impact every week. Last year, Air Canada had a budget of $1.7 billion and direct weekly spinoffs of $22.4 million.

I heard an NDP member say that $22.4 million was not a very large contribution to the economy. We find that it is quite sizeable. It is very direct.

The union has made a decision. Why introduce such measures when more than one million Canadians are on school break? We made a decision to support Canadians. This evening are still hoping that the union and management will come to an agreement.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, today I hope to help hon. members present in the House understand why the Government of Canada is getting involved in the two most recent Air Canada labour disputes that threaten to disrupt air travel. Since the 1980s deregulation of the Canadian airline market, there have been six work stoppages involving Air Canada. History has shown us that these stoppages have taken a significant economic toll and disrupted the lives of Canadians, passengers and business entrepreneurs alike.

Once again we are faced with the possibility of a work stoppage at Air Canada, and once again we face potential economic damage and disruption to Canadians. Parents in my riding of Simcoe—Grey who are away on March break are quite anxious and concerned about this uncertainty and disruption. As the saying goes, those who do not heed the lessons of history may repeat them. At a time when our economic recovery is still fragile, the Government of Canada must act to protect the economy and air services. Up to now, the news about employment in Canada has been encouraging. We have recovered all the jobs that were lost in the recession and created some new ones. Do we really want to take chances with our economy?

The point is that work stoppages can be very costly, especially if they occur in a major industrial player such as Air Canada. They have the potential to cascade down through other sectors, hospitality, food, travel, manufacturing, public relations and marketing. It has been estimated that losses to all sectors of the Canadian economy could easily add up to about $22.4 million a week, for every week a stoppage drags on.

Then there is the impact on jobs. Air Canada is a major employer of almost 26,000 full-time workers across the country. There are also about 250,000 employees indirectly related to Air Canada. There are a lot of employees and their families who would be affected by a work stoppage. A work stoppage involving half of Air Canada's employees, approximately 3,000 pilots and 8,200 machinists, baggage handlers, technicians, mechanics and support workers, for a total of over 11,000 employees, would cause a major disruption and stop air services. The airline risks losing too much money in business transactions and productivity. The elements of the air service system are interdependent. If one element is weakened, they are all affected.

It is no surprise, then, that if jobs are lost at Air Canada, there will be jobs lost at Air Canada's partners and suppliers. According to Transport Canada, over 50% of airport revenues are attributed to Air Canada and its related activities. It stands to reason that any reduced operation at Air Canada will adversely affect Canada's airports and Air Canada's third-party suppliers. Canadian businesses could be impacted again while they are still struggling to shake off the effects of the recent economic downturn.

Why are we here? Surely it would preferable to let Air Canada and its employees, represented by the Air Canada Pilots Association and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, work it out for themselves. Yes, it would, but I ask what happens when the parties in the dispute cannot resolve their issues on their own? What happens when the tentative agreements are rejected by the union members?

What do we do when we have exhausted all the avenues, such as direct negotiations, conciliation and mediation, with no solution in sight? I will tell the House what we do. We do what the Minister of Labour is recommending. We take action. We act on behalf of Canadians and in the best interests of the Canadian economy. We put an end to all the uncertainty and doubt there is right now and ensure continued air services. We bring in legislation, like Bill C-33, an act to provide for the continuation and resumption of air service operations.

It will soon be one year that the collective agreement of the two unions has expired. Where are we today? On February 22, 8,200 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers voted by a margin of 65.6% to reject the tentative agreement that had been negotiated with Air Canada with the help of a conciliator appointed by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Shortly thereafter, it was announced that 78% of those members had voted in favour of a strike. The union advised that it would be intending to begin legal strike action on March 12, 2012. As for the Air Canada Pilots Association, it recommended to its 3,000 members that they reject the most recent offer by Air Canada, and on March 8 Air Canada advised that it intended to legally lock out all of the members on March 12, 2012.

In terms of labour relations, this has been a busy year for Air Canada. Members will recall that in June 2011, Air Canada finalized a four-year collective agreement with its customer sales and service agents, but this happened only after there were three days of labour disruption and the tabling of back to work legislation. In October 2011, Air Canada reached an agreement with its flight attendants, but only after the Minister of Labour referred the matter to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board and the parties agreed to arbitration. However in February there was a bright spot as Air Canada ratified agreements with two CAW-Canada units and the Canadian Airline Dispatchers Association bargaining unit.

The Canada Labour Code recognizes the principles of freedom of association and free collective bargaining. The code gives the parties in labour disputes many ways and opportunities to reach a settlement with or without the help of the federal government.

The Government of Canada respects the rights of unions to strike and the rights of employers to lock out their workers. When a work stoppage could undermine the national economy, Parliament must respond to protect the public interest.

The stakes are even higher today given the fragility of the global economic recovery. Every day of lost business could have an impact on the bottom line of a company that has been struggling to stay solvent for most of the past decade. The viability of a company is important to many people normally served by Air Canada. Some of these customers do not have easy access to an alternative carrier, and even if they get a seat on another airline, they may face long waits or more costs. The lives of hundreds of thousands of frustrated travellers could be disrupted. In fact during this busy March break period, over one million people are scheduled to travel with Air Canada. That is a lot of Canadians and a lot of Canadian families with disrupted or cancelled travel plans.

That is why we need Parliament's support. We have a duty to balance the rights and interests of employers and unions with those of the broader Canadian public. The need for legislation is clearly demonstrated when we consider the needs of 33 million Canadians.

There is really very little to debate here. We must do what is right for all Canadians and the Canadian economy. I am calling on all parties to give the legislation speedy passage so that we can restore peace on the labour front and get back on the road to economic recovery.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in her presentation, the member said that they had done everything, negotiating for one year and going through the arbitrator and conciliation and everything.

Now the government is saying that it has no choice, but the Charter of Rights gives workers the right to vote, including a vote to strike, just as any other Canadian or worker has. The Conservative government is taking those rights away.

I have heard the Minister of Public Safety say he is the type of guy who likes the law to be followed, but is this not a law in our country? If the government believes so much in the economy, what did it do with Caterpillar in London when it locked out its people and left with the government's money? It did nothing to help the economy of London, Ontario.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the best solution is one that the parties reach themselves. Despite very hard bargaining over the last number of weeks, the parties have actually failed to come to an agreement.

That is why last Friday, in an effort to protect the Canadian economy, we put on notice legislation in the event of a work stoppage. Our government is extremely concerned about the disruption at Air Canada and the damage it would cause to Canada's fragile economy. That is why we have taken action and we are moving forward.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words and ask the member a question.

What I find contradictory in the government's position with respect to Air Canada is simply this. On the one hand, the government, including the Minister of Finance and everyone else, is saying how strong and robust the Canadian economy is, how well things are going, how Canada is leading the way, how we are ahead of the G7, ahead of the G8, ahead of the G20—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, order. I am sure the hon. member for Toronto Centre would appreciate it if colleagues would hold off on their applause until he finishes putting the question. The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the party opposite knows nothing about irony, because on the one side it says what I just noted, and on the other side it says that this economy cannot possibly withstand a work stoppage at Air Canada, that there is no possible way to withstand it.

I ask the parliamentary secretary this simple question. If Air Canada is an essential service, which is essentially what the Government of Canada is now saying, why not declare it an essential service and give the workers the equivalent right to strike instead of this terrible improvisation and imposition it is making? The government is making a travesty of labour relations, it is making a travesty of collective bargaining and it has nothing with which to replace it.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that we are acting in the best interest of Canadians and the best interest of the Canadian public. This Conservative government was given a strong mandate to stay focused on the economy. That is exactly what we are doing. Ensuring that there is no work stoppage at Air Canada means that Canadian employers and Canadian families will continue to be able to fly, cargo will continue to be able to be moved across the country, and businesses will be able to continue to thrive.

I encourage the member opposite to support us in what we are doing to try to build the economy across the country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the essentials of labour law in this country are well understood: The union has a right to strike, the management has the right to lock out workers, and the two parties must be able to come to terms.

If the government consistently has back to work legislation when there is a threat of a dispute, how will we not have so undermined labour-management relations to have irreparably broken them and hurt this economy?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the best solution is one that the two parties come to themselves.

Despite hard bargaining, these parties have been unable to come to a resolution. That is why we are taking action to ensure that the Canadian public's interest is upheld and that we are managing the economy and staying focused on that, as opposed to what the opposition wants to do.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spent 33 years as a union negotiator and I know that this action by the Conservative government has destroyed the balance created by the good men and women of this country who crafted our labour legislation years ago. The labour legislation that we have in Canada was deliberately exported by this country to the fledgling countries of eastern Europe when they became democracies, because it was seen as a model for the world.

This kind of action undermines that model. When one party is able to turn to its masters, the government, and say, “Please intervene and take sides in this dispute”, it undermines the continuation of that balance in our labour relations in this country. Despite the protestations on the other side of the House, that is exactly what has taken place.

We have upset the balance of labour relations and we are forever now going to have our labour relations affected accordingly, particularly in the federal sphere. However, do not think the provinces are not watching what is happening here. Parties to labour relations among the police, fire and ambulance services, which are all essential services, will now be paying attention because the government has decided that it can incorporate into legislation a guideline for an arbitrator who takes one side over the other. This guideline is all about the employer, not about what is fair to the employees. We run the risk here of destroying years and years of practice, precedent and jurisprudence with what seems to be a very simple act by the other side.

It is not enough that the government has decided that it needs to take sides; it did not even let the process actually finish. In all of my years as a labour negotiator, on many occasions the parties used the strike deadline itself as the mechanism to reach a collective agreement. In my own experience, we probably got to the eleventh hour, to 11:59, on a couple of dozen occasions. It is no surprise that Canadian legislation picks midnight as the time a strike can commence, because that is the time that people are most likely to reach an agreement. They are not likely to reach an agreement three days before when they give notice, which is what happened in this case. They are most likely to reach that agreement at midnight. That is when it happens. That is when both sides look at the cards on the table and decide that it is not worth a strike. That is exactly what happens 99 times out of 100. However, the government and the minister have not allowed that process to reach its full conclusion. That is shameful. That is destroying the Canadian labour relations model that we so gleefully exported to the rest of the world as a model for it to take.

As for the notion that Air Canada is somehow special and an essential service, the minister suggested that it is bigger than GM and Chrysler and that we do not legislate them back to work. The minister forgot to tell us that GM has shrunk enormously under its watch. It has closed four plants; no wonder it is small. It is because the jobs are disappearing in this country. The government's job creation strategy is a job abandoning strategy. It did not interfere at EMD or Stelco where jobs were fleeing the country. It is shameful on the part of the government that it would abandon some workers and then step in and side with another bunch of Canadian company directors who have decided that they need this collective agreement and are willing to put spring break, whatever that means, in jeopardy. It was not the union that put it in jeopardy in the case of the pilots; it was management that put it in jeopardy. It is management that has very deliberately done that in order to provoke the government. Make no bones about it, because that is precisely what is going on.

The other notion that is missed here by the government is the notion that was spoken about by my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan about worker resentment. These workers gave up a lot. They gave large concessions nine years ago when Air Canada was in trouble. Those workers have taken nothing since, virtually no gains.

These are very important workers. These are people who keep the planes flying, both mechanically and physically. I certainly do not want to be on a plane where those workers resent the government, where those workers are resentful of the choices that they have been forced to make. I certainly do not think any of them would do anything stupid. I also do not think it is smart of the government to be provoking the workers of this country.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 10:46 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division: )

Vote #159

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole. I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Mr. Barry Devolin in the chair)

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The House is in committee of the whole on Bill C-33.

I would like to begin this sitting of the committee of the whole with a short statement about the manner in which the deliberations will proceed. The rules governing debate in the committee of the whole are as follows:

No member shall speak for more than 20 minutes at a time. Speeches must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. There is no formal period for questions and comments. Members may use their time to speak or to ask questions and the responses will be counted in the time allotted to that member. Members may speak more than once. Members need not be in their own seat to be recognized.

The House will now proceed to clause by clause consideration of the bill. The hon. Minister of Labour.

(On clause 2)

The hon. Minister of Labour.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Chair, throughout this debate on legislation to avert a work stoppage, there are certain predictable objections. The first is that we are misusing our powers and imposing on the rights of collective bargaining.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, the second objection is that the problem we are trying to solve is not really all that serious.

I would like to tell my hon. colleagues, including the ones who broke into applause, that these arguments simply do not stand up.

I would like to remind my fellow members that since 1984, there have been 35 work stoppages in the air transportation industry, six of them involving Air Canada, so we already have a good idea of the damage a work stoppage can do.

Some of these work stoppages took a heavy toll on the economy and severely disrupted the lives of Canadians. Once again we are faced with the likelihood of a work stoppage at Air Canada, and once again it will take a toll on Canadians.

Our government has quoted statistics on the possible economic damage and disruption to our fragile economic recovery. The government's mandate is to maintain our economic recovery and act in the best interests of Canadians. That is what we are here for.

As I have already explained-—

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is rising on a point of order.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, you said that there had to be relevance to the article. I do not see where this is relevant to the article itself.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has raised a question of relevance. I would remind all hon. members that at the start of this debate dealing with clause 2, the practice is to allow latitude in the speeches by hon. members.

The hon. Minister of Labour.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I was explaining in some detail before and again now, the government has followed all the rules and taken all the steps set out in the Canada Labour Code while assisting the parties in these two Air Canada disputes. As the history of these two disputes has clearly shown, the parties in each case have had plenty of time to reach an agreement with the help of expert mediators and conciliators whom I appointed, but no deals had been forthcoming.

Indeed, the disputes have been dragging on for almost a year, and that is a long time. The uncertainty with these agreements has had a negative effect on Air Canada already, and I am sure it is very stressful for the members of the union as well.

The Canada Labour Code recognizes the principles of freedom of association and free collective bargaining, and the code gives the parties in labour disputes many ways and many opportunities to reach a settlement with or without the help of the federal government. We, as the government, respect the right of unions to strike and the right of employers to lock out; indeed, we prefer not to interfere in these matters unless it is absolutely necessary, but this is a special case: when a work stoppage has the potential of impacting the national economy, Parliament must respond to protect the public interest.

Consider the impact on jobs. Air Canada is a major employer. As of November 2001, Air Canada had 26,000 employees, and 23,000 of those are full-time employees. If the airline loses money, these jobs could be in jeopardy. There could also be jobs lost at Air Canada's partners and suppliers to the tune of 250,000 jobs.

According to Transport Canada, any reduced operation at Air Canada also adversely affects Canada's airports as well as Air Canada's third party suppliers. The elements of the air service system are interdependent upon one another. If one element is weakened, the rest are vulnerable.

Up to now the news about employment in Canada has been encouraging. We have recovered all the jobs that were lost in the recession and we created some new ones, so the question is whether we really want to gamble with our economy and possibly put these jobs at risk. In the event of a work stoppage, Air Canada services as well may not easily be replaced. Many Air Canada customers simply do not have access to an alternative carrier. In some places Air Canada is the only airline, and in some places Air Canada is the only efficient means of transportation, so the lives of thousands of frustrated travellers could be disrupted, some of them inconvenienced, but in other cases they may face real hardship.

Our government is not indifferent to the concerns of the Air Canada employees in these disputes. Throughout the process of collective bargaining, we assisted the parties and we encouraged them to find their own deal. We gave them processes and recommendations and provided them with mediators and conciliators. We were hoping that they would come to agreements that would be acceptable to everyone, but unfortunately it has not worked out that way.

We have always said that the best solution in any dispute is one that the parties reach themselves, but the parties in these disputes have failed to do so. I have used all the tools that we had at our disposal under the Canada Labour Code, and there is no other recourse but to ask members to support this legislation. The fact that a work stoppage affects the interests of employers and unions cannot outweigh the needs of 33 million Canadians.

Our economy needs labour peace in vital industries like air service. I hope that the opposition can see the urgency and the need for this bill and join us in giving it a quick passage.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this is déjà vu all over again. It shows that the Conservative government has absolutely no regard for workers. It is as though workers in Canada were not real Canadians. Yet, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, workers have the right to bargain and the right to strike.

The minister keeps saying that the parties have been at the negotiating table for a year and that agreements have been reached but were rejected by the members. The Conservatives keep repeating that the union bosses make all the decisions. However, in this case, the members have the right to vote. The members have the right to strike. It is a fundamental right for workers.

The government is saying that its decision is based on the economy. Where was this government when Caterpillar decided to lock out employees in London, Ontario, and then closed down and moved elsewhere, even after receiving money from the government. The government gave that company money. The government was asked to intervene in that dispute but it did not do so.

It is up to the union and the company to reach an agreement. An arbitrator should be named. In this case, the bill does not even give the workers and the company the opportunity to choose their arbitrator. What is the government doing? It is doing the choosing.

Furthermore, the government has included in the bill a provision that states that the parties cannot even go to court to challenge the government's choice of arbitrator.

I would like to remind members that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers went to court and the judge decided that the arbitrator could not issue a decision in the dispute. The union had challenged the fact that the arbitrator was not bilingual.

I know that this government is not a strong proponent of bilingualism. We know that. It appears that the government was insulted that the union went to court and won the case.

With this bill, the government is attempting to eliminate a fundamental right. Not only is it taking away the right of workers to negotiate freely and their right to strike, but it is also taking away their right to go to court. However, that is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

I am certain that if this bill goes to court, any judge will deem it to be unconstitutional.

Speaking of a final offer, we know that every time a bill has come with a final offer, the companies have come out ahead.

Let us talk about Air Canada, the company the government likes to protect. It is the same company that, in 2003, after being put under the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, gave the president of Air Canada $80 million. It is the same company whose new president just received $5 million.

To the workers, the men and women who get up every morning to go to work and provide air transportation services, the company offers 10-year salary freezes and reduced pensions. The Conservative government is not there to help them. It says it is working in the best interests of Canadians. That is like saying that these workers are not Canadians. It is completely disrespectful towards the labour movement.

Then it accuses us of defending the workers. We are defending a fundamental right of all Canadians. Our parents, our grandparents and our great-grandparents had to take to the streets to fight for the right to negotiate a collective agreement. As one hon. member said, in order to have labour peace, the right to strike was legalized. However, this Conservative government has taken that away.

What is more, this same government imposes closure on the House. In addition to violating the rights of workers, this government is even taking away the right of parliamentarians to propose amendments. Is this normal?

The bill is before the House of Commons, where democratic debates are supposed to take place. Yet the government is muzzling us. In a few hours, we will vote on it and it will be over. The government will not accept even one amendment.

I remember when the Reform Party of Canada was here, and I know the Conservatives would never have accepted such a thing. The members across the floor can laugh all they want. They are not right; they are not honest.

The government's actions are dishonest. What the opposition would like to see is some amendments, whereby, for instance, both sides could appoint a mediator without presenting a final offer. The arbitrator would have the power to decide, with the two parties, what would be in the collective agreement.

The workers should be given that at least, but the Conservatives are incapable of doing so. And taking away the workers' fundamental right to go before the courts—only the Conservatives could do that.

The Conservatives are saying that we are taking the side of employees and unions. Yet this same government gave tax cuts to large corporations and banks that made $20 billion in profit. The CEOs even gave themselves $11 billion in bonuses. That is where the Conservatives stand. Ordinary people are not getting this kind of treatment. This same government wants to increase the age of eligibility for the old age pension from 65 to 67 and is punishing seniors and the poor.

We would like to propose amendments and we hope that the government will let us do so before the vote. At least then the process would be a little more democratic. Right now, there is no democracy at all. The government has imposed gag orders and prevented us from speaking on behalf of our constituents 17 or 18 times. We were elected by Canadians in a democratic manner. We are not all here because of robocalls. We are here to represent our constituents.

This government is taking away our fundamental democratic rights. It is taking them right away from workers and parliamentarians. This government does not believe in democracy. I am calling on the Prime Minister to rise and give people the right to democracy rather than attacking the little people, those most in need, as he is doing.

That is where workers stand. They are not even able to obtain a wage increase or defend their pensions. This will be a devastating blow to the economy in the long term. But no, the Conservatives are concerned only with Air Canada and Canada Post, and we see what they have done. They are forcing people back to work. A total of 26,000 Canadians will lose one of the fundamental rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The message that I want to send to Canadians is this. Last year, it was the postal workers. Today, it is the workers at Air Canada. Tomorrow, it may be them. They have to really think about this because their turn will come.

We need a government that is fit to govern, because this one is not.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate I read into the record a statement by the judge who rendered the decision in the Canada Post judgment, and I could read it again for those who were not here at that time. It was with regard to the appointment of an arbitrator by the minister. In no way did I contest the minister's ability to appoint an arbitrator. It was the method in which she went about it. Just to read it into the record, the judge ruled that the minister:

...would like the exercise of ministerial power...to be unobstructed, unguided and not subject to any criteria or qualification or competence for the arbitrator.

He further went on to say that it:

...is not what is indicated by common sense, case law, the economy of the Act, or the specific labour relations context that govern the parties to the collective agreement.

Finally:

In the case at hand, the lack of transparency inherent in the appointment process followed by the Minister, the little evidence or rationale provided by the Minister and the laconic nature of her communications raise serious questions and indicate that the Minister appears to have excluded relevant criteria.

It appeared to me that the minister had been taken to the woodshed.

I brought this to her attention, and I said in no way was I questioning her ability to make such an appointment. However, in her response to my tabling those comments by the judge, she said the minister, in appointing the arbitrator, had not been impeached.

We want to set our goals pretty high. She had alluded impeachment. Bill Clinton alluded impeachment. Is that the standard the Government of Canada wants to set in making an appointment of an arbitrator? Why are the parties involved not included in at least going to a short list of arbitrators so that this process can be.... As egregious as it might be, what we are looking for, for the workers now, is at least the best of a worst-case scenario. Why are the sides in this arbitration not included in short listing a list of those they might be able to include?

If the minister wanted to put conditions in, she could put some conditions in that would work to the benefit of the workforce, not just the company. Maybe we could recognize the fact that these workers have not had a raise. They took concessions 10 years ago and over those 10 years have contributed $2 billion in savings to this company. Maybe that should be recognized through the arbitration. Maybe it should be recognized that the company sold off $2 billion worth of assets, and not a nickel of that went into the underfunded pension plan, $3 billion underfunded.

It is not just the current workers at Air Canada; it is those who worked for Air Canada their whole careers who are going to be hurt by that.

Maybe they should have put some concessions in there. Maybe they should have put some parameters around compensation for the CAOs. We know the golden handshake that the past CAO got was $80 million. We know the current CAO will pick up a $5 million bonus at the end of this month, just for being there for three years. They are certainly being well compensated while the workers continue to suffer from rollbacks they took as a union, hopefully to resurrect the company.

Let us make no mistake. Air Canada has always found a way through its labour problems. There are five different unions, and over the history of this company only six times have they ever found themselves in a strike position. One of those strikes was for three hours.

The minister reflected back on the strike of 1998 and talked about how it devastated this country and the economy of this country.

It was bad. The unemployment rate came down a full point. Interest rates came down. The books were balanced, and the deficit got a big chunk of money. It was really bad. That is 1998.

What is at the core of this? It is whether or not the government is going to deem Air Canada an essential service. I guess that is what it comes down to. The minister has referred this to the CIRB. This is the second time she has referred such a case to the CIRB. I do not think anybody believes this has anything to do with the health and safety of Canadians. I do not even know if the minister would believe that.

If the minister truly believed Air Canada was an essential service, she should have full confidence that the CIRB would recognize it as such and go forward with no work stoppage. It would not be allowed if she had confidence in that actual fact. The minister would be tabling an essential services bill, declaring Air Canada an essential service.

Let us put the cards on the table. Enough of the union bashing. Enough of going after organized labour in this country. Let us call a spade a spade. Let us put the essential services legislation here, if that is what the government intends.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, this Conservative government did not even recognize the looming economic crisis. The Americans were grappling with an economic crisis, but we were supposedly protected. Today, the government is claiming that the slightest pressure, the slightest demand could upset Canada's entire economy. That is what the government is saying now in 2012, but the people are too smart to believe that. They know that this government is out to bust unions and take away the right to make demands and negotiate. That right is enshrined in the Constitution. This government is sending a very clear message to the people and to federally regulated companies: there is no need to negotiate with employees or to make concessions, because the government will always be there, taking aim at flies with its sledgehammer, ready to impose special legislation. Companies have nothing to worry about because the employees are the ones who will always have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

That is what happened with Canada Post. There were a few pressure tactics, starting with rotating strikes. The government said that the economy would be hurt by the rotating strikes, but the whole point of the strikes was to avoid hurting the economy or the people. Service was interrupted briefly, then resumed, to be followed by a service interruption in another region. That was what employees did to avoid undue harm to the people, because they knew that they had the right to make demands and employ certain pressure tactics.

The government stopped everything by imposing special legislation. It even told Canada Post Corporation ahead of time that there would be special legislation, which did encourage it to negotiate with its employees. It did the same thing with Air Canada. Already back in June, the minister hinted at the possibility of imposing special legislation. And now they are saying that negotiations are at an impasse, that a lockout or strike is possible. The idea of asking the Canadian Industrial Relations Board for its opinion was not bad at the time, but the minister did not even wait for that opinion. Why bother having a Canadian Industrial Relations Board? It serves absolutely no purpose these days. There is not really any point to anything, with this government. All this government is doing is proving that it rules with an iron fist.

No one has any rights anymore, either in Canada or Quebec. For this government, it is “my way or no way”. Employers understand this. They understand that it is no longer a question of making concessions or bargaining, because the government will simply impose special legislation and even some conditions. In the case of Canada Post, the government offered lower wages than Canada Post Corporation had offered its employees. Air Canada is about to suffer the same fate. Its employees have been agreeing to concessions for the past 12 years. They have had no salary increases and some have seen their pensions decrease. This government has no heart. It said it would impose conditions, thinking that the people would go along with that.

Since winning a majority, the government seems to think it was given a blank cheque to do what ever it wants, when it wants, and to impose the laws it wants. Canadians are beginning to realize that what is going on is unacceptable. There are protests everywhere. The people are going to demonstrate in the streets and this government will suffer the consequences. But for now, unfortunately, workers are the ones being penalized by the situation.

We will still be here. I am asking the minister to do the right thing, to promote negotiation and not impose conditions and closure on bargaining. It is one thing to impose closure in Parliament; we can take it even though it is unacceptable and we represent the public. However, these workers have rights. That means nothing. This government needs to adjust its attitude.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Chair, during the last election campaign, presumably most members in the House went door knocking. Certainly members on our side did. Members on our side actually spent the election in our ridings. When we went door knocking, and we have been holding round tables at town halls since that time, our constituents told us that the economy is their main issue.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand that clause 2 has been adopted and that liberties are being taken. What the hon. member is saying is not relevant. He should stick to the bill.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member raises a question of relevance. Clause 2 is still before the House and I am confident the parliamentary secretary will get to the matter.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, on this side of the House, we consider the views of our constituents relevant. What we were told by our constituents during the last election campaign, and we have been told this by our constituents at round tables and town halls since then, was that the economy is the number one issue for them.

What effect would a work stoppage of Air Canada have on the fragile economic recovery?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his question because that really is the focus of the bill. It is about putting the Canadian public interest first.

As we indicated to Canadians in the last election, we were the ones who would look after the economy, who understood the economic recovery and understood the means we needed use in order to ensure that the economy would continue to prosper. That is why we were elected, that is why we are here in the House and that is exactly why we are here for this legislation.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, this proceeding is being broadcast across the country on CPAC right now. Many Canadians, as they are flipping channels, might come across this and wonder why the House is sitting at this late hour. They might want to know a bit about the process. That is kind of a critical point for Canadians to understand.

Could the Minister of Labour please explain the necessity to expedite the passage of the bill?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, we are treating this matter with great urgency. The facts are very simple. The economic impact of a work stoppage at Air Canada would be grave on the national economy and, indeed, it is grave on the travelling public and on the businesses.

As I mentioned in my remarks, 26,000 employees, 250,000 other employees associated with the airline would also see themselves not having a job. This is why we need to act quickly to ensure that a work stoppage does not happen.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting to hear the opposition parties say that a work stoppage right now would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the economy. Time and time again we have heard the opposition members express that.

I want to talk about air cargo. Could the minister elaborate a bit on the impact that a work stoppage would have on the movement of air cargo around the country and what impact that might have on the Canadian economy?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is an excellent point from the member.

With respect to air cargo, air transportation is a key component of global supply chains, especially for perishables and pharmaceutical products. It is important to note that Air Canada transports about $466 million worth of goods each and every year. It is actually 22% of domestic capacity and 49% of international capacity.

These things are extremely important for global logistics chains as well as our domestic ones. That is why it is important for us to act quickly. I ask the opposition to join us in moving the bill through the House.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, I am going to go back to my previous life. Before I was a member of Parliament, I worked for 11 years with the Edmonton Oilers Hockey Club. In my capacity during the last four years of that time, my role was of national accounts manager. My job was to sell advertising, a very significant part of my workload with the Oilers and a very significant part of the revenue the Oilers brought in.

In that capacity, many of the clients I dealt with were based in Toronto and I lived in Edmonton. A big part of my job was to fly to Toronto to talk with my clients, to give presentations and show them the things we were doing and why it was important for them to spend money with the Edmonton Oilers to advertise their products. Those things were absolutely critical to bring in revenue.

Could the minister speak to the importance of business travel in maintaining the strength of the Canadian economy?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to remind the House how important the comprehensive air services are that Air Canada provides. The services go to 59 Canadian large and small communities, 59 American and 60 international destinations, including Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, Mexico and South America.

When we include ACE, Air Canada Express, which would also be affected in the work stoppage, that is over 80 destinations in Canada and the United States, as well as larger centres at off-peak times. On a daily basis, it is approximately 800 flights and combined with Air Canada it is over 1,100 flights a day, which are incredibly important to the travelling public and businesses in Canada.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, I want to get back to process. For Canadians watching this debate on television and wondering what the process is, what role has Labour Canada played throughout the negotiations of a new collective agreement among all the parties?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, there are six bargaining units at Air Canada that we have been dealing with since I became minister in January 2010. Indeed, in all of them there was a very large amount of effort put in by the officials at Labour Canada, be it through either mediation or conciliation services, and in two of the cases we took extraordinary measures of appointing outside conciliators in order to help the process along. There is much expense, time and effort put into it because, quite frankly, at the end of the day avoiding an impasse and having to utilize valuable time in the House in order to pass legislation of such an extraordinary measure is one that we would like to avoid.

In fact, putting the work in at the beginning is the way we should be doing it. I am very proud of all the efforts we have put into this. Unfortunately, with all the labour that we have put into these files, it has not yielded results in these two cases and that is why we are moving to act today.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, given that the minister has referred a question on health and safety to the CIRB regarding both of these threatened work stoppages, why does the Minister of Labour feel that government action is necessary at this time?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have asked the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to take a look at the issue of whether operations need to continue in a work stoppage. Simply put, the parties at the table did not do the analysis as to what the health and safety ramifications would be on the public interest.

As we have said throughout, we are here to act in the best interests of the public. That includes not only the economic and travelling portions of the public interest, but also health and safety. Quite frankly, there are communities that would not have service. There are 15 communities that definitely would not have service should Air Canada have a work stoppage. Those are communities that would need to have some kind of alternative air service that is not available to them, especially when it came to transporting passengers, cargo, pharmaceuticals or perishables to their home communities.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, tourism is also an important part of the Canadian economy. We are heading into March break when Canadian families are going to be travelling across the country to see other family members or maybe to visit some of the Canada's great tourist destinations at this beautiful time of the year.

Could the hon. minister comment on the impact of a work stoppage on tourism in Canada?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, in speaking to the importance of the airlines, I have already mentioned the number of flights Air Canada has per day, including its affiliation with Air Canada Express. As well, we can draw from different examples around the world.

In October of this past year there was a grounding of the Qantas fleet in Australia. The Australian government referred the matter to its Fair Work Australia board, which is much like our CIRB. It found in that case, in a geography that is very similar to ours, the size of an airline that is very similar to ours, in a hub system that is very similar to ours, the impact on tourism was such that it was of economic significance. It did order the airline to commence operations again and stop the industrial action that was happening with respect to strikes by pilots and the shutting down of the airline by the airline itself.

It was a very similar situation to what we have here today with a work stoppage being threatened by both a lockout by management and a strike by employees. We take the matter seriously and that is why we are moving on it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, the argument from the other side is that no one will be affected by this. It is estimated that 70,000 passengers per day will be affected or displaced by a work stoppage at Air Canada. The number of affected passengers will increase for each day the work stoppage continues.

I would like to ask the minister to comment on the opposition comments that nobody will be affected by this and that it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the Canadian economy.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, Air Canada, when Air Canada Express is included, carries on average about 103,000 passengers per day and that is easily one million passengers. That is a lot of people who are flying either because of travel for leisure or business. Every one of those people would have to make alternate arrangements.

The reality of the matter is that no matter how great an airline WestJet is, no matter how great an airline Porter is, and the great services those airlines provide, Air Canada is 3.7 times bigger than its nearest domestic competitor in the version of WestJet. Other air carriers do not have the capacity to carry the passengers that would be displaced.

A work stoppage would have an immediate effect. Passengers would be stranded. Stories in the press would be about those individuals and families who would be stranded in a place that is not their home. That is why we are acting in the best interests of the Canadian public, and not picking a side at the table as the opposition is doing with respect to the unions.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, I am looking at testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on October 26, 2011. At that meeting Air Canada Pilots Association president Captain Paul Strachan appeared. At that committee Senator Merchant asked, “In recent days the travelling public is beginning to ask whether Air Canada is an essential service. You advocate on behalf of the airline industry. What do you say?” Mr. Strachan replied, “I think it is essential for this country. As we sit here today, it is absolutely essential. It is a cornerstone of our entire economy. It is a national asset”.

I would ask the hon. minister for her comments on that statement.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, we agree with the analysis of Captain Strachan when he gave his testimony before the Senate committee. It caught our attention because it was a very clear statement by the Air Canada Pilots Association of what it felt its role was.

That is why we were very concerned and disappointed when we asked them not to take a strike vote because they themselves acknowledged they were essential to the recovery. We offered to give them interest-based mediation arbitration with the company but they turned it down, even though they felt they were essential to the economy, even though they knew what the impact would be. We offered them a process that the company had agreed to, but they opted not to take it. They opted to take a strike vote.

That was an important telling tale for me as to what would be coming in the future. Without being able to have any kind of agreement between the parties, we have to act now. We have to ensure that there is no work stoppage.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, one question that comes up as we are thinking about this is whether there have been other strikes at Air Canada in the past and whether the government has ever intervened and introduced back to work legislation in the airline industry.

There have been other strikes at Air Canada in the past. In June 2011 there was a three day strike by the customer sales and service agents at Air Canada. Members might remember that the government introduced Bill C-5, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of air service operations, to end their strike action. However, Bill C-5 was not enacted as the parties reached a new collective agreement that will be in effect until February 28, 2015.

My question for the hon. minister is whether there have been other strikes on top of those in the past and whether the government has ever intervened.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, indeed since 1984 there have been 35 work stoppages in the air transportation industry. Six of them have been with Air Canada.

The one we were speaking about earlier was the situation involving the pilots in 1998, when there was a 13 day strike. That strike cost Air Canada $300 million according to media reports. It cost the Canadian economy $133 million.

I would ask the opposition, exactly what did the pilots get in return for those 13 days in which they held up the country with the inability to travel? Was it worth the $133 million to our economy? I do not think it was.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, I am reminded by the member for Kenora that Air Canada also services vast regions of Canada, in fact some areas where there is no other option other than Air Canada service.

Could the minister comment on how important Air Canada's service is to remote regions across Canada like the great riding of Kenora?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can say that if there were to be a work stoppage during the period of time that has been indicated, the March break, there would be no alternate domestic air service to the following places in British Columbia: Castlegar, Nanaimo, Penticton, Sandspit. In Ontario it would be Kingston and Sarnia. In Alberta, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat would have no air service. In Newfoundland it would be Gander. In Nova Scotia it would be Sydney. In New Brunswick it would be Saint John, Bathurst and Fredericton. In Quebec it would be Gaspé and Îles de la Madeleine.

As well, Air Canada provides 70% of the domestic seat capacity in the following airports: Kamloops and Prince Rupert, British Columbia; Baie-Comeau, Montreal and Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec; and Moncton, New Brunswick.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, I am interested in process. We talked earlier about Labour Canada's role. I think it is important for those Canadians who are watching these proceedings at home to get an understanding of what the role of the Minister of Labour is in these labour relations.

Could the minister elaborate on what her role is in this process? Canadians would appreciate it.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to provide an update on the process.

With respect to the machinists, the IAMAW, their contract expired and we received a notice of bargaining in March 2011. Indeed, a notice of dispute came in December 2011. We appointed Madame Louise Otis as the conciliation commissioner in December 2011. The conciliation process worked. Madame Otis was able to get a deal at the table. Unfortunately, in that case the deal was not ratified by the membership. However, she did write in her conciliation report to us that she felt it was a very fair and reasonable deal, that the negotiation was arduous, that the parties were competent at the table, that they reached a deal, and that indeed no new negotiations needed to be commenced because they had exhausted the entire process.

Despite that, we provided an officer from the conciliation services to aid the parties in trying to get back to the table and reach a deal, and they remained able to do so. Unfortunately, it culminated in a strike notice from the union. As a result of that, we are here today introducing legislation in the House. However, it still remains for the parties to reach their own conclusion and their own deal. That is exactly what they should be doing. They should be talking to one another and avoiding this process, a process they will have to deal with should they not find their own way.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have some questions, but I would rather look at Bill C-33 and figure out how we got here.

The hon. parliamentary secretary referred to constituents. I have constituents too and a lot of them work at Air Canada. I know them to be very hard-working. They have accepted a lot of concessions to help the employer, two billion dollars' worth of wage concessions over the last 10 years.

I feel very grateful to all the people because I happen to use Air Canada to travel between my home in British Columbia and here. I will admit to the House that I am terrified of flying. I approach a flight with the same anticipation that most people have when visiting their dentist. It is only on Air Canada that I have any margin of comfort. I feel very good about the safety record, the work of the mechanics, and the work of the pilots. I would like to pay tribute to how hard they work and to express my regret to the Minister of Labour that we are not allowing them to fulfill their collective bargaining rights in a way that allows a fair process.

This is a slender piece of legislation, but it packs a punch. What we are doing with successive pieces of legislation like this is undermining collective bargaining rights in Canada. I am sure the public sector workers are watching what is happening here. As we saw with the back to work legislation for Canada Post, we are seeing a pattern which undercuts labour rights in the country.

Getting to the specifics of this legislation, I do not know that I have ever seen a bill that includes clauses like clause 4 and clause 19. Back to work legislation is usually about a situation where there has been a work stoppage. In this case, we have anticipatory work stoppage legislation. Clause 4 deals with the air service operations. Clause 19 deals with pilots. In both cases, the legislation that we are called upon to pass tonight assumes that if the legislation comes into force and there is no strike or lockout, at that moment there would be a freeze. A strike would not be allowed nor would a lockout be allowed.

That certainly strikes me as unusual in the frame of back to work legislation that we have seen in the House in the 41st Parliament and in labour relations in general. Anticipating a strike or labour action undercuts labour relations. From a management point of view, when management knows that back to work legislation is in the offing, it certainly makes it easier not to work as hard as it should in a collective bargaining relationship to come to terms and to meet each other halfway.

I accept what the hon. Minister of Labour has said, that in a conciliatory process in which a very respected judge was acting as a conciliator, a deal was struck but was rejected by the workers. That is their right. Could we not now use those mechanisms again and give those workers the chance through free and fair collective bargaining rights to choose to accept or reject the terms of an agreement that affects everything about their working life?

I am very concerned as well by the final offer selection provisions in clause 11. I am wondering how we have come to something which is so extremely arbitrary. The hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso has read into the record how the judge felt about the previous arbitration decisions in relation to Canada Post that were forced through the House last June. We see it again here.

Certainly, even at this late hour, could we not see an amendment to this legislation that would allow us to ensure that normal collective bargaining rights are pursued in the choice of an arbitrator?

The hon. parliamentary secretary referred to working with a hockey team in his previous life. In my previous life I did labour law in Halifax with a lovely firm that was then called Kitz, Matheson, Green and MacIsaac. It was the only big downtown establishment law firm that did labour law from the union side. We did a lot of collective bargaining and a lot of arbitration. The first step was always the choice of the arbitrator. The union and management each would put forward a list of names. There would be a process. There would usually be a bit of back and forth in choosing the right arbitrator.

In this instance, we are very rapidly moving to the most strict and draconian approaches to arbitration. It is binding arbitration with final offer selection. On top of that, neither the union nor management will have any input as to who the arbitrator is.

I would ask the hon. Minister of Labour if she could respond to this question: Even at this late stage with the process before the committee of the whole, would the minister be prepared to consider an amendment to allow the union and management to each put forward a list of arbitrators before the selection is made?

I am not sure the minister heard my question. Would she consider an amendment to allow a list of acceptable arbitrators' names from management and the union to be put forward to replace what we now see in clause 11?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can say that the practice we followed with respect to Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers was that we did indeed ask both parties for consultation on arbitrators when we first set out to appoint an arbitrator. We received their advice not once, but twice. I see no reason why we would not take the same approach. However, we do not need to make any amendments to this bill in order for that discretion to be exercised.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for admitting that it is a good process. I am baffled by the refusal to accept amendments. We are a committee of the whole at this point. I am sure that many hon. members would have some amendments consistent with the purpose of the act. We know that the Conservative benches will ensure this act is passed. It will probably show on the clocks on the same day, but will likely be tomorrow in the wee hours.

We know this is the inevitable conclusion of this legislation. Would the minister not reconsider and allow an amendment, given that it is her preference as she has just stated, to allow names of arbitrators to be put forward? Considering this is something she can do within her discretion, why not ensure it?

There is nothing in the way clause 11 is drafted to suggest that the minister will put forward those options to management and labour.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, while I appreciate the request again by the hon. member, the answer still remains no. We will not be agreeing to any amendments to this bill.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 11:59 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the committee stage of the bill.

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of clause 2 please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the clause carried.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Yeas, 155; Nays, 121)

(On clause 3)

Shall clause 3 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of clause 3 please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare clause 3 carried.

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(Yeas, 153; Nays, 125)

(On clause 4)

Shall clause 4 carry?

On a point of order, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am wondering if you are willing to take all the remaining clauses 4 through 38 and apply them all in one vote. We are going to save a lot of time and the votes are not recorded. They are not going to be counted toward our voting record and I think most parliamentarians are here for that. Let us just take them all in one shot. I am looking to you for guidance, Mr. Chair.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has suggested that the votes be combined. That would require unanimous consent. Does he have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare clause 4 carried.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(Yeas, 154; Nays, 125)

(On clause 5)

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of clause 5 please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

I declare clause 5 carried.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(Yeas, 156; Nays, 125)

On a point of order, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, we can stay here all night and go through 38 of them and I know that my colleagues from the NDP want to get up and clap for themselves. However, I am sure, if you ask for unanimous consent, that maybe in order to save some money and turn off the lights in this place, they might agree that we apply all of them.

I know that it is self-gratifying to sit there and clap like a trained seal, but come on, let us save some money.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, if the Liberals are tired, they can have permission to go home.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is not me who is wanting to go home. It is about trying to save money by turning off the lights here, and my colleagues on the NDP certainly do not know that.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The House has heard the terms that the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt has raised. Does he have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would urge all hon. members if they have a legitimate point of order to rise but if not, we should proceed.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, we could turn off a couple of lights and we would save some money.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Shall clause 6 carry?

(On clause 6)

All those in favour, please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare clause 6 carried.

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(Yeas, 154; Nays, 126)

(On clause 7)

Shall clause 7 carry?

All those in favour of clause 7 will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

I declare clause 7 carried.

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(Yeas, 154; Nays, 128)

(On clause 8)

Shall clause 8 carry?

All those in favour of clause 8 will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare clause 8 carried.

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(Yeas, 154; Nays, 124)

(On clause 9)

Shall clause 9 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10)

Shall clause 10 carry?

All those in favour of clause 10 will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare clause 10 carried.

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(Yeas, 154; Nays, 125)

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Chair, I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote on the previous clause to all of the following clauses, with NDP members voting against.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the Conservatives agree and vote yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Chair, the Liberals agree and will be voting against.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois agrees and is voting against.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, the Green Party agrees and is voting no.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the balance of the clauses carried.

(Clauses 11 to 38 inclusive agreed to)

(Yeas, 154; Nays, 125)

Shall I rise and report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed:

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole has considered Bill C-33, and has directed me to report the same, without amendment.

(Bill reported)

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #160

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind what time it is, I will be brief.

It is that time of year when many Canadian families take a welcome break after a long winter. Thousands look forward to trips in March, regardless of where they decide to go. Travel at this time of year makes up a significant part of the year's business for Canada's airline and tourism operators, businesses that contribute a great deal to the Canadian economy.

This year, travellers and businesses alike are watching for the outcome of two possible work stoppages at Air Canada. If a work stoppage were to occur, Canada's economy would face the harsh consequences. A work stoppage during the busy March break period would wreak havoc on the airline.

Today, we are facing potential work stoppages as a result of two disputes. The first one is between Air Canada and its pilots, represented by the Air Canada Pilots Association. The second one is between Air Canada and its technical and operational support employees, such as mechanics, baggage handlers and cargo agents at Air Canada, who are represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

The Government of Canada has worked hard to help all three of these parties at every step in an effort to reach an agreement and avoid a work stoppage. The parties have been in negotiations, each of them, for more than a year. We had provided the parties with conciliation and mediation assistance. The parties reached tentative agreements that were then rejected by the members. Therefore, the parties were provided with and exercised their right to a process of collective bargaining with no government intervention until now.

The parties were given every opportunity to reach an agreement on their own, but to no avail. As agreements do not seem to be imminent and work stoppages are being proposed, the Government of Canada must act now to keep Air Canada in the air.

The inconvenience of a work stoppage to travellers, serious disruptions to Canadian businesses and the potential threat to health and safety would be significant. There is far too much at stake to let this happen.

I urge all parties to pass this legislation and keep Air Canada flying.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in real life the NDP are not quite ready for the debate on this particular bill at this time, so we are more than happy to pick up the slack.

I can assure all members of the House that the Liberal Party is indeed very concerned about the actions of the government and the way in which it is managing the labour file. All we need to do is look back less than 12 months ago, when Canada Post workers were facing the same sort of a situation. When I think of how the government treated the Canada Post workers, I really have to try to understand why the government has so much against the average worker.

The minister talks about her concern for the public and the economy. I must say that Liberals are also concerned about the public and recognize some of the fragilities within the economy. However, we in the Liberal Party do support the concept of the free collective bargaining process. That is something the government has demonstrated, time and time again, that it does not support. To illustrate, I suggest to the Minister of Labour that she reflect on how she shafted the Canada Post workers.

Members will recall that there was a negotiated agreement back in January that would have seen those Canada Post workers receive an increase. That was agreed upon between the union negotiators and the management negotiators. What did the minister do? She brought in back to work legislation and roleds back something that was actually agreed upon.

Not to be outdone, the minister has now brought in this legislation. The legislation is unique. It was brought forward by my colleague earlier today that this is the first time we have had legislation such as this brought forward, implemented and made law before there is any real opportunity for that free collective bargaining process to take place.

There are a few things I would like to share with the minister. I can tell the minister why the Air Canada employees just do not trust the government, do not trust the minister and believe that the government is not concerned about the employees.

There were overhaul maintenance bases in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga. Those bases were guaranteed to stay open and in place under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The minister will recall it. She should, because it was the law of the land. If the minister reads that particular act, and I wonder if she has in fact read it, she will find that those jobs were supposed to be guaranteed.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour did nothing when Air Canada started to take those jobs away. They were valuable jobs, and important to the economies of Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg. The government allowed the company to offload those jobs into the private sector. Ultimately, if we were to talk to the people who used to work at Air Canada, the ones the minister should have stood up for and protected, they will say that the government did nothing, absolutely nothing, to protect the interests of those workers, even though there was a legal obligation for the government to do so.

Members in the Liberal Party stood up and petitioned the government on the issue. They posed questions to the Prime Minister on this issue. The government did absolutely nothing. It stood by and did nothing.

Now, is it any wonder that the Air Canada workers have lost confidence in the government and the Minister of Labour? The Minister of Labour has not been an advocate for workers; that has been well established. That is why, when we look at the legislation and the mechanisms that have been put into place, we see that they are not mechanisms that are going to protect the interests of labour.

There is suspicion by the workers, justified suspicion, that the government just does not care about the outcome of the labour negotiations. The government is more concerned about its own right-wing Reform agenda. It does not appreciate the importance of free collective bargaining, and that has had a very profound impact.

Here today we have the government once again victimizing a union that has, over the years, done a phenomenal job in protecting the interests of its union members. It is unfortunate that the government has not realized that. Instead, and I find it truly amazing, the government walks around the issue of calling it an essential service.

In fact, listening to the Minister of Labour and what every other member of the Conservative Party is saying about this issue, one would think that the government would have deemed it an essential service. However, the government has not had the courage to admit that is really what this agenda is all about.

The government is not prepared to recognize it as an essential service. Instead, in a roundabout way, it tries to say that it is because of the economics and that it just does not trust the employees to be able to negotiate because they would go on strike and cause all this harm. As a result, the government is saying that it is the economy that is driving it to pass this legislation.

We should take a look at the process that has been put in place and read the legislation. We just finished passing a number of clauses—in a very interesting way, I must say.

Someday I hope the New Democrats will enlighten me as to what their strategy actually was. I do not quite understand it. I realize I have only been a parliamentarian for 20 years, but I have never quite experienced that before.

I can say that one party in this House has consistently stood up for the workers, but it is not the New Democratic Party. Whether it is Canada Post or the charade that we just witnessed, the NDP literally collapses in terms of principle. That said, we will continue to push the government to take actions that are necessary to protect the workers, whether in Air Canada or any other industry.

I think Canadians need to take note that what we really should be debating today is the issue of essential services. I challenge the government to put its cards on the table and tell us why it believes Air Canada is an essential service, and if in fact it believes it, to declare it.

The reason is that once a service is deemed an essential service, there are special circumstances and situations that must be taken into consideration when negotiating and talking about a contract settlement. That is something that speaks to fairness and justice, which the government, and particularly the Minister of Labour, have not been in tune with, whether in relation to Air Canada or the postal workers.

We value the concerns that Canadians have and we will stand up to protect the interests of Air Canada employees. We see these jobs as valuable and important to the economy of Canada.

We recognize that the government has failed time and time again in its responsibility to stand up for Air Canada workers. I challenge the Minister of Labour to do just that: be a minister of labour and start advocating for all workers.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak to this special bill.

Nine months ago, I was giving my second speech in the House of Commons to defend a fundamental right in Canada—the right to discuss a collective agreement. We are hearing the same arguments this evening. This is the second time that we have had to oppose the government all night, into the early morning hours, in order to protect basic rights in Canada, rights that all Canadians should be able to enjoy.

Air Canada employees have not negotiated a collective agreement for 10 years. They have been making concessions for 10 years. Meanwhile, Robert Milton, the former CEO of Air Canada, earned $80 million. The current CEO will soon collect a $5 million bonus, and management will receive a pay increase. Understandably, Air Canada employees want a collective agreement and better working conditions. They want to discuss these matters, but they are being prevented from doing so because there could be a strike.

The right to negotiate a collective agreement is a fundamental right here, and the Conservatives are trampling on it yet again. Moreover, during this debate, the Conservatives have shown contempt for Canadians by telling them all kinds of tales. Earlier in today's debates, the Conservatives repeatedly gave the impression that they were talking about an essential service. My Liberal colleague just pointed out what may well be the crux of this debate: Air Canada is not an essential service.

The Canadian Industrial Relations Board never ruled that travelling by plane is an essential service. We all agree that it is important and that we want to be able to travel from place to place in Canada, but it is not an essential service. We have to think about whether respecting the right to a collective agreement, respecting that workers who have made concessions for 10 years have the right to negotiate, is more important than people wanting to travel. The Conservatives keep bringing up the economy. Of course the airline industry brings money into Canada, but so do many other things that the Conservatives have not meddled with.

On the Champlain Bridge issue, it took forever to get an announcement, and Montreal lost a lot of money as a result. We need to get our priorities straight. It is crucial that the two sides be able to bargain before the essential service card is played.

The Conservatives tried to mislead Canadians for the second time today when the Minister of Labour said that places like Bathurst would be deprived of all air service. That is not true, because Bathurst is not served by Air Canada, but rather by Jazz. I wish the labour minister would do her homework and know which regions are served only by Air Canada.

It is not true to say that the people of Bathurst—and we noted which riding she chose as an example—will not be able to get on a plane. That is not true. They are served by Jazz, which is not on strike, because its employees had the right to negotiate their collective agreement.

Currently in Canada, 94% of collective agreements are resolved without a problem. The remaining 6% are a bit more tumultuous. However, for those cases, we have a government that imposes special back-to-work legislation. Our country is quite lucky that only 6% of our collective agreements are not resolved easily. The government wants to impose special back-to-work legislation and prevent those collective agreements from being negotiated. It is denying those people their fundamental right. Again, coming together to discuss the future of those employees is a fundamental right.

It is not up to us to talk about their bargaining demands, but it is up to us to defend them, to stand up and say that these people have waited for 10 years and have been talking for one year. Of course we would like things to go well and for both parties to agree, but that is no reason to pass special back-to-work legislation.

The Conservative majority opposite is using the power of a majority that it obtained from less than 40% of voters to muzzle Canadians. The Conservatives are muzzling scientists. We have seen it on several occasions. Now, they are going to tell workers that they do not have the right to talk, that they do not have the right to discuss. That is unacceptable in Canada. We go and fight in other countries so that their citizens have access to democracy. However, here we have a democratic system that works—we have seen it in 94% of cases—and a government that says it is going to pass special legislation to impose a return to work. The government is going to prevent workers from discussing, from using a democratic process to achieve their goals.

We have seen on a number of occasions that the Conservatives are afraid of debate. They cut the time for debate short. It has happened often—19 times, according to my colleague. In the same way, in this case, they are eliminating bargaining rights. This government does not want debate. Even today when we were reviewing their bill, the Conservatives said, at every step of the process, that we should only have one speaker and that he would not have the right to ask questions. It is not healthy. We are talking about a bill that affects all Canadians, and all my colleagues who want to speak on the subject cannot because the Conservatives are preventing them from doing so.

Monday morning, I was in my riding. I was heading for Ottawa and I knew that the Air Canada employees were holding a lively protest. It was not yet a strike but nevertheless they were gathered at the Dorval airport. I went to see them to find out what was going on and to listen to their concerns. I discovered that there was more at stake than just their demands. They told me that they were afraid that the department would impose this special legislation. They were afraid of not being able to negotiate in good faith with their employer. This is intolerable.

I am disappointed because soon I will have been a member of Parliament for one year and the first subject that I spoke about in the House was democracy. I came here full of hope intending to work with a government that said that it wanted to work on behalf of Canadians. Now that my first year is coming to an end, I realize that we have not moved forward since we have a government that says it will not allow workers to negotiate collective agreements with their employers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member has raised a point of order regarding the noise in the chamber. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has one minute left if all hon. members could pay her the respect she deserves.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention. This also shows the Conservatives' contempt for what the opposition has to say. We really do not expect anything else from them.

As I have one minute remaining, I will repeat our very frank position: we oppose the Conservative tendency to eliminate unions, the rights of unions and the rights of Canadians who organize for the purpose of conducting discussions and negotiating collective agreements in order to obtain better working conditions. We are headed towards a very difficult situation. Canadians fear for their future. At this juncture, it is vital that Air Canada finally decide to give their workers a voice so that they may negotiate in complete freedom.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is very late at night and everyone wants to go home, but this is a very important issue that has been brought forward and that is why we are here so late at night.

I have been a very strong supporter of Air Canada. I am approaching almost two million air miles on Air Canada, which indicates my strong support for this airline. During my two million miles of travelling, the pilots, workers and management have done a very good job of making this a very reputable airline. Having attained a reputation, we now have seen what has happened. The unions want to go on strike, but the management wants to shut down this airline because it cannot come to a resolution, which is forcing this government to act.

For my colleagues on the other side, most of whom are brand new members who have not travelled on Air Canada and live in a utopian world, do not understand the importance of this airline to Canada. Let me quote what the chief pilot said, “This is a national asset”. Therefore, if it is a national asset, then let us all work responsibly to ensure that this national asset works for the benefit of all Canadians, not for the few other ones—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome to the House of Commons my new colleagues on the other side to Parliament. When they realize the importance of this airline, they will take their hat off and recognize what is more important, the rights of Canadian citizens, not only the rights of the union. We all agree that collective bargaining is one of the strongest tools we have for labour peace. That is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is taking a responsible position. Under the Minister of Labour, this government has taken the responsible position to ensure that all Canadians benefit from this airline because it is a national asset. If it is a national asset, then let us keep it as a national asset. I will continue to support this airline—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If it is a national asset, why did the Brian Mulroney government sell it then?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That is not a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that question was irrelevant because the chief pilot of the airline said that it is a national asset.

Why does the government propose to act today and why have been here all this time? While we all believe in the collective bargaining, at the end of the day, as the minister and all my colleagues said, it is for economic reasons. We were elected to ensure that we provided economic direction for our country from the recovery, with the economic stimulus plan and with the upcoming budget. Canadians have to ensure our country stays economically strong and that applies also to the airlines.

Why is only Air Canada and not the other airlines like WestJet, Porter all the other airlines out there? It is time for the airline industry to provide proper service to all Canadians so they can benefit and not be caught in the fighting taking place between management and the workers. That has to stop.

All of us commend the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister for doing the right thing by ensuring that the interests of all Canadians and the economy is at the forefront. That is what we are doing here tonight and that is what we are going to continue to do.

For my hon. colleagues on the other side, including the party way at the other end that seems to be fast asleep, wake up and smell the coffee. At one point in time those members were supposed to form the government. They are no longer the national governing party because we have taken over.

This government will provide, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, what is required for all Canadians, and that is what we are doing tonight.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #161

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

The House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:29 a.m.)