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

[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?